Last week, there was an optional class teaching fledgling archaeologists to give evidence in court. I thought I’d better make myself available, in case I ever find dead bodies and have to file a report to the police (how on Earth did I get to write such a sentence?)
Some important things:
• Archaeologists hired as expert witnesses are not supposed to be advocates for any party.
POOF! – went some assumptions. I had never questioned that professionals work for their clients, which, in my head, translated to advocacy. Nope nope nope!
In court, Archaeologists give their opinion ONLY what on the uncovered evidence implies. Eg you find a skeleton with nerf bullets, it means the archaeological evidence strongly suggests that the victim went down with nerf bullets, and not with a blow-up mallet or via a ninja sword fight.
🔫 🤺
Seems like that’s it. It is out of bounds to reconstruct the situation and say, “Mr Smith shot poor innocent Mr Jones with a nerf gun in cold blood.”
*
I mentioned Emeritus Professor Richard Wright in an earlier post – he was the gent who helped the Australian police uncover WWII mass graves – 550 Jewish victims – in Ukraine, 31 years ago. He wrote:
“In evidentiary archaeology, there is no room for the flights of reconstructive fancy that characterise many archaeological reports.” (Wright 2010:97)
People may be allowed to exercise their imagination a little bit with events in Ancient Rome and Ancient Egypt, but not in modern investigations.
It is the Court’s job to determine who was likely guilty of a crime, and the Court decides on the social outcome that is meant to benefit overall society the most (eg, victim’s family gets compensated, or a criminal gets put away).
In fact, if the defence lawyer sniffs out bias, you can end up jeopardising the prosecutor’s case…
• A defence attorney can rightfully comb through all your history, your notes and your publications and even your online Twitter account – or blog! – to prove that you are not an impartial person. Yikes.
• If you are a biased archaeologist, they would call you a “Hired Gun” – someone who deliberately weaponises archaeological evidence. The opposing lawyers will try to have you thrown out, and will probably be successful.
Hired Guns have a certain lifestyle, and can make a lot of money by partnering with lawyers but are skirting the lines of ethical conduct. They are blurring the line between the science of discovery and their personal agendas, you see.
Takeaway: work as neutrally, impartially, and objectively as possible, and you are probably all good.
In other news, here is a cool quote from recently:
“Science is about testing the limits of ignorance.”
Dr Neale Draper, archaeologist in South Australia.
📝
Reference:
Wright, R 2010 Where are the Bodies? In the Ground. The Public Historian, 32(1), pp.96-107.
Gun and mallet images from pexels.com
I was covering a court case many moons ago for the ABC when the charismatic and somewhat handsome Defence lawyer (later a Federal politician) got a little too dramatic and flamboyant in his address to the Court. The judge interrupted, putting an end to what was beginning to look like a soap opera. “You are not in a Perry Mason TV episode. You are in my court,” he roared at the lawyer. Courts are serious stuff.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha that’s a great moment. I wonder if it broke the sombre proceedings a little. Thanks for sharing!
(Fixed grammar, only as you pointed it out!)
LikeLike
Roared once lol! Don’t seem to be able to make the correction
LikeLiked by 1 person
Huh, interesting. I’m guessing that the lawyer prepping the witness, whether that’s for the prosecution or the defense, would very carefully go over what is allowable to say and what would cross the line into speculation. I wonder if there would be more leeway to rule out hypothetical situations as posed by the examining attorney that would be clearly inconsistent with the uncovered evidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From what I’ve been reading, this might happen during cross-examination, and Wright wrote that photographs of the excavation sites can often speak for themselves if one attorney think the other is hounding the expert witness unreasonably. (Pictures of bodies are powerful things…)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I bet!
LikeLiked by 1 person
My nephew majored in forensic science. They had to take a whole course on the law and giving testimony. I can imagine it is “the facts and only the facts” kind of atmosphere!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I must say, I was feeling fidgety toward the end of the class, I can only imagine an entire course on such a severe and emotionless topic 😂
LikeLike
This is so cool! Thanks for sharing 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for visiting!
LikeLike
Forensic science does play an important role in the criminal justice system. It is not easy, besides science, it also requires of knowledge of laws. Thanks for sharing!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, one must be book smart and have a little bit of composure in society! I imagine being in front of a judge is intimidating!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It never occurred to me that archeologists would be involved in criminal cases. A very interesting and informative post! ❤
LikeLiked by 1 person
Me neither until very recently! Thanks Cheryl for the kind words as always!
LikeLiked by 1 person