Clueless or Not? Genuine Questions Arise in Forensic Science

Most of us have been exposed to the latest craze of television’s CSI series touting the mysterious processes used by detectives to solve complex criminal cases. Fascinating stories that leave the viewer with the impression that such mysteries are solved quickly and within the time constraints of a television show. However, the investigations that are undertaken are not solved within an hour’s time, far from it! And when you are talking about art fraud, the situation is much worse.

Some of the aspects of the urban myths that surround forensic science are detailed in a series devoted to this subject. The title of the first in the series is, Forensic Science under Attack by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The author begins by introducing you to the problems that arise in the scientific community, including a court case involving The Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceutical. This case plainly sets forth what a court considers it will accept or will not accept as evidence by people who put themselves forth as experts in reference to the subject in question.

Now when it comes to art fraud investigations there appears to be four distinct areas of prime concern. All four are listed in the article and explained in great detail. Crime labs, under the auspices of law enforcement, have much tighter controls and normally have better percentages of being correct in their forensic analysis than the current art forensic investigators who tend to appear out of the blue with the self-proclaimed title of Art Expert. Quoting from the NAS report and in reference to art fraud, “there are no such protocols or constraints” as in the law enforcement forensics lab, which are much less than perfect. Be sure to read this most informative series at www.fineartregistry.com.