About the blog

Who should read this blog?


I created this blog for people who want accurate information about forensic science and statistical reasoning in the courtroom. I have written textbooks and treatises on these subjects, but here I just aim for interesting and informed comments on news articles, court opinions, books, and the like that catch my eye. I am an academic (with degrees in physics, astronomy, and law) and strong opinions on some matters. Most postings are longer than those on most blogs, but the topics can be tricky, and I won't waste your time with too much trivia.

What comments are acceptable?

I hope you will leave comments to let me know when you think I have missed the boat (or should jump ship). However, I screen comments to ensure that they have something of substance to add. If you have nothing other than a compliment or a statement of agreement or disagreement to present, it won't be published. Comments should supply additional information or analysis. Civility also is appreciated.

Does the blog have a history?


Everything has a history. This blog replaces and extends the Double Helix Law blog, published at Penn State. That blog, based loosely on the book, The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence, tracked news and publications about forensic genetics. This one branches out into other areas of forensic science, scientific evidence, and statistical evidence. (See the first posting here for a list of stories about forensic statistics or forensic science in general that crept into Double Helix Law.)
This blog also has roots in the Science & Law blog on the Law Professors' Blog Network. That blog was the brainchild of Professor David Faigman of the University of California Hastings School of Law. It died because the five authors did not feed it on the schedules that the Law Profs Network demanded. In fact, two of the designated authors never wrote a word. Still, it has some good material, but you'll have to navigate through the archives in the right-hand column to find it.