Today’s post is for those of you who believe that an expert’s opinion, given in court & under oath, has some kind of sacred weight to it; those who say, “Of course an expert’s opinion is worth more than that of a lay person. Experts have training, experience, and the ability to objectively compare information to bring a court the best, most accurate information available, right?”
Remember that case I mentioned, the four women from San Antonio convicted of raping two little girls, one of whom has since recanted? There was a pediatrician who testified for the prosecution, Dr. Nancy Kellog.
Kellog testified that the two girls bore physical proof of the assault. She pointed out white lines, thickening, reddening. Incontrovertible, scientific evidence…That wasn't.
…Many physical signs of abuse identified by doctors in 1980s cases, like bumps, white lines, and other markings on hymens, were found through several studies in the late 1980s and 1990s to appear in both abused and non-abused girls[…]
Kellog also testified in the trial of Frank Navarijo that, in her opinion, the child’s physical condition was definitive evidence of penetration. This opinion flew in the face of what can be scientifically proven but Navarijo was convicted anyway, and is now sitting in prison waiting to see if his accuser’s latest recantation will be enough to win him his freedom.
Both sides present experts to support their case; it’s necessary and beneficial. However, assuming that their opinions and evidence are untouchable and sacred is foolish. Question what’s presented; if it’s the truth, it’ll hold up under scrutiny and you’ll be wiser for it. If not…then say something.