Blood pattern analysis toes a tricky line between being considered a science or not. On one hand, investigators follow the scientific method when analyzing blood patterns. In The Staircase, blood spatter analysts made observations about the blood spatters, used these to form a hypothesis about the murder, and then tested their theory in an experiment. However, there was a key disparity between the experimental process for blood spatter analysis and that of a scientific hypothesis.
On The Staircase, investigators from the prosecution experimented with ways they could harm a victim that would lead to similar blood spatters rather than seeing if likely methods of killings resulted in the patterns. This resulted in a killing method that seemed highly unlikely, the killer would have to clean his weapon in between each attack. Typically, scientists would not create almost impossible testing situations to get their desired result, they would be okay with saying their hypothesis was wrong.
This leads to the next reason blood spatter analysis is not a science, incredible amounts of bias are involved. While performing the experiment, the experimenters knew exactly the results they were attempting to achieve and changed the experimental process, accordingly, creating a situation that would not have been accurate.
This bias goes much deeper into the scientific method, all the way to the observation process. Both the prosecution and defense hired their own blood spatter analysts to interpret the blood spatters in a way that was advantageous to them. Both different experts were able to draw completely different conclusions that supported their side. If blood spatter analysis were a science, experts would be able to look unbiasedly at the data, in this case, evidence, and agree on one true result.
Different spatters of blood reveal different things about the crime. For example, wherever the trail of blood is pointing may reveal the direction the blood came from and thus where the killer may be standing. Additionally, the density and shape of the blood may reveal what type of weapon was used. Despite this, there is no definitive way of proving that experts’ interpretations are correct. Much like using a dog to sniff out a crime scene, blood stain analysis requires experts to give their best guess, typically resulting in inconsistencies.
(375 words)
It is interesting to see how bias is involved in blood spatter analysis, seeing as the analyst often knows what they are looking for. This also reveals the human side of this technique, rather than the raw “yes or no” answer that some might associate with science. Its also crucial that there is no way to determine who is correct if there are differing opinions, it is just who the jury and public finds more believable.
I liked the way you explained complex concepts using straightforward language. Your post does a good job of raising questions about the scientific aspects of blood spatter analysis and the potential biases involved. It encourages readers to think critically about the subject. The overall structure and flow of the content are clear and well-organized.