Re: Re: Tools accepted by the courts

(I'm not sure why my post didn't get through yesterday, here goes again)

I think there is a danger in going down the "my certification is better than 
yours" path.  Yes, we owe it to ourselves and those we represent to ensure we 
maintain a benchmark by which we can be initially measured in a court or 
otherwise, but if we rely upon any certification to replace sound procedure, 
technical competence and an ability to impart information in a manner that can 
be understood by a non technical judge or jury, then we are in the long run 
doing ourselves and our certifications a disservice.  A certification to me 
only demonstrates a person's ability to learn a information and apply that 
information to successfully complete a test.  I do however put more emphasis on 
those certs that require a regular re-test, a person is less likely to fall 
back into bad habits if regularly re-evaluated.

Our job is not to provide more snowballs for the lawyers to throw at us, our 
job is to provide objective, accurate, scientifically sound testimony of often 
complex material in a manner that can be reasonably understood by a jury, using 
tools techniques and processes that we understand and can defend if necessary.  
While the certifications are good in and of themselves, they can never defend 
shoddy forensic analysis.

Sorry about this not getting through, but I wanted to chime in on this 
thread.....