1/365
“[The police] prefer the charlatan who tells them what they want to hear to the expert who tells them unpalatable truths or that conclusions cannot be made. One of the characteristics of the unqualified expert in forensic pathology is an ability to interpret a case in exquisite detail. This ‘‘expert’’ sets the time of death, plus or minus a few minutes, accurately positions the deceased, and gives detailed analysis of the events surrounding the death and precise deductions about the assault. If the police have expressed prior opinions, it is not uncommon for the opinions of the ‘‘expert’’ to agree almost in complete detail with the police hypotheses. The experienced forensic pathologist tends to hedge, knows there may be more than one interpretation of a set of facts, and is more ‘‘wishy-washy’’ than the charlatan.”
by Dominick and Vincent DiMaio
在一篇論文裡面讀到這樣的一段話。這段話是說，警察都會希望聽到法醫們講出警察們想聽的話，比如說非常篤定的某些結論，但這些情況通常不太會發生。在法醫病理的領域中，只有並非真的具有足夠經驗的江湖郎中才會講出非常精緻的細節（當然還有兇手本人啦）。這種所謂的專家會給你一個精確到分鐘的死亡時刻、精確的死亡姿勢並且會非常仔細的描述死亡與攻擊過程。特別是當警察如果已經先提出一個看法後，這樣的專家往往會同意警察的假設。記住了，因為知道對於事實的解釋可能有千千萬萬種方式，故有經驗的法醫病理學家傾向於避免正面作答，但這樣卻容易讓他們看起來比那些江湖郎中遜。
從事動物法醫解剖這幾年下來，看到這段話由衷地會心一笑。的確、的確腦海裡浮現出一些情境。某些時刻，如此極端吹牛武斷推論的情況不一定會發生，但是在推論時卻可能遺漏了某些可能性，事後回想起來總是十分感嘆啊。這段話值得一輩子謹記在心。