At the same time, there is a different element introduced in the pursuit of forensic science that is not dealt with in other branches of scientific inquiry. As the question of justice is also central to any forensic proceeding, the suspect's account of events and/or hypothesized explanations for observations must also be taken account (Young 2009). In this way, both verification and falsification can be used during experimentation. Before these experiments take place, however, the predictions must lay out a way to clearly identify the expectations of the experiments, as well as a way the methods by which they should be conducted. Several predictions can usually be made rather quickly after the hypothesis that are fully testable and easily determined. Based on hairs found at the crime scene, for instance, it could be predicted that skin found under the victim's fingernails was of the same DNA as the on-matching hairs found on the bathroom floor. Based on the injuries that led to the victim's death, predictions as to the method of death and the size and shape of the weapon (if any) can also be made. All of these things can be tested for based on physical and empirical fact, but only after a solid prediction has been made. Without these predictions, there would be nothing for the forensic scientist to test.

Experimentation

This final step in the scientific method determines exactly how accurate and valid the other steps were in describing the physical events of the crime. Even with very careful observation and rational hypotheses and predictions, however, experiments can show that the assumptions of the forensic scientist were incorrect. This is why it is important not only for the lead forensic specialist to conduct falsifying (or verifying) experiments, but also to have other independent tests performed, to ensure that previously made predictions do not color the results of the experiments. This is one of the most often overlooked elements of the scientific method, even and perhaps especially in forensics (Vogt 2009).

In the hypothetical example used above, several experiments present themselves. When it comes to identifying the hair samples and/or matching them with...

Likewise, following predictions as to the size and shape of a weapon, experiments can be conducted that attempt to match various instruments to the wound -- the prediction narrows down what is being looked for, possibly even to a single item, and if that item or items is found to match the wound, the experiment may have successfully identified the murder weapon. It is still highly important at this stage to refrain from absolute certainty on the part of the forensic scientist; this goes against the principles of science and of the justice system. Independently confirmed experimental results, however, can show beyond a reasonable doubt what the likely events and circumstances of a crime were, making the objectivity and independent nature of this last step of the scientific method especially important in forensics.
Conclusion

The scientific method is not always enough to lead to a conviction in criminal cases. Without its application in forensic endeavors, however, our justice system would be based far less on fact and more on conjecture -- it would, in essence, be less just. It is the objectivity of the scientific method that enables the justice system to operate fairly and with greater impunity and authority.