The Sherlock Effect: How Forensic Doctors and Investigators Disastrously Reason Like the Great Detective

by Thomas W. Young

Forensic science is in crisis and at a cross-roads. Movies and television dramas depict forensic heroes with high-tech tools and dazzling intellects who―inside an hour, notwithstanding commercials―piece together past-event puzzles from crime scenes and autopsies. Likewise, Sherlock Holmes―the iconic fictional detective, and the invention of forensic doctor Sir Arthur Conan Doyle―is held up as a paragon of forensic and scientific inspiration―does not "reason forward" as most people do, but "reasons backwards." Put more plainly, rather than learning the train of events and seeing whether the resultant clues match those events, Holmes determines what happened in the past by looking at the clues. Impressive and infallible as this technique appears to be―it must be recognized that infallibility lies only in works of fiction. Reasoning backward does not work in real reality is far less tidy. In courtrooms everywhere, innocent people pay the price of life imitating art, of science following detective fiction. In particular, this book looks at the long and disastrous shadow cast by that icon of deductive reasoning, Sherlock Holmes. In The Sherlock Effect , author Dr. Thomas W. Young shows why this Sherlock-Holmes-style reasoning does not work and, furthermore, how it can―and has led―to wrongful convictions. Dr. Alan Moritz, one of the early pioneers of forensic pathology in the United States, warned his colleagues in the 1950’s about making the Sherlock Holmes error. Little did Moritz realize how widespread the problem would eventually become, involving physicians in all other specialties of medicine and not just forensic pathologists. Dr. Young traces back how this situation evolved, looking back over the history of forensic medicine, revealing the chilling degree to which forensic experts fail us every day. While Dr. Young did not want to be the one to write this book, he has felt compelled in the interest of science and truth. This book is measured, well-reasoned, accessible, insightful, and―above all―compelling. As such, it is a must-read treatise for forensic doctors, forensic practitioners and students, judges, lawyers adjudicating cases in court, and anyone with an interest in forensic science.

268 pages, Hardcover

Published May 7, 2018

Reviews

[Sawyer X · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like the premise of this book, explaining that reasoning backward is... well, ass-backward. You cannot do it. Just as you cannot figure out all the things a person ate when staring at the outcome, you cannot figure out how the crime exactly happened by staring solely at the outcome.

The whole "let me figure out everything that happened here based on tenuous ostensible clues like the great Sherlock Holmes" fails to recognize that Sherlock Holmes, much like The Hulk, is imaginative and not a real person with real abilities. Just as you cannot have The Hulk abilities in real life, you cannot have Sherlock's. Pretending is great for fun, not for reality. (In other words, try Superman'ing off the building and see.)

What is also somewhat interesting for me is how the author maintains the value of looking at evidence and drawing possibilities from it, but sticking with what can be observed while at the same time the author is an LDS Christian. That seems to me like backward conclusions from non-observable facts. Then again, it shows you can be a self-conflicting person and make very, very good points. It's a good book and the author has done a good job.

[Lu Chiu · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was amazed at the fallacious reasoning used by the author. A man was accused of murdering 3 of his wives who all drowned in the bathtub. The husband would most likely be the killer right? But no, According to the author, there had to be 6 sequential steps to kill each wife. He has to be in the bathroom, he has to put his hands around her ankles, grip her ankles firmly, pull up her legs fast, she has to b go under the water fast, lastly she has to lose consciousness. The chances of these events taking place sequentially apparently are very unlikely. If each event has a 50% likelihood then the chances of all 6 would be 1/64. And the chances of this happening 3 times would be ridiculously close to 0. But that's not the way probability works.
These are not random events. If the husband plans to kill the wife by this method then he would follow the steps accordingly. By his reasoning the more wives are killed in this way the more unlikely that the husband would be the killer. I had to go back and read again to make sure I understood him correctly. I stopped reading at this point so I apologise if he revealed later that he was just joking

[Duy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cuốn sách khá hay, nói về những vấn đề nghiêm trọng trong ngành điều tra hình sự. Về cơ bản, rất nhiều người và kỹ thuật trong ngành này là không đáng tin cậy, nhưng vẫn được sử dụng rộng rãi. Điều ra hình sự không ngon ăn như trong phim! :D
Có một điều tác giả lập luận rất buồn cười: khi phân tích một kịch bản tội ác có 6 bước chẳng hạn, ông lấy xác suất thực hiện thành công từng bước một rồi nhân lên với nhau, cuối cùng nhận được một xác suất vô cùng nhỏ, và kết luận rằng tội ác kiểu đó không thể xảy ra. Điều này là có thể về mặt xác suất, với điều kiện các bước là độc lập với nhau. Nhưng không phải bước nào cũng độc lập với nhau, có những bước khi thực hiện xong sẽ tất yếu dẫn tới bước tiếp theo. Hơn nữa, các bước ông tách ra từ kịch bản tội ác là rất tùy tiện, và xác suất cho sự thành công của mỗi bước cũng thế. Cứ phân tích như ông thì chẳng bao giờ có tội ác nào có thể xảy ra được!

[Aaron · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was on my Sherlock Shelf and I'm making an effort this year to start reading through it to justify hunting down books like this.

As a complete layman to Forensic Science (and Logic, lol), I still don't think Sherlock really needed to be dragged into this critique, but calling out professional arrogance & overreach amongst Medical Examiners and Law Enforcement by showing how absolutely inferior they are to a fictional character makes a really good hook. He makes a compelling case that Holmes's "backwards reasoning" should remain in fiction. This is a 2018 book and we've seen a lot, like A LOT of issues with Forensic Science & Experts (which is what the author specializes in on the medical side) before and since then that should concern any reasonably informed citizen.
I was skeptical at points - he takes a few odd potshots at the Innocence Project and took a soft run at criticizing CTEs, which was a hot issue then after years of War on Terror injuries and horror stories about NFL/Pro Wrestling athletes, which haven't gone away to this day. Those are brief passages but they stuck out.
At times this feels more like promotion for his consulting business than a serious book, but his knowledge and passion is evident, and the problems are real.
There are probably better books, journalism, & academic studies available now on the limits of Forensic Science and systemic failures of the criminal justice system.

[Hallie Whitley · Rating 3 out of 5]

I hesitate to review this because I did not get very far. (18% of the audiobook) The author very suddenly in my opinion started to segue into his religious views and it was very frustrating to me. I didn't mind getting some professional background but I was not expecting to read a biography and frankly did not want to hear about his religious views. Just not what I was expecting.

[Richard Young · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is heartbreaking and we need it.

[Sarmad Al-gailani · Rating 4 out of 5]

من المهم قراءته ، للرجوع لكفية التفكير العلمي المتدرج و عدم القفز و الرضوخ إلى النظريات فقط.