"Forensic Doctor Sang, in the 2009 case, the basis for conviction was the appraisal report signed by your teacher."
"I checked, the data is fine."
"Page 12, calcium content. Forty percent higher than the same batch."
"... The note is my teacher's handwriting. 'The data of sample No. 12 Is abnormal, it is recommended to re-test.'"
"But in the report, the anomaly was erased."
"Collector Qi Lin was recommended by deputy director Yong Tingchuan to leave. A reexamination in 2015 upheld the original verdict. Half a year after the reexamination, Yong Tingchuan retired."
"Sang Zhi, do you want to check on your teacher?"
"I believe in data. Data doesn't lie."
"You did the right thing," Chu Shen put the key on the table, "but I can't be happy for you."
This is a story about how forensic doctors use data to testify for the deceased. It is also a story about how two women choose in the face of the truth.
Purpose: The core principle of forensic identification is that "the expert is only responsible for the facts." When data is tampered with, it is not only the conclusion of a case that is affected, but the credibility of the entire identification system. This story explores: When a person discovers that his/her mentor, colleague, or even the entire system has made a mistake, how should he/she face it? Is the cost of correcting a mistake worth it? And, in the face of the truth, everyone must make a choice.
