> He may not have claimed it, but when you stand in front of a jury and say something to the extent of "I'm an expert in knot analysis. This is the analytic system I employed to reach this particular conclusion" the implication to a jury of laymen is that you've employed a scientific method of some sort.

This is rather an argument against a jury of laymen.

And yet that is what is mandated in the constitution.

> And yet that is what is mandated in the constitution.

I don't live in the USA and am not US citizen - many HN readers don't either :-)

It can be used as an argument against both. But that's irrelevant to a discussion about what the presentation of this evidence says to a jury.