The phenomenon of “evidence fetishism” in forensic science is defined as treating physical traces as having inherent meaning, separate from necessary interpretation. Drawing on Marxist, semiotic, Freudian, and Ginzburgian theories, the analysis explains how forensic traces gain authority in science and law. The discussion illustrates how evidence becomes its own testimony in court, arguing that this is a structural issue within forensic institutions, not individual error. This “forensic fetish” removes uncertainty by making the trace seem to “speak.” The analysis calls for a focus on interpretation in forensic science to achieve more epistemically responsible approaches that acknowledge uncertainty while maintaining rigor.
Max M. Houck (Mon,) studied this question.