The suggested hypothesis of M.Ya. Sehai allows extrapolating the results of applying whole methods within the framework of each class (forensic expert substratology, forensic expert documentation, and forensic psychonomics).
This does not diminish the significance of the scientific ground of the provisions of a particular type of forensic examination, but thanks to the challenging hypothesis of M. Ya. Sehai concerning the relationship of interaction and the provisions justified by him in forensic science, this will allow applying “forensic” methods (which, by and large, does not exist, since methods are general scientific) to the subject of research in other types of forensic examinations, where they have not previously been used.
The subject of the study of forensic science and forensic expertology enlarges each other, at least from the perspective of using special knowledge in legal proceedings.
Conclusion is the following: in forensic expertology has its own role in justice, it is a completely established theory with a hypothesis and accepted facts at present. Forensic expertology has its own subject; it integrates the scientific methods of individual forensic expert theories and has its own methodological function.
Key words: forensic expertology, criminalistics, forensic science, forensic expert substratology, forensic expert documentation, forensic psychonomics, hypothesis.
Sharing innovative methods, data and knowledge across sociophonetics and forensic speech science
