Forensic Science = Shit

Cunt Smasher

Caligula Jr.
Aug 26, 2005
13,092
3,816
563
#1
Very interesting read here- lots of people may have been wrongly convicted on forensic science that isn't really science.
In the American criminal-justice system, where prosecutors regularly battle defense attorneys over what constitutes valid evidence, judges’ rulings on admissibility are the final word. Once a technique has made it into court and survived appeals, subsequent judges, most of whom have no scientific training and little ability to assess the scientific validity of a technique, will continue to allow it by citing precedent. Forensic examiners, in turn, cite precedent in order to claim that their techniques are reliable science. Prosecutors point to guilty verdicts as evidence that the science brought to court was sound. In this circular way, legal rulings—which never really vetted the science to begin with—substitute for scientific proof. This is Frye’s fatal flaw: Nowhere in this process is anyone required to provide empirical evidence that the techniques work as advertised. Frye aimed to keep pseudoscience out of the courts, but instead has helped create the perfect conditions to keep it in.
In the American criminal-justice system, where prosecutors regularly battle defense attorneys over what constitutes valid evidence, judges’ rulings on admissibility are the final word. Once a technique has made it into court and survived appeals, subsequent judges, most of whom have no scientific training and little ability to assess the scientific validity of a technique, will continue to allow it by citing precedent. Forensic examiners, in turn, cite precedent in order to claim that their techniques are reliable science. Prosecutors point to guilty verdicts as evidence that the science brought to court was sound. In this circular way, legal rulings—which never really vetted the science to begin with—substitute for scientific proof. This is Frye’s fatal flaw: Nowhere in this process is anyone required to provide empirical evidence that the techniques work as advertised. Frye aimed to keep pseudoscience out of the courts, but instead has helped create the perfect conditions to keep it in.
Using a photograph of the victim’s body and a plaster cast of Stinson’s teeth, dentists testified that the marks matched “to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.” The appeals court was convinced by the analysis: “the lateral incisor in the upper jaw was set back from the other teeth; all of the upper front teeth were flared; the lower right lateral incisor was worn to a pointed edge; the right incisor was set out from the other teeth on the lower jaw.” The dentists even compared Stinson’s bite to his twin brother’s. The judges concluded that the “bite-mark evidence in this case was sufficient to exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis of innocence,” upholding Stinson’s conviction. Twenty-three years later, DNA evidence exonerated Stinson. The 3-D models, the detailed descriptions of his incisors, the “moral certainty” of his guilt—everyone had been convinced. And everyone had been wrong. The scientific tide has since turned. Dentists have recanted their testimony and disavowed the method. The Texas Commission on Forensic Science called for a “moratorium” on bite-mark evidence. A study conducted by the president-elect of the American Board of Forensic Odontology revealed that 96 percent of the time, bite-mark examiners couldn’t unanimously agree on whether a bite mark came from a human, and the organization advised its members not to make identifications based on bite marks alone. And yet Stinson’s case still stands as precedent in Wisconsin courts, meaning other judges can cite it to admit bite-mark evidence. Its use is in decline, but there has never been a single ruling to exclude it.
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-crisis-of-american-forensics/
 

Mags

LDAR king
Donator
Oct 22, 2004
34,865
11,972
693
Ill Repute
#2
“Forensic Science = Shit”

Hyperbolic much?

One declining facet does not make the entire scientific genre “shit”.
 

Wrecktum

Tounge puncher of fart boxes
Jun 29, 2006
4,336
1,436
563
Cervix spelunking
#3
“Forensic Science = Shit”

Hyperbolic much?

One declining facet does not make the entire scientific genre “shit”.
One guy got falsely imprisoned welcome to Trumps America.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 

Stig

Wackbag's New Favorite Heel
Jul 26, 2005
80,679
4,436
558
NH
#7
What on Our Lord Jesus H. Christ's flat Earth are you people talking about?

Science. Pfft!
 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
Sep 15, 2004
46,670
6,859
693
F.U.B.A.R
#8
A few state crime labs have lying liars within them. The people convicted by their lies, should get fifteen minutes alone with them.
 

Cunt Smasher

Caligula Jr.
Aug 26, 2005
13,092
3,816
563
#10
It's not just one facet, its all of it, and according to the article, its not science. There's no peer review or standards in alot of it. Even in fingerprints there are issues because there's no universal standard.
 
Jun 30, 2005
10,800
2,011
681
outsiddah Boston
#11
If you would like to say "Bite Evidence = Shit"
"Hair Analysis = Shit"
But your winning thread title should have been "To a Reasonable Degree of Scientific Certainty, Some Forensics is Bullshit"
I'll get right on that bandwagon...
In the real world of science there is no such thing as a degree of scientific certainty...It is or isn't. Gravity will make things fall to the ground...to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty? No...to a 100% certainty...What the fuck is a REASONABLE degree and who decides that? Horseshit I tell you...it is or it isn't...Lay out the % and odds in terms of the population as a whole or STFU...

John Oliver did a segment on this last year and it's an incredible amount of shit that is piled high and accepted right now..
https://www.sciencealert.com/john-oliver-has-busted-open-the-misconceptions-behind-forensic-science
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
41,677
9,148
768
#12
I call it “lawyer science” or “science for juries”

I’ve been embroiled in a debate with these guys on the hugbook
https://www.vehiclesafetyfirm.com/b...ftermarket-auto-parts-cause-serious-injuries/

A law firm bought three cars, fitted two with after market parts and one with out aka stock, then smashed them, the problem is the cars are all quite different, yes they are all the same model but, different years different millages and have lived different lives, of course they are going to get various results, and, those variations are within acceptable standards, but, being ambulance chasers they are trying to say that they are right, that aftermarket parts will kill you in an accident. Ignoring that it’s the accident it’s self that killed you, and the parts had little to do with it.

There is no such thing as 100%