Re:Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom?
by djsumdog on Monday February 17, 2020 @05:44PM
(#22351628)
There was a Citations Needed podcast about pseudoscience in the criminal justice system:
https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-94-the-goofy-pseu...
It's an interesting podcast, but their interviewee sucked and she didn't really cite any actual science; just hand waved away things.
I've found the studies they cite on fingerprints (your fingerprint could match up with 1 in ~300 people; they're not as unique as once though -- the study that's often cited is from the FBI) but I can't find anything on gun/bullet print identification.
Supposedly you can't match a bullet to a gun, especially with more modern firearms with precise milling. Yet all the sourced I've found should photos of bullets with distinct patterns that seem to match a particular firearm.
Re:Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom?
by manicdee on Monday February 17, 2020 @07:07PM
(#22352208)
Then we find that all these photos are stock photos from the depths of FBI labs and none of the photographs show an actual slug collected from a crime scene.
Re:Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom?
by lonelappde on Monday February 17, 2020 @02:18PM
(#22349873)
Forensic "science" is full of pseudoscience that charlatans use to put innocent people in jail for money.
Re:Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom?
by fsh on Monday February 17, 2020 @02:59PM
(#22350212)
Link to the article (which is definitely worth a read): https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire
And then fiber analysis has been debunked too.
And the list goes one: hysteria over child abuse combined with well-meaning but incompetent interviewers creating false memories in supposed victims. The problems with coerced confessions.
It's all quite terrifying.