The editors write:
“This special issue of Science shows that forensic analysts are trying to do better. Many fields are taking a critical look at the value of evidence, testing the accuracy of their methods, and developing new ones that are more science-based. Meanwhile, some scientists are developing the forensic tools of tomorrow.”
“Hair analysis is only one of many flawed forensic fields: A 2009 report from the National Research Council found that the analysis of many types of evidence—from footprints and tire tracks to bullet marks and blood splatters—lacks a solid foundation. Even DNA evidence, seen as the gold standard, can land innocent people in jail, now that new technologies can detect minuscule amounts of genetic material.”
And it continues with mostly non-novel reportage, and does include some “police sciences,” throwing in hair (promising its new “adjusted uses’ in court), microbes for ageing postmortem intervals, making a bacterial “fingerprint” from live bodies, “fuzzy” fingerprints, DNA gone bad, how statisticians will save the day, and something about incinerated bodies and energy calculations in the Mexican 43 dead student case.
Nothing in the magazine about the cover picture showing bullets.