Newly published, it is clear that PCAST on forensic ‘science’ is taking a serious stance to much of the mis-information presented by the host of it’s deniers in the US criminal justice system. That would be prosecutors, the US attorney general, the International Association for Identification, and some smaller groups of police forensic ‘science’ techs.
PCAST goes into detail regarding the extent of their studies which included their generous requests after the body’s report in November. Some substantial critics failed to show up for continuing any participation. I’m rather embarrassed by the entire bunch.
PCAST gives some mini-kudos (mostly to fingerprints and DNA) but it is clear that what they expect from forensics is generally beyond the ken of the bulk of the forensic industry. This becomes very apparent if you read the entire nine pages.
Of course, bitemarkers bit the dust once more on page 5. I would like to thank the 33 co-participants of the 2016 document on bitemarks’ fallacies that is mentioned. I had a bit to do with it. ASU Law Professor Michael Saks did all the heavy lifting on that one.
pcast_forensics_addendum_final (published 1-10-17)