Blood spatter continues: It’s purveyors and assumption spur critics to express weaknesses

 

This is a continuation of our previous blog on blood drops and criminal justice. It is expressly “old school” and experts really heavily on “experiments” both in courtrooms and their ‘spatter” rooms. Calling this science is also present in court testimony. It is nothing of the sort. All the examiners know what results support the aims of their employers and they know what to leave outside the courtroom. That ain’t science, bud.

Taking a close look at “blood spatter” now being called “blood spatter analysis” by its adherents. This article places it in the “bitemark analysis category” of faded glory of forensics.

A “blood examiner” discredited. 

New trial ordered from “misleading” blood expert. 

Peterson decision squeezes Deaver. 

Deaver gets fired.. 

Post conviction appeals focuses on blood guy Deaver. 

 

About csidds

Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
This entry was posted in forensic science reform protecting the innocent, Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Blood spatter continues: It’s purveyors and assumption spur critics to express weaknesses

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s