The AAAS is relatively new to reviewing forensics, but it has taken on pattern-matchers with the full force of its multidisciplinary membership. Its candor is a refreshing look into latent print matching experts. The AAAS has no law enforcement affiliations like the National Institute of Justice which is the primary funding source to forensic investigators. Simply put, they don’t have political affiliations or the NIJ’s prosecutorial culture. Here’s a piece of the AAAS September 2017 look at Latents.
“Drawing on the conclusions of existing literature about scientifically appropriate statements examiners should make in testimony and reports, the report says examiners should convey the high level of scientific uncertainty that underlies the analysis they are presenting in court and make clear the findings are subjective and not grounded in evidence.”
This doesn’t read like the recent blurb from the USDOJ DAG Rod J. Rosenstein’s take on police forensics. His statement carries no mention of its flimsy connections, in some cases, with scientific proofs. They have too many skeletons and cases regarding half-baked opinions used by prosecutors to admit much else. Hence my lede’s use of “denying the obvious.”