“Almost junk forensic science” of blood spatter expertise – Its not as simple as it’s taught in class

More reasons why forensics should not be associated with law enforcement.

FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends

Image result for amateur forensic science

Here is a good look at why “forensics” should be considered amateur-hour non-science in many jurisdictions.

Article goes within a conviction that had the same cop being the crime evidence collector, analyst, and lead investigator. Much goes wrong in the Jennings’ case. The trail of pattern matching over blown conclusions is broad and continues to be acceptable everywhere.

“In the Jennings case, not only did the detective, Nash, reopen the case and serve as lead investigator, he also directly participated in testing evidence in the crime lab.

Nash testified that he was with Jason Wycoff, a DNA specialist with the Highway Patrol, when they tested Jennings’ bathrobe for blood.

According to the trial transcript, Nash said as a “general rule,” the lab did not allow investigators to be present during testing.”

http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2017/11/02/uncertainties-associated-bloodstain-pattern-analysis-enormous-national-study/709086001/

Unassociated with the above story, this article is about how the US Supreme Court has a scatter-shot ability to handle forensic…

View original post 25 more words

About csidds

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

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s