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…