Forensics: Junk science gets support from DOJ Statement Pushing Dubious Forensic Science Is Challenged by Advocates

Democracy Forward and the Union of Concerned Scientists say the Trump-era statement is biased, inaccurate, and runs afoul of federal law.
— Read on theintercept.com/2021/08/08/forensic-science-reform-justice-department/

About csidds

Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
This entry was posted in AAFS, ABFO, Bad Forensic Science, Bitemarks, costs of wrongful convictions, forensic evidence exaggeration, Forensic Science Bias, forensic science misconduct, forensic science reform, wrongful convictions and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Forensics: Junk science gets support from DOJ Statement Pushing Dubious Forensic Science Is Challenged by Advocates

  1. John Lentini says:

    Some feature matching disciplines are very subjective and others are not. I think PCAST made an error by lumping them all together. Bitemarks are bullshit. Firearms identification done correctly is not. Cartridge case identification not so much. Fingerprint ID is mostly reliable depending on the quality of the latent print may or may not be reliable, but usually, it is. The main question I have is “why do we let non-scientists (judges) decide what is good science and what is not?”

Leave a Reply to John Lentini Cancel 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