This time it is in Australia. It does mentions that bitemarks are now outlawed Down Under? Now how did THAT happen? I havent heard a peep abt it.
Flawed forensics and weak-kneed judges. Boilerplate arson experts, of course, claim absolute accuracy. A judge buys it
The judge below is a good guy, the Honorable Harry T. Edwards.
Just another chapter in how judges can’t get away from looking at changes and evolution in forensics (this time its fire science) in the most restrictive sense via improper legal reasoning and by saying that”unsettled” forensics means that old school experts are still credible. Some one should tell these blokes that there is no Supreme Court equivalent in the world of forensics. Here’s a prime example: The bitemarkers (mentioned in this article as well) are still certified by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
Here’s a quote from a LA Superior Court judge in this recent arson-based habeas corpus hearing.
In November, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge William C. Ryan ruled that the new flashover evidence was insufficient to win Parks a new trial because the experts cannot agree on its significance. “The world of fire science and fire investigation is a complex area rife with differing opinions and contentious debates,” Ryan wrote.
It has been 10 years since the National Academy of Forensic Sciences put out its report on forensics and its failures and discrepancies. The man below ( who co-chaired this effort, is the Honorable Harry T. Edwards), talks about the events since 2009. Here’s a bit from the NAS findings:
The report not only exposed the paucity of scientific research to support forensic methods, it also detailed some dubious practices in crime laboratories, the absence of rigorous certification requirements and robust performance standards for practitioners, and the failure of forensic experts to use standard terminology in reporting on and testifying about the results of forensic investigations.
Click on Judge Edwards to read his 2019 perspective on the 10 years since NAS “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward.”
…………..the sometimes nefarious and commonly exaggerated forensic opinions prosecutors continue use to convict has little effect on the lofty judges who never took a science class after 12th grade. Their denials of legitimate claims of unfair criminal convictions is the theme of a man’s upcoming execution date in Texas.
Here is another example of how CA prosecutors pursue a retrial against Kim Long based on nothing but forensic flim-flam.
Aussie study follows up on the unacceptable “ad hoc” nature of 30 different crime lab methods. They also demand for forensic science to become more open. Even DNA has befuddled courts into accepting “proprietary secrets” regarding crime lab software.
— Read on www.labmanager.com/news/2019/08/a-new-solution-to-countering-bad-science-in-forensics
Blood spatter analysis (i.e. BPA) theories contradict physics and scientific research. Study reveals serious lack of university-level involvement in this police-adopted method.
Is anyone suprised? The spatterists still are throwing pig blood against walls and clothing. This study debunks their “velocity” of impact/force blood spatter paradigms.
A lawyer in the UK takes on an important aspect of forensics. The discussion is a bit nebulous, and focuses on the topic of people identifying objects and people captured on digital media. I suppose old fashioned crime scene photography is a precursor to some of this, although the author doesn’t bring it into the discussion. He does mention “artefacts” once. He also takes the Forensic Regulator to task for “overreaching.” I’d prefer a POV that emphasizes more collaboration since he does admit that some experts’ opinions “have been in error.”
Notables discuss the interface between police and anyone examining crime scene evidence. Especially those folks working police crime labs. Recent cases of experts being influenced by police theories certainly highlights this as creating cognitive bias. It is very hard to unring ideas and conclusions brought into an ongoing forensic exam.
This is just the abstract. Im getting really raw having to pay big bucks to get journal articles.
Reading any bitemarker’s trial testimony easily confirms this research of 183 “practicing forensic analysts.” The quest for perfection seems to drive many to just assume they are always perfect.
All this began with a “match” of one hair made during the heyday of this now discredited FBI crime fighting method.