The war of words about what is ‘reliable’ about forensic opinions is getting stretched and compressed depending on the source of comment.
The fingerprint corp called the IAI had its’ president put a 3/4 page blast out about his ‘standing’ strong on the IAI foot print methods. Here it is for those so interested in it. The President’s Council on Sci put out a 179 page report. This IAI person got exercised about it enough to barely fill a single typed page, so it must have been written at night.
Here is this picture of him in case you might run into him at some meeting. Meet Harold Ru[slander]. This is an example of ‘compressed” to say the least. No errors, period.
So, enough hilarity for now. The judicial machinations on forensic reliability is apparently being twisted into what this ex-lawyer considers to be ‘acceptable error.’ By a judge, remember. To be judged later by more judges.
Here is Grits for Breakfast presenting a question being asked and answered by judges all the time.
“What’s a ‘good error rate’ in non-science forensics testimony?” Harold thinks its aok. Of course, the IAI self-publishes all its ‘scientific’ findings.
What error rate would justify excluding non-science-based forensics?
[excerpt]
Full article where Grits makes some more good points.
FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends 