How a Dubious Forensic Science Spread Like a Virus
Although the reliability of blood-spatter analysis was never proven or quantified, its steady admission by courts rarely wavered, even as the technique, along with other forensic sciences, began facing increasing scrutiny.
In 2009, a watershed report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences cast doubt on the whole discipline, finding that “the uncertainties associated with bloodstain pattern analysis are enormous,” and that experts’ opinions were generally “more subjective than scientific.”
Still, judges continued allowing spatter experts to testify.
Subsequent research, funded by the Department of Justice, raised questions about experts’ methods and conclusions. But little changed.
All along, attorneys like Bankston continued challenging the admission of bloodstain-pattern analysts. But they came to learn that a forensic discipline, once unleashed in the system, cannot easily be recalled.
Years ago I watched a documentary about how a completely bogus process called “facilitated communication” had been accepted by the prosecutors and courts – with the result that innocents had endured prosecution, and in some cases jail. I think this happened in the Hamilton area.
Finally, a journalist smelled a rat and devised a test that exposed it for the complete and utter bullshit that it was. You can bet your bippy that the architects of so much misery and so many wrongful convictions never saw a day of jail.
Excellent article,and the basis of it all is; don’t ever believe “the science is settled”.
MacDonnell seems unconcerned that his “science” may have ruined the lives of many innocent people, collateral damage in the glorification of himself.
In a way,he reminds me of David Suzuki.
True scientists, such as Einstein, Feynman, the Curies, Lord Kelvin, Galileo, Newton, and others of their calibre took it as a given that science was and could never be settled.
Of course, compared to the likes of Dr Fruitfly, Bill Nye etc, what would those other folks have known about science, anyway?
Yeah, like “microscopic hair analysis”. Oklahoma prosecutors turned that hocus-pocus a fine art.
I never did like CSI. I looked at it a couple of times and quickly determined that it was a “smart” show for stupid people.
ET, my favorite part of CSI,which my kids used to watch,is the Hollywood fantasy that the police will pull out all the stops in their investigation of the suspicious death,of anyone,even a homeless street guy living in a park.
Yes,the police are there for us,to save our lives, or in the rare cases where they didn’t get there in time, to spend a fortune in overtime to find the perp. So goes the narrative in the weird and fantastic world of Hollywood.
Best part of that show was the hot chick in the tight sweater.
I volunteer to beat the living shit out of the schientishts in an ‘experiment’ to analyze THAT blood spatter.
Usual Suspect(s) ; vested interest(s) of the Bureaucracy Class__ Now sometimes referred to as the Courtier(s) __ in the Princess Sophie salons.
Dexter hardest hit.
trust me I am an expert.
Respect my authority.
If you cannot see the magnificent new clothes,you are unfit for any position of authority..
Some things never change.
gee whizz…just like global warming
Git with the program. It is now Global Heating.
And only 12 years to turn down the thermostat.
/babyitshotoutside
And traditional knowledge..
Much of forensic science is dubious at best; even in those cases where the theory is sound, the likelihood that the barely-trained technicians will mess up the lab procedure means that any forensics tests really ought to be sent out to multiple labs in a double-blind submission before any conclusions are drawn.
“Much of forensic science is dubious at best”
Yes. The most dubious parts are easily recognized as such by asking a simple question:
Does the conclusion depend overly much on interpretation by an “Expert”?
Like the Olympic games, the most controversial events are not the ones in which one team beats another with a superior score, or when one athlete wins with a superior time or crossing a finish line first.
The controversial events are the ones where a “winner” is “judged” by a panel of “Experts” whom we are assured are the fair and truthful arbiters of who really should be the Champion of the event.
Such “events” should not be part of the games, which originally were War games. There are no arbiters in War.
Likewise no expert should be permitted to opine about the validity of evidence.
Innocent or guilty? That is for the jury of peers to decide on presented evidence.