5 ms·

The sad truth is that shaken baby syndrome may simply be par for the course when it comes to modern forensic science. For various reasons, society has allocated

The sad truth is that shaken baby syndrome may simply be par for the course when it comes to modern forensic science. For various reasons, society has allocated more resources towards testing medicines for erectile dysfunction than confirming the veracity of tests used to end men's lives! My involvement with one tragic case has forever marred my perception of both law enforcement and the District Attorney's office. Before, I always believed that I would cooperate with detectives if I witnessed a crime. Now, I think I would keep my mouth shut, because there's too much risk of an idiotic prosecutor charging you for saying absolutely nothing. At best, your reputation is ruined; at worst, you spend the rest of your life in prison. Welcome to America.

wmeredith 11y ago
I agree. Forensic "science" is a load of horsehit much more concerned with conviction rates than truth.
rayiner 11y ago
The "welcome to America" bit is gratuitous. What do they do in other countries when they find a baby with "brain swelling, bleeding on the surface of the brain and bleeding behind the eyes?" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1382290/At-half-parents-tried-shaken-baby-syndrome-wrongly-convicted-expert-warns.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1382290/At-half-pa... Forensic "science" is definitely horseshit though. The National Academy of Sciences took a look at the field a few years ago and released a report: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf. If you look past the diplomacy, what you see is barely-concealed horror and the conclusion that basically only DNA testing is at all "scientific."
- throwaway1967 11y ago
  Not even DNA is safe from lies: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo... > Forensic "science" is definitely horseshit though. Of course it is! Any adjectivized Science shall be horse shit. There's only one Science, the one individuals can try and reproduce the findings of others. Forensic Science, also known as "Good enough for the courts' interests". EDIT: rayiner: > How are lay judges going to go and make the determination of when a seemingly legitimate "science" is legitimate enough for admissibility in court? Shouldn't they have thought of that before they created the Courts and named themselves Judges? How did that happen and no one asked themselves "but what if we're not experts in a scientific specialty and the decision requires knowing that field?" It's kind of late to ask this question now. Goes to show what a sham this circus really is, that they don't have a method to cope with a daily occurrence.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    That's visual hair comparison, not DNA analysis from hair follicles. It's a hard problem for the courts to tackle. How are lay judges going to go and make the determination of when a seemingly legitimate "science" is legitimate enough for admissibility in court? Reputable universities give out degrees in forensic science. Ultimately they're the root cause of this mess. IMHO higher education has a social obligation to curate these disciplines.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Shouldn't they have thought of that before they created the Courts and named themselves Judges? Well, (a) that's not how it happened (judges didn't create the courts, and judges don't name themselves judges), and (b) they do have a method for dealing with matters requiring expertise. Now, its a mechanism that is highly susceptible to resource imbalances between the litigating parties (in which respect it is hardly unique -- lots of things in the legal system are susceptible to that), and its one that has been very effectively abused in the case of forensic (particularly, e.g., fiber analysis) science by the biggest-resource litigant around, the government. But its not a question that has been ignored and not addressed.
gosub 11y ago
don't talk to police https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
- ScottBurson 11y ago
  It's been some time since I watched that video, but my recollection is that it deals entirely with situations where you know you are a suspect, or at least think you could be. I don't recall it addressing situations where you witnessed a crime in which you had no involvement, and therefore it doesn't even occur to you that you might be a suspect.
  - marssaxman 11y ago
    Since you cannot know in advance whether you are a suspect, the idea is that in order to be safe one must assume that the police always consider you to be a suspect and limit your interactions with them accordingly.
gmarx 11y ago
I was doing a medical examiner rotation in the early 1990s and a woman (not a pathologist, some kind of advocate) gave a presentation in which she asserted that this set of findings is always shaken baby. At the time it struck me, how could you possibly no that when it is impossible to test your conclusion against the facts in almost all cases. Pretty much every discussion of forensic science ignores that. It's pretty scary. Instead of scientific rigor you accept the expert who states her opinion most emphatically. Why did they never cross examine about sources and methodology? Is it not allowed?

wmeredith 11y ago

I agree. Forensic "science" is a load of horsehit much more concerned with conviction rates than truth.

rayiner 11y ago

The "welcome to America" bit is gratuitous. What do they do in other countries when they find a baby with "brain swelling, bleeding on the surface of the brain and bleeding behind the eyes?" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1382290/At-half-parents-tried-shaken-baby-syndrome-wrongly-convicted-expert-warns.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1382290/At-half-pa... Forensic "science" is definitely horseshit though. The National Academy of Sciences took a look at the field a few years ago and released a report: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf. If you look past the diplomacy, what you see is barely-concealed horror and the conclusion that basically only DNA testing is at all "scientific."

throwaway1967 11y ago
Not even DNA is safe from lies: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo... > Forensic "science" is definitely horseshit though. Of course it is! Any adjectivized Science shall be horse shit. There's only one Science, the one individuals can try and reproduce the findings of others. Forensic Science, also known as "Good enough for the courts' interests". EDIT: rayiner: > How are lay judges going to go and make the determination of when a seemingly legitimate "science" is legitimate enough for admissibility in court? Shouldn't they have thought of that before they created the Courts and named themselves Judges? How did that happen and no one asked themselves "but what if we're not experts in a scientific specialty and the decision requires knowing that field?" It's kind of late to ask this question now. Goes to show what a sham this circus really is, that they don't have a method to cope with a daily occurrence.
- rayiner 11y ago
  That's visual hair comparison, not DNA analysis from hair follicles. It's a hard problem for the courts to tackle. How are lay judges going to go and make the determination of when a seemingly legitimate "science" is legitimate enough for admissibility in court? Reputable universities give out degrees in forensic science. Ultimately they're the root cause of this mess. IMHO higher education has a social obligation to curate these disciplines.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Shouldn't they have thought of that before they created the Courts and named themselves Judges? Well, (a) that's not how it happened (judges didn't create the courts, and judges don't name themselves judges), and (b) they do have a method for dealing with matters requiring expertise. Now, its a mechanism that is highly susceptible to resource imbalances between the litigating parties (in which respect it is hardly unique -- lots of things in the legal system are susceptible to that), and its one that has been very effectively abused in the case of forensic (particularly, e.g., fiber analysis) science by the biggest-resource litigant around, the government. But its not a question that has been ignored and not addressed.

gosub 11y ago

don't talk to police https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

ScottBurson 11y ago
It's been some time since I watched that video, but my recollection is that it deals entirely with situations where you know you are a suspect, or at least think you could be. I don't recall it addressing situations where you witnessed a crime in which you had no involvement, and therefore it doesn't even occur to you that you might be a suspect.
- marssaxman 11y ago
  Since you cannot know in advance whether you are a suspect, the idea is that in order to be safe one must assume that the police always consider you to be a suspect and limit your interactions with them accordingly.

gmarx 11y ago

I was doing a medical examiner rotation in the early 1990s and a woman (not a pathologist, some kind of advocate) gave a presentation in which she asserted that this set of findings is always shaken baby. At the time it struck me, how could you possibly no that when it is impossible to test your conclusion against the facts in almost all cases. Pretty much every discussion of forensic science ignores that. It's pretty scary. Instead of scientific rigor you accept the expert who states her opinion most emphatically. Why did they never cross examine about sources and methodology? Is it not allowed?