6 ms·
The amount of junk science we allow in American court rooms is truly alarming. I wish more people knew about the case you're reference. Here's an excellent ar
by nostromo 10y ago
The amount of junk science we allow in American court rooms is truly alarming.
I wish more people knew about the case you're reference. Here's an excellent article:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire
And here's a good description about how it's quite common for a "fire expert" (which may simply be a normal firefighter) to misclassify an accidental fire as arson, implicating innocent survivors as murderers:
https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/fire-investigation/ https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/fire-i...
- mc32 10y agoThere was another one in TX where a father was jailed for arson/murder? thinking he intentionally set the fire which killed his sons, I think, eventually new science cast doubts on the conviction. In the second revisit of the case it seemed the children had been playing with incendiary devices and accidentally set fire to a shed they were playing in. Most of the evidence against the father was circumstantial and inferential (divorce? time he arrived home, etc.) Not sure if he was set free, but scary anyway.
- thechao 10y agoHe was innocent & executed.
- wnevets 10y agosounds like texas alright
- mc32 10y agoDo you recall the case? I think it's one of the seminal cases that cast grave doubts on the accuracy of fire science as then and currently understood.
- forgetsusername 10y ago>Do you recall the case? PBS to the rescue: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/death-by-fire/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/death-by-fire/
- mc32 10y agoSimilar, but the case I recall was this one about mr Graf: https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2015/08/20/modern-forensics-vs-good-old-fashioned-texas-justice-the-trials-of-ed-graf/ https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2015/08/20/modern-forens... He's not the most sympathetic guy, given his peccadilloes, but the case was mostly circumstantial with some junk science thrown in for good measure. However, the overturning of his conviction was due to the injustice carried out on mr Willingham and the exposition of the junk science behind it. The overturning of mr Graf's conviction was the first one based on what was learned from the Willingham case.
- finid 10y agoI was aware of that case when it was unfolding, but did not follow it until the end. Surprised that they convicted and executed the guy. Sad case, but how many of those have taken place in Texas, or in the US as a whole?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- zaroth 10y agoIt's actually discussed in TFA.
- zeveb 10y agoHe was executed. His innocence has not been established but — based on what I've read — I suspect that he was, in fact, innocent.
- mikestew 10y agoOr to put it more appropriately, you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt?
- zeveb 10y agoTrue. I wasn't on his jury, though, so my opinion isn't legally relevant. If he were indeed innocent, then the Texas state justice system needs to do some long hard thinking about how he was indicted, convicted and executed.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- yuhong 10y agoI also have been thinking of other examples. Imagine someone sued a vaccine manufacturer claiming that the vaccine cause autism. Imagine also that years later it turns out that vaccines can "cause" autism, but only in case of things like leaky gut. Was the court and legal system designed for cases like this?
- ceejayoz 10y ago> Was the court and legal system designed for cases like this? Yes. There's even a law that sets up a specific court with special expertise and powers in vaccine cases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court
- yuhong 10y agoVaccines was used just as an example.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoAnd it got an answering example.
- yuhong 10y agoThe point is that the problem is likely more general.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoYeah, I got that you meant to be saying that. But you gave a specific instance, and in that specific instance, the problem didn't exist. So: Could you give, say, ten more instances, and see in how many of them the problem exists? That way, we can all get some idea of how general the problem is. But if you merely claim that "the problem is likely more general", with nothing behind that but your belief that your statement is probably true, well, don't expect to persuade many people that way...
- wahsd 10y agoThe amount of junk science we all in all facets of our lives is truly alarming. I know this will sounds like heresy, but this also applies to the whole "global warming" alarmism. I am not saying it's not happening, it's just that there are also serious questions not only about the actual underling scientific methods and results, but also the larger issue of whether the outcomes are conclusive in their interpretation. The whole conversation of global warming, along with so many other conversations, is so besmirched and defiled and polluted with junk science and feelings and emotions that it makes your head buzz as someone that is reasonable and level headed. As much as I want to believe in science as much as the next person, the fact act we don't properly practice it and by qualified and authoritative people, but instead rely on a kind of quantitive science of low quality just makes things worse in the end. It's almost as if we simply have too much "science" that any good science just gets drowned out and never recognize in the pile of junk science.
- pjc50 10y agoSee also https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/fbi-jail-hair-mass-disaster-false-conviction https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/fbi-jail-hai... One woman falsified 34,000 drug tests: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/14/174269211/mass-crime-lab-scandal-reverberates-across-state http://www.npr.org/2013/03/14/174269211/mass-crime-lab-scand...