2 ms·
It may very well be the case that a version of fire analysis that is scientifically rigorous can be done, but this would have nothing to do with how it is typic
by emodendroket 5y ago
It may very well be the case that a version of fire analysis that is scientifically rigorous can be done, but this would have nothing to do with how it is typically practiced.
- colejohnson66 5y agoWhich is what @giantg2 said: > The science is generally sound (procedures and theory). Usually it's the prosecutors that present the forensics in a way that misrepresents what the results actually mean. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28265884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28265884
- emodendroket 5y agoThat’s not the same claim. The practitioners who come up with the results are not operating in a scientifically sound or rigorous way. One documentary I watched about a wrongful murder conviction (a man was found to have burned down his house to kill his entire family) had a discussion of how the fire investigators would talk about “feeling the beast” and other nonsense. It is very flattering to describe this as in any way “evidence-based.”