3 ms·
Reminds me of the cases which were "proven" with DNA evidence of the suspect's hairs, which often wasn't just a clear mismatch but sometimes not even human hair
by alpaca128 5y ago
Reminds me of the cases which were "proven" with DNA evidence of the suspect's hairs, which often wasn't just a clear mismatch but sometimes not even human hair. But those revelations only came years or decades later.
- Turing_Machine 5y agoYes, or the one where the DNA "expert" testified that the odds were "millions to one" against a false match. Except that the (accused, but innocent) "perpetrator" was a member of (ethnic group), as was the actual perpetrator, and it turned out that a high percentage of members of (ethnic group) exhibited this allegedly rare DNA feature.
- xyzzyz 5y agoIt was actually worse than that. A lot of hair-based evidence wasn't even based on DNA, as there was no technology to sequence it at the time. It was from "experts" looking at hairs under microscope, comparing the "types" and "features", and seeing if they "match", according to their expert understanding. Suffice to say, their accuracy had zero nines at the front.
- dukeofdoom 5y agoReminds me of Doctor Tobin, ruling out fentynal, and saying that smoking isn't bad for you. Based on what science? My guess you can find an expert to say anything if it benefits them or their career. Lots of bullshit artists around.