5 ms·

I remember the report absolutely demolishing the veracity of most forensic practices coming out, but has the field changed at all since then? Are hair samples a

I remember the report absolutely demolishing the veracity of most forensic practices coming out, but has the field changed at all since then? Are hair samples and such still commonly used as evidence? My cynical side worries it's only gotten worse, as CSI made the job "sexy" attracting a pool of people that would not be overly concerned with the science part of forensics in the first place.

tus666 5y ago
> but has the field changed at all since then? Are hair samples and such still commonly used as evidence? They switched to partial-DNA "matches". Nothing has changed.
tomnipotent 5y ago
> as CSI made the job "sexy" attracting a pool Not all science is equal, and it's a doubled-edge sword. I think the fault is more in human nature. On one hand, we have science that lets us land probes on asteroids and return home with samples, or deploy a terrestrial vehicle on Mars capable of launching a smaller aerial probe... powered by radiation from a burning sphere of gas. On the other, we have forensic science. Same level of confidence, very different results. Who's to blame? The jurors ignorant of the science behind the evidence that influenced their decisions? The judges and lawyers equally so? The labs and employees perpetuating bad science, or the schools that taught them? The police that collect and document it?
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  >Who's to blame? The FBI who falsified the accuracy of so many forensic sciences for a start. The prosecutorial side has a strong interest towards exploiting "science" for their gain, we know they are doing it and we need to counteract it.
  - tomnipotent 5y ago
    > The FBI who falsified the accuracy The article didn't make it seem like there was actual fraud, just bad science being followed blindly. I had to find the original FBI announcement to understand it was indeed intentional fraud by individual FBI examiners misrepresenting bad science. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-testimony-on-microscopic-hair-analysis-contained-errors-in-at-least-90-percent-of-cases-in-ongoing-review https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-testimo...
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      The article starts with >When Dr. Frederic Whitehurst initially blew the whistle on the systemic forensic fraud in the FBI crime lab... And then proceeds to discuss the fraud in no ambiguous terms.
    - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
      I think you need to check your reading comprehension or just re-read the article > It was “alterations of reports, alterations of evidence
- watwut 5y ago
  > The jurors ignorant of the science behind the evidence that influenced their decisions? Isnt the whole point of jurors being ordinary person from the streets with no special knowledge making decisions purely going by what was said in courtroom? If you tell them "this guy is great expert" and then that guy dont get meaningfully challenged, you dont get to blame jury who went by what they have been said. > The judges and lawyers equally so? The labs and employees perpetuating bad science, or the schools that taught them? The police that collect and document it? Yeah, these. The judges, lawyers, prosecutors and the police who are the actually the ones who decide which lab is going to be used often and which not. Which person is going to be treated in courtroom as expert in front of jury, regardless of actual knowledge and which is not even going to be asked to be there. It is not that deep.
  - tomnipotent 5y ago
    > The judges, lawyers, prosecutors and the police I agree wholeheartedly, but the world seems to have a problem holding government employees responsible for their actions. Ended up on Wikipedia reading about the history of jury trials, and found this lovely snippet: One issue that has been raised is the ability of a jury to fully understand evidence. It has been said that the expectation of jury members as to the explanatory power of scientific evidence has been raised by TV police procedural and legal dramas, in what is known as the 'CSI effect'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial
    - watwut 5y ago
      Afaik, jury is answering series of specific questions in a process controlled by layers. So you have tidbits like jury not being able to take own notes, because rules says so. That is real world example. The quote you have there is complaint about jury expecting too convincing evidence. And the real world issue is them falling for real evidence. The issue here is with "experts" saying non scientific crap in courtrooms and juries being told this is science. Experts who have little to no scientific training, little to no checking done over methods they use and so on.
  - pmichaud 5y ago
bitcharmer 5y ago
Sadly it's very bad still. Judges admitting blood splatter "study" as hard evidence, bite marks regarded as science and also employing people who have zero actual expertise or scientific background required, as domain experts.
giantg2 5y ago
I think they still can use hair and fiber. I think it's less common due to it being less valuable to the prosecution (rightfully so). If I remember correctly, the big problem was that the experts were saying things like "This matches" or "It's my professional opinion that this is the defendant's hair", etc. Or just making blatant errors like identifying pet hair as human. They can really only say if the hair rules a person in or out of the potential suspect pool at a gross level (more or less on the level of hair color) - more useful for the defense if the comparison is inconsistent, and very little use to the prosecution. At least this is what I remember from the articles, but maybe my memory isn't accurate.
axiolite 5y ago
As it happens this was the most recent topic on Skeptoid: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4821 https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4821

tus666 5y ago

> but has the field changed at all since then? Are hair samples and such still commonly used as evidence? They switched to partial-DNA "matches". Nothing has changed.

tomnipotent 5y ago

> as CSI made the job "sexy" attracting a pool Not all science is equal, and it's a doubled-edge sword. I think the fault is more in human nature. On one hand, we have science that lets us land probes on asteroids and return home with samples, or deploy a terrestrial vehicle on Mars capable of launching a smaller aerial probe... powered by radiation from a burning sphere of gas. On the other, we have forensic science. Same level of confidence, very different results. Who's to blame? The jurors ignorant of the science behind the evidence that influenced their decisions? The judges and lawyers equally so? The labs and employees perpetuating bad science, or the schools that taught them? The police that collect and document it?

boomboomsubban 5y ago
>Who's to blame? The FBI who falsified the accuracy of so many forensic sciences for a start. The prosecutorial side has a strong interest towards exploiting "science" for their gain, we know they are doing it and we need to counteract it.
- tomnipotent 5y ago
  > The FBI who falsified the accuracy The article didn't make it seem like there was actual fraud, just bad science being followed blindly. I had to find the original FBI announcement to understand it was indeed intentional fraud by individual FBI examiners misrepresenting bad science. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-testimony-on-microscopic-hair-analysis-contained-errors-in-at-least-90-percent-of-cases-in-ongoing-review https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-testimo...
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    The article starts with >When Dr. Frederic Whitehurst initially blew the whistle on the systemic forensic fraud in the FBI crime lab... And then proceeds to discuss the fraud in no ambiguous terms.
  - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
    I think you need to check your reading comprehension or just re-read the article > It was “alterations of reports, alterations of evidence
watwut 5y ago
> The jurors ignorant of the science behind the evidence that influenced their decisions? Isnt the whole point of jurors being ordinary person from the streets with no special knowledge making decisions purely going by what was said in courtroom? If you tell them "this guy is great expert" and then that guy dont get meaningfully challenged, you dont get to blame jury who went by what they have been said. > The judges and lawyers equally so? The labs and employees perpetuating bad science, or the schools that taught them? The police that collect and document it? Yeah, these. The judges, lawyers, prosecutors and the police who are the actually the ones who decide which lab is going to be used often and which not. Which person is going to be treated in courtroom as expert in front of jury, regardless of actual knowledge and which is not even going to be asked to be there. It is not that deep.
- tomnipotent 5y ago
  > The judges, lawyers, prosecutors and the police I agree wholeheartedly, but the world seems to have a problem holding government employees responsible for their actions. Ended up on Wikipedia reading about the history of jury trials, and found this lovely snippet: One issue that has been raised is the ability of a jury to fully understand evidence. It has been said that the expectation of jury members as to the explanatory power of scientific evidence has been raised by TV police procedural and legal dramas, in what is known as the 'CSI effect'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial
  - watwut 5y ago
    Afaik, jury is answering series of specific questions in a process controlled by layers. So you have tidbits like jury not being able to take own notes, because rules says so. That is real world example. The quote you have there is complaint about jury expecting too convincing evidence. And the real world issue is them falling for real evidence. The issue here is with "experts" saying non scientific crap in courtrooms and juries being told this is science. Experts who have little to no scientific training, little to no checking done over methods they use and so on.
- pmichaud 5y ago

bitcharmer 5y ago

Sadly it's very bad still. Judges admitting blood splatter "study" as hard evidence, bite marks regarded as science and also employing people who have zero actual expertise or scientific background required, as domain experts.

giantg2 5y ago

I think they still can use hair and fiber. I think it's less common due to it being less valuable to the prosecution (rightfully so). If I remember correctly, the big problem was that the experts were saying things like "This matches" or "It's my professional opinion that this is the defendant's hair", etc. Or just making blatant errors like identifying pet hair as human. They can really only say if the hair rules a person in or out of the potential suspect pool at a gross level (more or less on the level of hair color) - more useful for the defense if the comparison is inconsistent, and very little use to the prosecution. At least this is what I remember from the articles, but maybe my memory isn't accurate.

axiolite 5y ago

As it happens this was the most recent topic on Skeptoid: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4821 https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4821