5 ms·

Forensics Myths Debunked - The Truth Behind Real CSI Evidence

23 points by mixmax 17y ago

joe_the_user 17y ago
I hope this is eye-opening... It should be noted that a lot of medical practices - as opposed to biological discoveries - rest on no more real science than this...
- rms 17y ago
  Which medical practices?
JacobAldridge 17y ago
I agree with the purpose and discussion of this article. But I find it funny that, to help support its argument that forensic methods lack sizeable scientific support, it uses 2 wrong-conviction examples and an experiment with only 6 fingerprint examiners. That's the difference between the media and science, I suppose. And it is a difference that needs to be clearer in the courtroom.
vaksel 17y ago
polygraphs are also pretty useless when it comes to catching who is lying
- Oompa 17y ago
  So very true. Polygraphs measure physical reactions that can be easily controlled, and misconstrued. Many people will react in such a way that could be read as a lie by simply being shocked or embarrassed in the question asked. Not to mention being nervous can give many of the reactions too. The results of polygraph testing aren't even admissible in many courts, and the National Academy of Sciences found that they're unreliable, unscientific, and biased. Despite all this, so many people think they're still a bullet proof method of lie detection. I have heard of a many people who have had false positives on polygraph tests, and have had their life ruined because of it.
  - blasdel 17y ago
    There are only a few US government agencies that use polygraphs: the CIA, NSA, et. al. If you got a false positive you'd be a nervous ninny, and a false negative would mean that you're at least somewhat competent. For them, it's a win/win.
    - rdtsc 17y ago
      The worst part about the polygraph (besides the fact that it is pseudo-science, they migth as well be using voodoo dolls), is that it punishes those who are honest and rewards good liars. Over the years, they eventually they end up with a bunch of lying sociopaths.
derefr 17y ago
So, are they systematically working through old forensically-based cases that have DNA-positive samples available to check if they screwed any other ones up, or is this all on the shoulders of the convicted?
- rms 17y ago
  Not really. It's basically on these guys. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project

23 points by mixmax 17y ago

I hope this is eye-opening... It should be noted that a lot of medical practices - as opposed to biological discoveries - rest on no more real science than this...

rms 17y ago
Which medical practices?

JacobAldridge 17y ago

I agree with the purpose and discussion of this article. But I find it funny that, to help support its argument that forensic methods lack sizeable scientific support, it uses 2 wrong-conviction examples and an experiment with only 6 fingerprint examiners. That's the difference between the media and science, I suppose. And it is a difference that needs to be clearer in the courtroom.

vaksel 17y ago

polygraphs are also pretty useless when it comes to catching who is lying

Oompa 17y ago
So very true. Polygraphs measure physical reactions that can be easily controlled, and misconstrued. Many people will react in such a way that could be read as a lie by simply being shocked or embarrassed in the question asked. Not to mention being nervous can give many of the reactions too. The results of polygraph testing aren't even admissible in many courts, and the National Academy of Sciences found that they're unreliable, unscientific, and biased. Despite all this, so many people think they're still a bullet proof method of lie detection. I have heard of a many people who have had false positives on polygraph tests, and have had their life ruined because of it.
- blasdel 17y ago
  There are only a few US government agencies that use polygraphs: the CIA, NSA, et. al. If you got a false positive you'd be a nervous ninny, and a false negative would mean that you're at least somewhat competent. For them, it's a win/win.
  - rdtsc 17y ago
    The worst part about the polygraph (besides the fact that it is pseudo-science, they migth as well be using voodoo dolls), is that it punishes those who are honest and rewards good liars. Over the years, they eventually they end up with a bunch of lying sociopaths.

derefr 17y ago

So, are they systematically working through old forensically-based cases that have DNA-positive samples available to check if they screwed any other ones up, or is this all on the shoulders of the convicted?

rms 17y ago
Not really. It's basically on these guys. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project