Comments on: Why forensic science is failing us — and why tonight's NOVA documentary doesn't quite cut it http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Sat, 25 May 2013 01:57:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Zaccary Ashby Abell http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1561747 Zaccary Ashby Abell Sun, 21 Oct 2012 06:29:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1561747 The forensics is fine. its just the interpretation of the forensics is often wrong. The forensics is fine. its just the interpretation of the forensics is often wrong.

]]> By: Tom_Bombadil http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1561619 Tom_Bombadil Sat, 20 Oct 2012 23:16:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1561619 Forensics Malfeasance and Forensic Errors are too common: http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/search/label/Forensic%20Errors http://lawarchive.hofstra.edu/pdf/lrv_issues_v34n01_i01.pdf http://hpdlabinvestigation.org/ Forensics Malfeasance and Forensic Errors are too common:

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/search/label/Forensic%20Errors
http://lawarchive.hofstra.edu/pdf/lrv_issues_v34n01_i01.pdf
http://hpdlabinvestigation.org/

]]> By: Ben Santos http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1560017 Ben Santos Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:32:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1560017 Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t already did an episode on faulty forensics. Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t already did an episode on faulty forensics.

]]> By: donniebnyc http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1559673 donniebnyc Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:53:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1559673 You grammar was not poor.  The word "and" separates the phrase "people behind bars" from the phrase "criminals on the loose," therefore the parenthetical "(or worse)" is obviously a modifier of the phrase "people behind bars."  I would argue that the parentheses are unnecessary but not strictly incorrect.  The misunderstanding here was the fault of the reader, not the writer.  Let this be a lesson to those who feel threatened by those of us who know how to write (and read) correctly and dare to correct those who cannot.  We are not "grammar nazis."  We are caretakers of language precision.  Precise use of language is not about form or adhering to rules for their own sake.  It is about clear communication, saying what you mean, having it understood as such and, most importantly, preserving our freedom.  This is not hyperbole. It should be obvious in this election season that language can be used as a weapon.  It can be used to manipulate and control.  Only by being aware of how language is properly used can we be aware when it is being purposely misused. You grammar was not poor.  The word “and” separates the phrase “people behind bars” from the phrase “criminals on the loose,” therefore the parenthetical “(or worse)” is obviously a modifier of the phrase “people behind bars.”  I would argue that the parentheses are unnecessary but not strictly incorrect.  The misunderstanding here was the fault of the reader, not the writer. 

Let this be a lesson to those who feel threatened by those of us who know how to write (and read) correctly and dare to correct those who cannot.  We are not “grammar nazis.”  We are caretakers of language precision.  Precise use of language is not about form or adhering to rules for their own sake.  It is about clear communication, saying what you mean, having it understood as such and, most importantly, preserving our freedom. 

This is not hyperbole. It should be obvious in this election season that language can be used as a weapon.  It can be used to manipulate and control.  Only by being aware of how language is properly used can we be aware when it is being purposely misused.

]]> By: elusis http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1559614 elusis Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:19:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1559614  I get the point of the comment.  What I don't get is the phenomenon.  If violent crime is down, shouldn't attention be paid to the lower-level (yet still FELONY) crimes perpetrated by habitual criminals?  If someone had walked into any of the burgled garages while the crime was in progress, were the guys carrying weapons, would there have been an assault or murder?  Thank goodness the dude who walked in our back door wasn't carrying a stolen gun when our roommate confronted him or when he walked in on a lady down the block who got the cops there in time to arrest him.  Because they didn't take any forensic evidence from my room, they had to rely on my roommate to pick him out of a lineup (the LEAST reputable of all evidence, as the program above pointed out I believe), which not only wasted a bunch of my roommate's time but also gave the defense wiggle room to bargain for all the charges other than the one where he was caught on the property to be thrown out because "there isn't any hard evidence proving he's the one who was there." "Broken Windows" style policing has its problems but it also has positive results, and when you take repetitive career criminals off the streets, you reduce crime by a lot more than just randomly grabbing the low-hanging fruits who are dumb enough to get caught in flagrante.  The judicial system can do nothing without evidence, and if police refuse to even collect evidence, there is no way of saying "actually, Your Honor, this defendant is linked not only to this garage break-in, but to 15 others in the same area over the past year, so no, we don't think he should get (bail, probation, a slap on the wrist, community service, etc.)"  I get the point of the comment.  What I don’t get is the phenomenon.  If violent crime is down, shouldn’t attention be paid to the lower-level (yet still FELONY) crimes perpetrated by habitual criminals?  If someone had walked into any of the burgled garages while the crime was in progress, were the guys carrying weapons, would there have been an assault or murder?  Thank goodness the dude who walked in our back door wasn’t carrying a stolen gun when our roommate confronted him or when he walked in on a lady down the block who got the cops there in time to arrest him.  Because they didn’t take any forensic evidence from my room, they had to rely on my roommate to pick him out of a lineup (the LEAST reputable of all evidence, as the program above pointed out I believe), which not only wasted a bunch of my roommate’s time but also gave the defense wiggle room to bargain for all the charges other than the one where he was caught on the property to be thrown out because “there isn’t any hard evidence proving he’s the one who was there.”

“Broken Windows” style policing has its problems but it also has positive results, and when you take repetitive career criminals off the streets, you reduce crime by a lot more than just randomly grabbing the low-hanging fruits who are dumb enough to get caught in flagrante.  The judicial system can do nothing without evidence, and if police refuse to even collect evidence, there is no way of saying “actually, Your Honor, this defendant is linked not only to this garage break-in, but to 15 others in the same area over the past year, so no, we don’t think he should get (bail, probation, a slap on the wrist, community service, etc.)”

]]> By: wysinwyg http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1559251 wysinwyg Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:09:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1559251  Do you remember where you read about it?  I'd be curious to see the details given Jonny Sokal's response.  Do you remember where you read about it?  I’d be curious to see the details given Jonny Sokal’s response.

]]> By: wysinwyg http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1559250 wysinwyg Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:06:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1559250 <blockquote>However, because there are no numbers associated with the determinations of latent print examiners, it becomes "unscientific." </blockquote>Despite the scare quotes, this seems to me like it actually is a serious problem.  You can't fix a probability that a print belongs to a particular person without some numbers and if you can't give a confidence interval then it really <em>isn't</em> scientific. The OP points out that at least 20 different people matched the print from the Madrid bombing; it also mentions that some people were <em>better</em> matches than others.  This all implies that a certain amount of quantification is possible and that identification on the basis of fingerprints really should have a confidence interval attached based on how many people in a given geographical area might be a better match than the suspect. So why aren't there any numbers associated with the determinations of latent print examiners?

However, because there are no numbers associated with the determinations of latent print examiners, it becomes “unscientific.”

Despite the scare quotes, this seems to me like it actually is a serious problem.  You can’t fix a probability that a print belongs to a particular person without some numbers and if you can’t give a confidence interval then it really isn’t scientific.

The OP points out that at least 20 different people matched the print from the Madrid bombing; it also mentions that some people were better matches than others.  This all implies that a certain amount of quantification is possible and that identification on the basis of fingerprints really should have a confidence interval attached based on how many people in a given geographical area might be a better match than the suspect.

So why aren’t there any numbers associated with the determinations of latent print examiners?

]]> By: OoerictoO http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1559246 OoerictoO Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:43:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1559246  the cops interacting with witnesses part is illegal... agree on your first point, for federal cases.  the cops interacting with witnesses part is illegal…
agree on your first point, for federal cases.

]]> By: OoerictoO http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1559245 OoerictoO Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:42:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1559245  i think you miss the point of the comment to which you replied, entirely.  There are no resources to prosecute, let alone investigate these (literally) petty crimes you are describing.  I feel for your losing your stuff and feeling unsafe (my car got broken into last month, right in my driveway), but i still don't think we should dedicate much funding to these types of things.  classical methods work, and crime is at an all time low, in most cases, particularly violent crime. There is interest in punishing habitual perpetrators.  it's called the judicial system.  i think you miss the point of the comment to which you replied, entirely.  There are no resources to prosecute, let alone investigate these (literally) petty crimes you are describing.  I feel for your losing your stuff and feeling unsafe (my car got broken into last month, right in my driveway), but i still don’t think we should dedicate much funding to these types of things.  classical methods work, and crime is at an all time low, in most cases, particularly violent crime.
There is interest in punishing habitual perpetrators.  it’s called the judicial system.

]]> By: Cocomaan http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1559200 Cocomaan Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:02:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1559200 In terms of the US' incarceration rate, we're rivaled only by the Soviet Union in its darkest days. That's not a matter of imperfection, that's a social cancer with no end in sight.  In terms of the US’ incarceration rate, we’re rivaled only by the Soviet Union in its darkest days. That’s not a matter of imperfection, that’s a social cancer with no end in sight. 

]]> By: Jonny Sokal http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1559193 Jonny Sokal Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:20:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1559193 I am not aware of the case that you refer to however what you state is simply not possible as you have described it. If the crime scene DNA was profile originated from a single individual it either matches the suspect or it does not (allowing for the statistical possibility that two unrelated individuals share the same DNA profile), it could not match 4 different individuals. However, if the profile from the crime scene was a mixture of more than one individual then it is quite possible that profiles from suspects cannot be eliminated as being a contributor to that mixture. The more contributors there are to a mixture, the higher the probability of the components of an individual's profile appearing in that mixture. I strongly suspect this is the scenario that you mentioned. Imagine a mixture of all of the digits from 4 or 5 people's phone numbers, it is quite likely thast you could pull the digits of your own phone number out of that mixture, even though your own number never went in to the bag in the first instance. There is a huge difference between reporting a match and stating that an individual's profile cannot be eliminated as a possible contributor to a mixture. I am not aware of the case that you refer to however what you state is simply not possible as you have described it. If the crime scene DNA was profile originated from a single individual it either matches the suspect or it does not (allowing for the statistical possibility that two unrelated individuals share the same DNA profile), it could not match 4 different individuals. However, if the profile from the crime scene was a mixture of more than one individual then it is quite possible that profiles from suspects cannot be eliminated as being a contributor to that mixture. The more contributors there are to a mixture, the higher the probability of the components of an individual’s profile appearing in that mixture. I strongly suspect this is the scenario that you mentioned. Imagine a mixture of all of the digits from 4 or 5 people’s phone numbers, it is quite likely thast you could pull the digits of your own phone number out of that mixture, even though your own number never went in to the bag in the first instance. There is a huge difference between reporting a match and stating that an individual’s profile cannot be eliminated as a possible contributor to a mixture.

]]> By: spotty1008 http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1559163 spotty1008 Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:52:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1559163 judging from the comments I guess the question should better be about the state of forensic science in the US rather than in general. I work in the forensic field in germany and at least over here a lot of double blind testing has been implemented. for example in DNA testing there is never a full name, just a code, given and the status (accused, victim,...) is never revealed to the examiner. when police want to generate a table of pictures, the computer will generate from files a random list of people that have a lot of features in common. sure, there are flaws. but you must not forget that a) forensics in the field is never "lab environment", samples are almost never pure, tissue mostly in bad shape and so on. b) judges will evaluate the strength of the argument, even more so if long term jail or death penalty are at stake c) do not confuse conviction with accusation. often forensic science is used to narrow down suspects after which witnesses, money transfers, motive, alibi and a good interrogation follows - and possibly conviction. those cases are the most powerful in underlining the methods themselves - if a bullet independently provides evidence for being fired from a glock and you later find out a suspect owns a glock, that is a very strong argument. every arguments following this argument usually separate the professional forensic people from "tv audience". judging from the comments I guess the question should better be about the state of forensic science in the US rather than in general. I work in the forensic field in germany and at least over here a lot of double blind testing has been implemented. for example in DNA testing there is never a full name, just a code, given and the status (accused, victim,…) is never revealed to the examiner. when police want to generate a table of pictures, the computer will generate from files a random list of people that have a lot of features in common. sure, there are flaws. but you must not forget that a) forensics in the field is never “lab environment”, samples are almost never pure, tissue mostly in bad shape and so on. b) judges will evaluate the strength of the argument, even more so if long term jail or death penalty are at stake c) do not confuse conviction with accusation. often forensic science is used to narrow down suspects after which witnesses, money transfers, motive, alibi and a good interrogation follows – and possibly conviction. those cases are the most powerful in underlining the methods themselves – if a bullet independently provides evidence for being fired from a glock and you later find out a suspect owns a glock, that is a very strong argument. every arguments following this argument usually separate the professional forensic people from “tv audience”.

]]> By: elusis http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1559117 elusis Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:00:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1559117  I know, cop shows make it worse, and yet... ... we had a guy walk in the back door of our house, toss our entire basement (including my room), and then run when he came upstairs and my roommate confronted him.  He touched all kinds of stuff in my bedroom but they didn't take any prints.  Fortunately he pulled the same thing elsewhere within the day and they caught him, but it turned out he had a long record.  Why didn't they take any prints before he was caught?  Was there no interest in charging someone who was wildly breaking his parole with a new offense and taking someone off the streets? ... at another place, we had several break-ins to the building's "secure" garage and several cars including mine.  The second time, they swiped a 12-pack of soda in my trunk (the only thing of value in the car) and drank one, then threw the empty in the back seat.  DNA and fingerprint gold mine.  Forensics was never sent.  Thieves were never caught and continued to work area garages for the next couple years until they were interrupted en medias res, but of course the previous break-ins couldn't be added to their charges because... no forensics. Why is there no interest in establishing a pattern of behavior among habitual criminals, to adequately distinguish the one-offs (dumb kid choices, stupid drunk decisions, moments of desperation) from the methodical career criminals?  I know, cop shows make it worse, and yet…

… we had a guy walk in the back door of our house, toss our entire basement (including my room), and then run when he came upstairs and my roommate confronted him.  He touched all kinds of stuff in my bedroom but they didn’t take any prints.  Fortunately he pulled the same thing elsewhere within the day and they caught him, but it turned out he had a long record.  Why didn’t they take any prints before he was caught?  Was there no interest in charging someone who was wildly breaking his parole with a new offense and taking someone off the streets?

… at another place, we had several break-ins to the building’s “secure” garage and several cars including mine.  The second time, they swiped a 12-pack of soda in my trunk (the only thing of value in the car) and drank one, then threw the empty in the back seat.  DNA and fingerprint gold mine.  Forensics was never sent.  Thieves were never caught and continued to work area garages for the next couple years until they were interrupted en medias res, but of course the previous break-ins couldn’t be added to their charges because… no forensics.

Why is there no interest in establishing a pattern of behavior among habitual criminals, to adequately distinguish the one-offs (dumb kid choices, stupid drunk decisions, moments of desperation) from the methodical career criminals?

]]> By: ocker3 http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1559104 ocker3 Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:43:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1559104  Not to mention the time required to do all the tests on all of the cases.  Not to mention the time required to do all the tests on all of the cases.

]]> By: ocker3 http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1559103 ocker3 Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:41:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1559103  I Love those moments!  I Love those moments!

]]> By: ocker3 http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1559101 ocker3 Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:40:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1559101  One of the points raised by the summary  One of the points raised by the summary

]]> By: Rob Deters http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1558906 Rob Deters Wed, 17 Oct 2012 23:02:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1558906 I'm a criminal defense lawyer and I can tell you forensic science is a shabby art in almost all jurisdictions.  I worked in Chicago for years and their evidence techs were generally retired detectives collecting a second pension and barely cared about their job.  On top of that, it is absolutely the case that it is rarely used except for the times where it is used speciously. I have a very jaundiced eye towards forensic science and find that it's almost always used only when the state's case is so weak they really wouldn't be able to put a case together otherwise.   For things as simple as photo ID, it has taken years of hammering at police stations to use a non-biased interviewer to give a six photo array.  And even after the Chicago PD was convinced to do it this way, they somehow came to the conclusion that sequential, double blind ID was not better than their old ways (the line up, which is a terrible way to ID someone). http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1636&issue_id=102008 So yeah, do I buy forensic science?  Some of it.  Do I trust it?  None of it.  Look to the Supreme Court in Bullcoming for the premise that we really can't just let scientists (or cops) come in and say, "Here's our report...trust us." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullcoming_v._New_Mexico I’m a criminal defense lawyer and I can tell you forensic science is a shabby art in almost all jurisdictions.  I worked in Chicago for years and their evidence techs were generally retired detectives collecting a second pension and barely cared about their job.  On top of that, it is absolutely the case that it is rarely used except for the times where it is used speciously.

I have a very jaundiced eye towards forensic science and find that it’s almost always used only when the state’s case is so weak they really wouldn’t be able to put a case together otherwise.  

For things as simple as photo ID, it has taken years of hammering at police stations to use a non-biased interviewer to give a six photo array.  And even after the Chicago PD was convinced to do it this way, they somehow came to the conclusion that sequential, double blind ID was not better than their old ways (the line up, which is a terrible way to ID someone).

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1636&issue_id=102008

So yeah, do I buy forensic science?  Some of it.  Do I trust it?  None of it.  Look to the Supreme Court in Bullcoming for the premise that we really can’t just let scientists (or cops) come in and say, “Here’s our report…trust us.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullcoming_v._New_Mexico

]]> By: NelC http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1558898 NelC Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:49:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1558898  <i>No-one</i> has some of the equipment seen on those shows, especially the holographic displays.  No-one has some of the equipment seen on those shows, especially the holographic displays.

]]> By: Eark_the_Bunny http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1558879 Eark_the_Bunny Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:33:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1558879 Part of the problem with forensics is the fact that most law enforcement agencies cannot afford to run all these tests on every case.  So no fingerprinting of shoplifters, etc as mentioned previously.  These tests are fairly expensive and local labs do not have all the fancy, expensive test equipment you see on a CSI or NCIS shows.   Part of the problem with forensics is the fact that most law enforcement agencies cannot afford to run all these tests on every case.  So no fingerprinting of shoplifters, etc as mentioned previously.  These tests are fairly expensive and local labs do not have all the fancy, expensive test equipment you see on a CSI or NCIS shows.  

]]> By: Judas Peckerwood http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1558828 Judas Peckerwood Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:16:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1558828 Got it -- thanks for the clarification. Got it — thanks for the clarification.

]]> By: Robert Drop http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1558824 Robert Drop Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:13:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1558824 Well, there are real, demonstrable problems with DNA matching, too. http://lpr.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/3/257 Well, there are real, demonstrable problems with DNA matching, too.
http://lpr.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/3/257

]]> By: Maggie Koerth-Baker http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1558821 Maggie Koerth-Baker Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:08:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1558821 I poorly grammared or you misread or some combination thereof.  By "(or worse)", I meant that the innocent people might be executed.  I poorly grammared or you misread or some combination thereof. 

By “(or worse)”, I meant that the innocent people might be executed. 

]]> By: TheOven http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1558795 TheOven Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:43:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1558795 Couldn't all fingerprint examining take place in what you might call a 'double-blind' manner? The examiner shouldn't know anything about the owner of the prints he's trying to match to avoid these biases? Couldn’t all fingerprint examining take place in what you might call a ‘double-blind’ manner? The examiner shouldn’t know anything about the owner of the prints he’s trying to match to avoid these biases?

]]> By: Lawrence English http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1558766 Lawrence English Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:21:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1558766 I was going to post about that too. Thanks. I was going to post about that too. Thanks.

]]> By: Joshua Bardwell http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1558757 Joshua Bardwell Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:11:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1558757 It seems like blinding forensic samples would be an easy way of handling this. The main disadvantage as I see it is, for this to be worthwhile, examiners would have to be presented with significant numbers of false tests. In other words, if most tests an examiner get are from a law enforcement body that is looking for a suspect, the examiner will have reasonable belief that most samples are from suspects, and will be biased to a false positive. The way to do it would be to load the examiner up with meaningless, random tests, and only slip in a certain percentage of actual evidence. Of course, this would increase the work-load and decrease the efficiency of the examiner, and it would provide a quantitative metric of the examiner's ability to correctly analyze samples, which is why it will probably never be done. It seems like blinding forensic samples would be an easy way of handling this. The main disadvantage as I see it is, for this to be worthwhile, examiners would have to be presented with significant numbers of false tests. In other words, if most tests an examiner get are from a law enforcement body that is looking for a suspect, the examiner will have reasonable belief that most samples are from suspects, and will be biased to a false positive. The way to do it would be to load the examiner up with meaningless, random tests, and only slip in a certain percentage of actual evidence. Of course, this would increase the work-load and decrease the efficiency of the examiner, and it would provide a quantitative metric of the examiner’s ability to correctly analyze samples, which is why it will probably never be done.

]]> By: LinkMan http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1558754 LinkMan Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:07:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1558754 You know, I never thought I'd find myself linking to <a href="http://www.stlr.org/volumes/volume-vi-2004-2005/schwartz/" rel="nofollow">A Systemic Challenge to the Reliability and Admissibility of Firearms and Toolmark Identification</a>. You know, I never thought I’d find myself linking to A Systemic Challenge to the Reliability and Admissibility of Firearms and Toolmark Identification.

]]> By: Judas Peckerwood http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1558744 Judas Peckerwood Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:58:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1558744 "The state of forensic science, combined with its importance, virtually guarantees that there are innocent people behind bars (or worse) and criminals on the loose." Sorry, but wrongly convicting innocent people is FAR worse than letting guilty people get away. Not only does it undermine the entire concept of justice, it destroys the lives of real individuals and families, and often ends in murder by the state.  The widely held belief that it's acceptable to risk locking up an innocent person rather than take the chance that a guilty one might go free is the exact reason that prosecutors get away with shoddy work, dubious science and dishonest practices. “The state of forensic science, combined with its importance, virtually guarantees that there are innocent people behind bars (or worse) and criminals on the loose.”

Sorry, but wrongly convicting innocent people is FAR worse than letting guilty people get away. Not only does it undermine the entire concept of justice, it destroys the lives of real individuals and families, and often ends in murder by the state. 

The widely held belief that it’s acceptable to risk locking up an innocent person rather than take the chance that a guilty one might go free is the exact reason that prosecutors get away with shoddy work, dubious science and dishonest practices.

]]> By: Robert Drop http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1558724 Robert Drop Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:39:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1558724 The problem is that the forensic science is being portrayed (and popularly understood) as infallible, and sometimes that's the only bit of evidence that leads to the conviction. And this is despite known, but unaddressed, issues with tester bias.  This can also work against prosecutors - I heard from someone who sat on a jury that some of the jurors simply refused to convict because the police hadn't done DNA testing (this was for a simple robbery case where DNA testing would never be done in the normal course of things), even though the prosecution's case was strong. The problem is that the forensic science is being portrayed (and popularly understood) as infallible, and sometimes that’s the only bit of evidence that leads to the conviction. And this is despite known, but unaddressed, issues with tester bias.  This can also work against prosecutors – I heard from someone who sat on a jury that some of the jurors simply refused to convict because the police hadn’t done DNA testing (this was for a simple robbery case where DNA testing would never be done in the normal course of things), even though the prosecution’s case was strong.

]]> By: Robert Drop http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1558720 Robert Drop Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:34:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1558720 DNA tests are now being pushed to the point where tester bias is a big issue, particularly when it comes to matching a mixed or partial DNA sample.   I was reading about a case where they had four different suspects.  They sent the crime-scene DNA and DNA from each of the suspects to four different crime labs (with each lab only getting DNA from one suspect), asking if the (different) suspects were a match.  In each case the lab made a match to the crime-scene DNA, even though each lab was working with DNA from a different person, and even though the DNA profiles didn't exactly match up in any case.  The thing was, in each case, the lab was told that the sample they were trying to match came from "the" suspect.  Having been told that, they obediently ignored contradictory evidence to make a match. DNA tests are now being pushed to the point where tester bias is a big issue, particularly when it comes to matching a mixed or partial DNA sample.  
I was reading about a case where they had four different suspects.  They sent the crime-scene DNA and DNA from each of the suspects to four different crime labs (with each lab only getting DNA from one suspect), asking if the (different) suspects were a match.  In each case the lab made a match to the crime-scene DNA, even though each lab was working with DNA from a different person, and even though the DNA profiles didn’t exactly match up in any case.  The thing was, in each case, the lab was told that the sample they were trying to match came from “the” suspect.  Having been told that, they obediently ignored contradictory evidence to make a match.

]]> By: redstarr http://boingboing.net/2012/10/17/why-forensic-science-is-failin.html#comment-1558696 redstarr Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:14:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=188052#comment-1558696 I've noticed some lately, maybe cop shows make it worse, that some folks seem to think that every investigative technology is going to be used on every crime.  Like I've known people lately who absolutely expected that the officers would be taking finger prints in a shoplifting incident and that they would do a DNA search and tire tread analysis on a cigarette butt and tire marks left after a house break in.  I’ve noticed some lately, maybe cop shows make it worse, that some folks seem to think that every investigative technology is going to be used on every crime.  Like I’ve known people lately who absolutely expected that the officers would be taking finger prints in a shoplifting incident and that they would do a DNA search and tire tread analysis on a cigarette butt and tire marks left after a house break in. 

]]>