Same reason we still do like detectors even tho they don’t work at all.
There’s no actual fact checking. Lots of people make lots of money as an “expert witness” who get up on the stand and confidently make statements about how they’re 100% sure whoever is paying them is 100% correct.
If you reasonably report how something might not be accurate, the lawyers pick someone who will be 100% confident instead.
The ruling was based on the Ames II study conducted by the Ames Laboratory of the Department of Energy. This study starkly showed the flaws in the field.
The most telling findings came from subsequent phases of the Ames II study in which researchers sent the same items back to the same examiner to re-evaluate and then to different examiners to see whether results could be repeated by the same examiner or reproduced by another. The findings were shocking: The same examiner looking at the same bullets a second time reached the same conclusion only two thirds of the time. Different examiners looking at the same bullets reached the same conclusion less than one third of the time.
I sincerely think we need a division of the judicial branch that focuses solely on the study and confirmation of the accuracy of different kinds of evidence.
I never understood why lawyers would say things like “to the exclusion of all other firearms.” Things aren’t 100% knowable in forensics, there will always be uncertainties.
They say these things because they need to build and show a case to a judge/jury that “beyond all reasonable doubt” the accused committed a crime. That’s the standard that criminal prosecutions are held to. Uncertainties introduce reasonable doubt.
The underpinnings of the criminal justice system was invented well before modern forensics, and you know how resistant politicians are about touching any of the old cruft.
Because judges and jurors believe it…
Same reason we still do like detectors even tho they don’t work at all.
There’s no actual fact checking. Lots of people make lots of money as an “expert witness” who get up on the stand and confidently make statements about how they’re 100% sure whoever is paying them is 100% correct.
If you reasonably report how something might not be accurate, the lawyers pick someone who will be 100% confident instead.
Even ballistics, which many people think is a highly accurate process, has been shown to be wildly inaccurate. The Maryland Supreme court has ruled that ballistic evidence is not supported by science. That will dramatically restrict the use of such evidence in trials in that state.
The ruling was based on the Ames II study conducted by the Ames Laboratory of the Department of Energy. This study starkly showed the flaws in the field.
I sincerely think we need a division of the judicial branch that focuses solely on the study and confirmation of the accuracy of different kinds of evidence.
i thought that most ballistics analysis for the last 15 years or so was done by computer to avoid these types of mistakes. am i wrong about that?
I never understood why lawyers would say things like “to the exclusion of all other firearms.” Things aren’t 100% knowable in forensics, there will always be uncertainties.
They say these things because they need to build and show a case to a judge/jury that “beyond all reasonable doubt” the accused committed a crime. That’s the standard that criminal prosecutions are held to. Uncertainties introduce reasonable doubt.
So instead of adknowledging the system is broken they just… lie and pretend there is no reasonable doubt? Ugh…
Unfortunately, yes.
The underpinnings of the criminal justice system was invented well before modern forensics, and you know how resistant politicians are about touching any of the old cruft.
In particle physics beyond reasonable doubt means 5 sigma statistics.