Court Use of Shell Casing ID - It is Not Science

[RicInOR]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-fbi-keeps-pushing-junk-science-to-win-convictions

"For years, forensic firearms analysts have claimed the ability to examine the marks on a bullet found at a crime scene and match it to the gun that fired it—to the exclusion of all other guns. It can be powerfully persuasive to juries. But over the last decade or so, some scientists have cast doubt on the claim."

" A year later, the agency conceded there's no scientific evidence to support "comparative bullet lead analysis," a subfield of forensics based on the premise that each batch of bullets has a unique chemical signature. For years, analysts had cited this theory to claim that a bullet found at a crime scene could only have come from, say, a box of bullets found in a suspect's home. It just wasn't true."






see also:

Popular Mechanics: The Shaky Science Behind Forensics

Read this article a few years ago and found it very interesting. Came up in conversation today. Thought some others here might find it interesting as well. CSI Myths: The Shaky Science Behind Forensics - Popular Mechanics CSI Myths: The Shaky Science Behind Forensics Forensic...

www.northwestfirearms.com

Read More

 

[Nosferatu]

So don't follow the science now?

 

[po18guy]

Did someone just shoot somebody?

 

[Stomper]

So don't follow the science now?

Don't confuse "science" with "opinion polls", which has been all the rage for the last couple of years.

 

[GrayGoose]

So don't follow the science now?

Unless it's Political Science...

 

[RicInOR]

It's not junk science, it's just junk.

also:

View From The Porch

Books. Bikes. Boomsticks.<br> “I only regret that I have but one face to palm for my country.”

booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com

 

[OldBroad44]

Most methods in forensic "science" have never been tested at all. There basically isn't any science. The various methods were mostly developed by cops or so-called forensic scientists and applied using wishful thinking and desire to help cops and DAs get a conviction. They haven't even done basic tests like finding out whether the same analyst gives the same answer when the test is repeated.

 

[JustShoot]

Most methods in forensic "science" have never been tested at all. There basically isn't any science. The various methods were mostly developed by cops or so-called forensic scientists and applied using wishful thinking and desire to help cops and DAs get a conviction. They haven't even done basic tests like finding out whether the same analyst gives the same answer when the test is repeated.

That and State Med. Examiners being paid witnesses , admitting them into evidence and using there ' professional opinion ' aka/ artistic interpretation , as indisputable scientific fact .
.

 

[ma96782]

Well.......I hope that you will never have to use the "idea" to defend yourself from a conviction.

BUT, But, but......maybe, "it could happen."

Aloha, Mark

 

[Provincial]

Our county DA got a murder conviction based on the lead analysis hoax. It cost the defendant five years in jail, lots of attorney fees, and a ruined life. It cost the County about $4,000,000 in damages. The DA resigned with his tail between his legs, but I assume he found another similar gig with a place that has low standards.

It turned out the the "star witness" was almost certainly the killer, but she died of natural causes before any action could be taken. A young couple were shot to death over a drug deal.

 

[OldBroad44]

Information from the Innocence Project website. This is a project that exonerated innocent people who have been serving sentences for crimes they did not commit and have been shown to be innocent by DNA evidence. Useful because these exonerations are not just exonerations based on showing that there was insufficient evidence of guilt. They are proofs based upon DNA evidence that the person found guilty absolutely did not commit the crime.

In examinations of the more than 360 wrongful convictions from the Innocence Project the cause(s) of the wrongful convictions are below:
63% involve incorrect eyewitness evidence.
43% involve incorrect eyewitness evidence from a jailhouse prisoner who receives or expects to receive a lighter sentence or other benefits from his cooperating testimony. Such prisoners can apparently often be induced to say whatever the DA wants. The jury is not informed that the eyewitness testimony is essentially coerced or bought.
45% involve problems with forensic science. These include using methods for which there is no underlying science, mistakes such as mixing up or contaminating or mislabeling samples, fraud such as altering results or reporting results DA wants on samples never evaluated, and overstating the results or misleading the jury about it. For example, the evidence may be reported as "inconclusive" when actually it proved the charged person was innocent. Sometimes the evidence is simply made up to support A conviction and the real result is discarded or the test has never actually been done.

A paper on false confessions cites the Innocence Project causes as including
23% false confessions. These can be because the person arrested is trying to protect someone else or is mentally ill and easily led. They can be because arrested party is subjected to interviewing without rest until so exhausted he will say anything just for it to end. The arrested can be traumatized and confused and comes to believe the story cops tell him. Cops can claim the arrestee knows things only the guilty would know while actually having revealed the details in their prior questioning. Arrestee can doubt himself and his sense of reality after being told eyewitnesses saw him or there was solid evidence against him. Cops are allowed to lie about these things, causing some innocent people to lose their own sense of reality and confess falsely. In addition, cops can say that the innocent arrestee will be charged with a worse crime unless they confess to the lesser version.

There is more than 100% reasons for false convictions because a case can involve more than one cause for erroneous conviction.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-fbi-keeps-pushing-junk-science-to-win-convictions

"For years, forensic firearms analysts have claimed the ability to examine the marks on a bullet found at a crime scene and match it to the gun that fired it—to the exclusion of all other guns. It can be powerfully persuasive to juries. But over the last decade or so, some scientists have cast doubt on the claim."

" A year later, the agency conceded there's no scientific evidence to support "comparative bullet lead analysis," a subfield of forensics based on the premise that each batch of bullets has a unique chemical signature. For years, analysts had cited this theory to claim that a bullet found at a crime scene could only have come from, say, a box of bullets found in a suspect's home. It just wasn't true."






see also:

Popular Mechanics: The Shaky Science Behind Forensics

Read this article a few years ago and found it very interesting. Came up in conversation today. Thought some others here might find it interesting as well. CSI Myths: The Shaky Science Behind Forensics - Popular Mechanics CSI Myths: The Shaky Science Behind Forensics Forensic...

www.northwestfirearms.com

Of course it wasn't true. But prospective jury members all watch NCIS, and believe that such things are routine, not pure fiction. I was foreman on a jury in a DUII case. The PD expert actually testified that he could tell whether someone was intoxicated and what kind of drug they were on by scanning the suspect's eyes and evaluating eye tracking. There's a fiction promoted by law enforcement that this type of "expert" testimony is fool proof. And it's promoted because it generates convictions.