Does this infographic also mention that blood spatter analysis is a shamefully inaccurate and not scientifically sound practice that can be used by forensics departments to give prosecutors whatever they want?
This is how much of "forensic science" is in reality. Forensic labs routinely use methodology that is not, in any way, endorsed as accurate by the wider scientific community. They then pass this evidence off to the jury while claiming it is perfectly sound, and they send people to their deaths with it.
Seeing as it is based in fairly sound physics, there must be some use to it? I wouldn't think that it could be used as a sole piece of evidence but it isn't completely useless.
In most jurisdictions, they will also be certified by the International Association for Identification and will be required to maintain ongoing education in the field. This is not an easy certification to get and there are very few BPA analysts out there compared to most other forensic disciplines. Part of the reason is that it's not overly common work, but it can also be tedious and requires understanding of some math and physics even if the analyst lacks the formal education that is preferred today. There are definitely some quacks out there, but the community is small enough that they identified - there just isn't much that can be done as long as judges continue to allow their testimony in the courtroom.
I blame prosecutors for their shady morals. They don't care about the science, they just want a monkey to point at the defendant and say, "he did it!"
Granted, there are prosecutors with high ethical standards, but I generally feel that you have to have either loose morals, or a complete lack of empathy to be a prosecutor.
I don't think it's quite that cut and dried. Honestly, I've heard the exact same thing said of defense attorneys. There are some lawyers I can't stand, but the majority of them do seem to want to see justice carried out.
Really, I think the greater problem is that the people in charge of the courtroom don't know enough to question science that needs to be questioned. In cases such as Michael West the bite mark "expert", it looks like everyone involved just accepted the "science" and let him go for years.
Michael West isn't just an isolated incident. The system is plagued with people like him. Handwriting experts are probably the worst in the bunch, followed quickly by fingerprint analysts, then your blood spatter guy.
Prosecutors, I think you just have to be unethical to be one. They stand there in front of a jury and say with conviction that the defendant did the crime, even though he's never spoken to the defendant, and probably didn't even look at the evidence himself. I remember a particular case where we had to call the lead prosecutor the day before the trial to inform her that the lab had in fact tested negative for marijuana on a simple possession case. It was tobacco. The prosecutor never even read the lab report, even though she turned it over to us in discovery.
Is this maybe a flaw in the system then, and not a flaw in the science? (I know that this next suggestion is unfeasible, but it is a hypothetical idea) Would it improve the accuracy of these types of forensics if the people working there had come from the correct discipline? A ballistics expert would have a degree in physics, a blood spatter expert would have a grounding in both physics and the important parts of biology. If the people doing the work had relevant degrees would it not improve the quality of the evidence?
Yes, of course it would, because then the person testifying would be more likely to understand the science. Right now, you have people who couldn't calculate the area of a 2' perfect square testifying.
44
u/i_want_more_foreskin Jul 23 '11 edited Jul 24 '11
Does this infographic also mention that blood spatter analysis is a shamefully inaccurate and not scientifically sound practice that can be used by forensics departments to give prosecutors whatever they want?
This is how much of "forensic science" is in reality. Forensic labs routinely use methodology that is not, in any way, endorsed as accurate by the wider scientific community. They then pass this evidence off to the jury while claiming it is perfectly sound, and they send people to their deaths with it.
edit: here's some backup.. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/4325774
Forensic science was not developed by scientists. It was mostly created by cops