The USA's National Academy of Sciences has released a report detailing systematic problems with certain types of "forensic" evidence that is routinely admitted into our courts today but is based on some pretty shaky science.
Consider bite marks, tool mark comparison, and my least favorite, bloodstain transfer evidence -- the new disciplines have proliferated faster than our scientific institutions can measure and vouch for their reliability.
Nothing has been proven more reliable than DNA, and it remains the preeminent class of forensic evidence aside which all others pale.
As the Academy is advising, "Exonerations from DNA testing have shown the potential danger of giving undue weight to evidence and testimony derived from imperfect testing and analysis."
A press release describing the report can be found on the institution's website and fortunately the entire lengthy report can also be found for free if you scour the page.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12589
I'd say this one should fall under the category of tell-us-something-we-didn't-know-and-do-something-about-it. I can already think of a case in which this report should be brought to the judge's attention.
Comments