Crime labs and criminals... - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Cali Coug · 03-05-2006, 07:36 PM

I just saw a special on CNN discussing problems with forensic science. I have no knowledge whatsoever about crime labs or forensic science, so my understanding of the issue is pretty much limited to what I saw today.

The report said that fingerprinting is not even close to being 100% accurate, despite the fact that the FBI claims it is 100% accurate. The report said that in most states, you don't need a license to testify about fingerprinting in court. Of those who do try to get a license, over 50% fail the exam. They can still go on to testify in court, and, since most people think fingerprinting is a perfect science, their influence is huge.

The report showed interviews with fingerprinting experts. They said fingerprinting is more of an art than a science. It is like taking a painting and having a person then say if they think it is a Rembrandt or not- very subjective with some foundation in fact. Apparently, fingerprints are compared by seeing how many points on the print match up. The number of matching points required to find a matching fingerprint is not established by anyone. Each individual examiner is free to decide how many points have to match up. No analysis of the accuracy of fingerprinting has ever been conducted.

Then they talked about bullet lead analysis. Apparently, the FBI has claimed for years that it can tell if bullets were made in the same batch as other bullets and even if one bullet came from the same box as another bullet. The report showed a scientific analysis, subjected to peer review, which demonstrated that there is no possible way to say with any certainty that a bullet came from the same batch as another. The FBI subsequently stopped doing the bullet analysis (after several decades of testifying that it was 100% reliable). CNN showed some criminals that were released because the only evidence against them was the bullet analysis saying they had bullets in their house which matched a bullet at a crime scene.

They then looked at hair analysis. They say that today, with DNA testing, it is much more certain, but that in the past it was largely a guessing game which led to a lot of convictions.

Finally, they looked at crime labs and said that many crime labs don't have tests to see if their examiners are qualified, don't have proper training, have tainted equipment, etc. In Texas, one crime lab was so bad that all of the evidence it looked at is now considered tainted and every case involving evidence reviewed by that lab is now being reconsidered (hundreds of cases).

Crazy stuff. Lots of criminals are now being freed because their conviction was based on forensic "science" which today can be proven completely false.

03-05-2006, 07:36 PM	#1
Cali Coug Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 5,996	Crime labs and criminals... I just saw a special on CNN discussing problems with forensic science. I have no knowledge whatsoever about crime labs or forensic science, so my understanding of the issue is pretty much limited to what I saw today. The report said that fingerprinting is not even close to being 100% accurate, despite the fact that the FBI claims it is 100% accurate. The report said that in most states, you don't need a license to testify about fingerprinting in court. Of those who do try to get a license, over 50% fail the exam. They can still go on to testify in court, and, since most people think fingerprinting is a perfect science, their influence is huge. The report showed interviews with fingerprinting experts. They said fingerprinting is more of an art than a science. It is like taking a painting and having a person then say if they think it is a Rembrandt or not- very subjective with some foundation in fact. Apparently, fingerprints are compared by seeing how many points on the print match up. The number of matching points required to find a matching fingerprint is not established by anyone. Each individual examiner is free to decide how many points have to match up. No analysis of the accuracy of fingerprinting has ever been conducted. Then they talked about bullet lead analysis. Apparently, the FBI has claimed for years that it can tell if bullets were made in the same batch as other bullets and even if one bullet came from the same box as another bullet. The report showed a scientific analysis, subjected to peer review, which demonstrated that there is no possible way to say with any certainty that a bullet came from the same batch as another. The FBI subsequently stopped doing the bullet analysis (after several decades of testifying that it was 100% reliable). CNN showed some criminals that were released because the only evidence against them was the bullet analysis saying they had bullets in their house which matched a bullet at a crime scene. They then looked at hair analysis. They say that today, with DNA testing, it is much more certain, but that in the past it was largely a guessing game which led to a lot of convictions. Finally, they looked at crime labs and said that many crime labs don't have tests to see if their examiners are qualified, don't have proper training, have tainted equipment, etc. In Texas, one crime lab was so bad that all of the evidence it looked at is now considered tainted and every case involving evidence reviewed by that lab is now being reconsidered (hundreds of cases). Crazy stuff. Lots of criminals are now being freed because their conviction was based on forensic "science" which today can be proven completely false.