What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Attorney general to ignore new report (1 Viewer)

NCCommish

NCCommish

Footballguy
Here's a copy of the report:

Presidents advisory council on Science and Technology

I've posted about the lack of science behind many accepted forensic findings. This report backs that up.

Specifically, the report found that bite-mark analysis does not meet the scientific standards for “foundational validity,” that “there are no appropriate empirical studies” to support the validity of footwear analysis, and that “microscopic hair examination” is not valid or reliable, among other findings.
Click to expand...
And of course prosecutors immediately moved to stop using this junk science right? Um no.

Immediately, Attorney General Loretta Lynch released a statement indicating she would ignore the recommendations.

“We remain confident that, when used properly, forensic science evidence helps juries identify the guilty and clear the innocent, and the department believes that the current legal standards regarding the admissibility of forensic evidence are based on sound science and sound legal reasoning,” Lynch said in a statement. “While we appreciate their contribution to the field of scientific inquiry, the department will not be adopting the recommendations related to the admissibility of forensic science evidence.”
Click to expand...
Bite marks are especially egregious and have been linked to many people being erroneously found guilty. And there is no scientific foundation for it. What happened to justice and better to let 10 guilty men go free rather than convict one innocent man? We are a seriously messed up country.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The cynicism of cost, i'm afraid. Govt is wunnerful at ignoring runaway waste/corruption and then cheaping "new" - which generally fall into emergency and injustice cats - items/issues. Some kind of self-audit system has to be right behind eliminating 'money as speech' in the agenda of any serious reform entity.

 
The Commish said:
:blackdot:  

Not really surprised that this is being ignored either.
Click to expand...
I got to think defense attorneys will use this report in court to question evidence. i would. Heck I would have been going after them a long time ago, So much junk science being passed off as evidence. I would be ashamed of myself as a prosecutor is I was using any of that crap to put someone in jail or death row.

 
NCCommish said:
I got to think defense attorneys will use this report in court to question evidence. i would. Heck I would have been going after them a long time ago, So much junk science being passed off as evidence. I would be ashamed of myself as a prosecutor is I was using any of that crap to put someone in jail or death row.
Click to expand...
I imagine they will, but you have to convince a judge that the evidence is not generally accepted scientific evidence, right? This type of junk science is so ingrained in our criminal justice system, I just wonder if that's going to be a hard sell. And if it is let in, I doubt arguing against the evidence based on this study is going to sway many jurors. The studies on eyewitness testimony don't seem to have swayed many cases, right?

Having said that, I'm not a criminal attorney so would defer to those with more expertise (DW). 

I've stated this previously in another thread, but outside of DNA, is there any forensic science that we can rely on? Seems like its all garbage. 

 
NCCommish said:
The Commish said:
:blackdot:  

Not really surprised that this is being ignored either.
Click to expand...
I got to think defense attorneys will use this report in court to question evidence. i would. Heck I would have been going after them a long time ago, So much junk science being passed off as evidence. I would be ashamed of myself as a prosecutor is I was using any of that crap to put someone in jail or death row.
Click to expand...
I had been a person who didn't have a problem with the death penalty.  Philosophy was "you know the rules and if you choose to take that chance, I'm ok with it".  You had posted on this subject a few years ago and I got to reading.  Needless to say, I'm not a big fan of the death penalty anymore.  What passes for "evidence" or "proof" anymore just doesn't get it for me if we are talking about taking another human being's life.

 
whoknew said:
I imagine they will, but you have to convince a judge that the evidence is not generally accepted scientific evidence, right? This type of junk science is so ingrained in our criminal justice system, I just wonder if that's going to be a hard sell. And if it is let in, I doubt arguing against the evidence based on this study is going to sway many jurors. The studies on eyewitness testimony don't seem to have swayed many cases, right?

Having said that, I'm not a criminal attorney so would defer to those with more expertise (DW). 

I've stated this previously in another thread, but outside of DNA, is there any forensic science that we can rely on? Seems like its all garbage. 
Click to expand...
Even DNA is easy to screw up both on accident and deliberately. But it is probably about the only sure thing. Heck fingerprints anymore aren't all that. They allow there to be so few markers that the fingerprint could literally belong to thousands of people and they sell it like a lock. Arson science is completely whack. Everything many of these investigators think they know has been proven wrong but they continue to put people away regardless with it.

 
The Commish said:
I had been a person who didn't have a problem with the death penalty.  Philosophy was "you know the rules and if you choose to take that chance, I'm ok with it".  You had posted on this subject a few years ago and I got to reading.  Needless to say, I'm not a big fan of the death penalty anymore.  What passes for "evidence" or "proof" anymore just doesn't get it for me if we are talking about taking another human being's life.
Click to expand...
Well I am glad to know I helped you come to that place. I used to support the death penalty as well. But like you I started doing research and I realized how flawed the system is. Can't support it any more,

 
NCCommish said:
Here's a copy of the report:

Presidents advisory council on Science and Technology

I've posted about the lack of science behind many accepted forensic findings. This report backs that up.

And of course prosecutors immediately moved to stop using this junk science right? Um no.

Bite marks are especially egregious and have been linked to many people being erroneously found guilty. And there is no scientific foundation for it. What happened to justice and better to let 10 guilty men go free rather than convict one innocent man? We are a seriously messed up country.
Click to expand...
You sound like one of those people who aren't tough on crime.

 
I think the prosecutors could be hamstrung, if defense lawyers can get the report (or its findings) in front of a jury, kind of nullifies any of the prosecutions expert witnesses.

 
BTW if I were president and my AG did this they'd be looking for a new job next day. I didn't set up this commission for you to ignore it. Follow it's recommendations or get out. FBI director is next.

 
NCCommish said:
I got to think defense attorneys will use this report in court to question evidence. i would. Heck I would have been going after them a long time ago, So much junk science being passed off as evidence. I would be ashamed of myself as a prosecutor is I was using any of that crap to put someone in jail or death row.
Click to expand...
Can't use the report. Have to get a live science person on the stand to wax poetic.

 
NCCommish said:
BTW if I were president and my AG did this they'd be looking for a new job next day. I didn't set up this commission for you to ignore it. Follow it's recommendations or get out. FBI director is next.
Click to expand...
What should the AG do?  Not being flippant I'm honestly curious.  Could she prevent use of any of these forensics in federal cases?

 
mr roboto said:
So you can't quote a study or expert?  What's the rationale there?
Click to expand...
In order for a "learned treatise" to be introduced into evidence its reliability has to be testified to or admitted by someone on the witness stand who has been qualified as an expert witness.

 
When I think of justice, I imagine Loretta Lynch sitting in a private plane with only Bill Clinton talking about his wife's crimes.

 
Christo said:
In order for a "learned treatise" to be introduced into evidence its reliability has to be testified to or admitted by someone on the witness stand who has been qualified as an expert witness.
Click to expand...
So job security for these experts I guess. How much do they generally make?

 
NCCommish said:
BTW if I were president and my AG did this they'd be looking for a new job next day. I didn't set up this commission for you to ignore it. Follow it's recommendations or get out. FBI director is next.
Click to expand...
Paranoid much? 

Terrible thread, terrible precedence.  Of course she's going to ignore it, if she didn't there would be absolute chaos on cases that should never be reviewed.  What you are suggesting is ridiculous and unrealistic, you should fire yourself from this thread.   

 
Walking Boot said:
NCCommish said:
BTW if I were president and my AG did this they'd be looking for a new job next day. I didn't set up this commission for you to ignore it. Follow it's recommendations or get out. FBI director is next.
Click to expand...
C'mon, FBI director is too busy obstructing justice and destroying evidence for Hitlery. Can't fire the guy when you need him most. He's doing all the dirty work, and, setting himself up to take the fall if the plan doesn't work.
Click to expand...
You're also dumb.  HTH. 

 
In 2002, FBI scientists used mitochondrial DNA sequencing to re-examine 170 microscopic hair comparisons that the agency’s scientists had performed in criminal cases. The DNA analysis showed that, in 11 percent of cases in which the FBI examiners had found the hair samples to match microscopically, DNA testing of the samples revealed they actually came from different individuals
Click to expand...
Maybe I am oversimplifying, but it sounds like this is 89% accurate. I would bet this is much higher than eyewitness testimony. Do you really think this should be thrown out and unusable? 

 
Hey NC Commish>everything is a conspiracy

Black guy in Star Wars?  White chicks with problems made that happen.

Space Shuttle exploding?  Needed to do that to reduce space budget and reduce the deficit

Kennedy assassination:  Marilyn Monroe pulled the trigger, even though people think she was dead.  She wasn't, she lived until she was 74 in Panama at her dildo factory.

Margarine?  It's really just butter made in the ghetto, we got you there. 

 
If the average reliability of evidence using to convict someone is 89%, that means there's probably about 250K people in prison right now for crimes they didn't commit.

 
SacramentoBob said:
If the average reliability of evidence using to convict someone is 89%, that means there's probably about 250K people in prison right now for crimes they didn't commit.
Click to expand...
The good news is nobody will believe them since they are now convicted criminals.  At least they know where they stand when they try to appeal.

 
SacramentoBob said:
Would you like to bet the next 25 years of your life on 89% accurate?
Click to expand...
If only there was a way for a bunch of people to get together in a room where multiple pieces of evidence could be presented and then like a committee could weigh those things based on their merits and decide on a reasonable conclusion for guilt or innocence. 

It is really too bad that right now only one piece of evidence is used. Sure hope we can get that fixed. 

 
SacramentoBob said:
If the average reliability of evidence using to convict someone is 89%, that means there's probably about 250K people in prison right now for crimes they didn't commit.
Click to expand...
If the average reliability of individual pieces of evidence used was 89% we would be far better off than we are now. All you need to do is compare eyewitness accounts, lineup choices, and sketch artist drawings to understand that those things on their own are way below 89%. 

 
I would not go so far as to refer to some of these methods as "junk science".  Certainly the reliability of them has been overstated in court, and, thanks to popular entertainment, it is also overstated in the public's mind.  These methods may constitute "some evidence" but conclusive they are not.  I believe Judges need to exercise greater vigilance and control in admitting evidence, and then in instructing the jury on its import.

Now the above reservation, a serious one in my mind, is based upon ideal handling and processing of evidence, and in my experience many crime labs are far from ideal.  They lack funding, organization, reliable filing, and experienced technicians.  They can cross contaminate items and they lose items. They often rely, also, on outside help of questionable qualifications.  I have seen reports on state crime labs that are quite concerning.  This report has in fact been essentially authored before, at state levels.

Me, I have seen bullets lost, DNA potentially cross contaminated, hair and fiber evidence collected and stored in such a manner that hairs and fibers from other material could easily be transferred into the sample.  I have seen reagents improperly stored and past their guaranteed shelf life.  I often see diagnostic machines improperly maintained and serviced and potentially out of calibration.  This should be a rich field of inquiry for competent defense counsel, and I am sure this report will be brought up and cited frequently by my friends in the defense bar.  Were I on the defense side I would spend time and effort acquiring the knowledge to debunk the strength and reliability of crime lab findings from DUI trials to murder trials.  That said, still I find there to be some value to these techniques.

Working on the prosecution side of the aisle, and in advising departments as to best practices I spend some real effort in trying to address funding for labs, training for technicians, and instituting proper procedures including fail safes.  No prosecutor should use evidence they lack confidence in.  I think, not infrequently, in the pressure of the job prosecutors can make assumptions, just like courts and the public, that these experts are doing things professionally when that is not necessarily so.

Before I was a prosecutor I was a pretty competent defense attorney and I made some real headway plowing these fields.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have seen asceptic methods ignored, cleaning done with improper products.  Hell, I have seen better cleanliness in some fast food places than in some crime labs.  If the food truck parked outside the crime lab run by a recent immigrant from a third world country has better cleanliness standards than the lab there is a problem and yet, in rare instances, that may actually be the case.

We require food service workers to wear hair nets to keep their hair out of our burritos, but I have seen crime lab technicians opening evidence bags containing hair and fiber evidence wearing no garments or equipment that would keep their fair and fibers from transferring to the sample. 

Fortunately most labs are subject to monitoring and to certification reviews and most do an outstanding job.  The problem is that "most do a good job" is not a standard for admissibility of evidence. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doctor Detroit said:
Paranoid much? 

Terrible thread, terrible precedence.  Of course she's going to ignore it, if she didn't there would be absolute chaos on cases that should never be reviewed.  What you are suggesting is ridiculous and unrealistic, you should fire yourself from this thread.   
Click to expand...
How do we know they shouldn't be? I have been following this for years. There are literally hundreds of people in jail on nothing more than discredited bite mark crap. So perhaps I'm not the one being ridiculous.

 
I just can't fathom allowing someone who may be innocent to rot in jail just so we don't have to do something. My guess is people for that would change their tune if it was their son or daughter. Do people have no empathy or compassion? No sense of justice? Hell no sense of common decency?

 
NCCommish said:
How do we know they shouldn't be? I have been following this for years. There are literally hundreds of people in jail on nothing more than discredited bite mark crap. So perhaps I'm not the one being ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Could you post a link to one case where there is somebody in jail on nothing more than bite mark crap? I am not saying it is impossible, but that seems highly unlikely. 

 
'Tis better that 100 89 guilty go free suffer than 1 11 innocent suffer go free.

Really rolls off the tongue.  Definite improvement over the original.

 
bananafish said:
Are you serious?

Here's a bunch

But you only asked for one:

Ray Krone in Arizona Based largely on bite mark analysis, Ray Krone was convicted of murdering a Phoenix bartender and sentenced to death plus 21 years. Krone became known as the “snaggle-tooth killer” when an impression of his jagged teeth (in a Styrofoam cup) was said to match the bite marks on the breast and neck of the murder victim. She had been fatally stabbed, and the perpetrator left behind little physical evidence. There were no fingerprints; blood at the scene matched the victim’s type; and saliva on her body came from someone with the most common blood type. There was no semen, and no DNA tests were performed. First convicted in 1992, Krone won a re-trial in 1996 and was convicted again mainly on the state’s supposed expert bite-mark testimony. His death sentence, however, was reduced to life in prison. Finally, in 2002, Krone was released after DNA testing proved that he could not have been the perpetrator. Instead, saliva and blood found on the victim matched a convicted rapist.
Click to expand...
I realize I am pretty much christo'ing you here(and knew what I was doing when I posted), but "based largely" and "nothing but" are not the same.

The issue here isn't using bite marks or hair, or whatever other methods that are used. None of you guys want to touch on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony or tons of other things. The simple truth is that there is no infallible method. If the science is complete junk(which it isn't, it just isn't perfect like apparently some people think all evidence is) then it should be very easy for a defense attorney to point that out. If a jury convicts somebody based only on testimony regarding bite marks the problem isn't the testimony it is the jury and the defense atty. I would bet good money that if you had 100 people bite somebody's arm and then gave a team of odontologists dental impressions to compare it to that they would be able to match up bite marks better to the people than if you had the same 100 people perform activities and then had somebody pick the person that performed each activity out of a lineup or describe what the person was wearing accurately. 

Bite marks by their very nature need some other evidence to point to a perpetrator. I dont believe there is a bite mark database. Police would need something else to even point them to go looking for bite mark information on the suspect.  

 
bananafish said:
I guess you're right in that no case has been entirely and solely on bite mark evidence and nothing else, just like no case in history has been built on solely on one piece of evidence be it forensic or otherwise.

And I agree with you on the fallibility of eyewitness testimony. It's just that forensics, as a whole, have been place on a higher evidentiary plane upon which, according to this report, they do not belong.

Obviously this makes it harder to convict people but that's the world we live in apparently. We shouldn't start fudging the margins to make prosecutors' jobs easier just because real life has made their evidence unreliable. I'm actually surprised that there isn't more consensus on at least this point.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. The correct action though is not to ban the use of it. We need to help educate people on what the pitfalls can be. Give public defenders better resources. Give jurors access to documentation about the science involved(i realize some rules would need to be changed to allow for this). If it is true that a prosecutor pressured a witness to overstate, that needs to be exposed. 

I just find it ridiculous to eliminate things that have as good or better probability than other things that are used everyday and people would never consider getting rid of. 

 
Doctor Detroit said:
Paranoid much? 

Terrible thread, terrible precedence.  Of course she's going to ignore it, if she didn't there would be absolute chaos on cases that should never be reviewed.  What you are suggesting is ridiculous and unrealistic, you should fire yourself from this thread.   
Click to expand...
:lmao:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

whoknew
DOJ and 30 States File Suit to Break up LiveNation
Replies
10
Views
551
the moops
the moops
DJackson10
My GF and I are being targeted at work and my store manager is telling us to stop drama despite being the ones bullied
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
Jayrod
Jayrod
dickey moe
University of Idaho college student murders - suspect arrested
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
12K
General Malaise
General Malaise

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top