paulgadzikowski:

zenosanalytic:

unpretty:

unprettyextra:

Why a High-Ranking FBI Attorney Is Pushing ‘Unbelievable’ Junk Science on Guns

Forensic analysts testify at trials as “experts.” But juries don't know that their methods "seriously underestimate the false positive rate.

The Daily Beast

In the two-page handout, Agar instructs firearms analysts on how to circumvent judges’ restrictions on unscientific testimony. He even suggests dialogue for prosecutors and analysts to recite if challenged. Most controversially, Agar advises analysts to tell judges that any effort to restrict their testimony to claims backed by scientific research is tantamount to asking them to commit perjury.

#original#lmfao is there ANY ‘pattern matching’ forensics that isn’t bullshit (via @unpretty)

NOPE XD

I’d really encourage everyone to read this article, Balko’s been working this beat for nearly 20 years now and he not only really knows his stuff but is also a concise and punchy writer, but there’s one sentence I think EVERYONE should see, whether they read it or not. To Wit:

One review found FBI analysts had made statements unsupported by science in 95 percent of the cases in which they testified.

95% OF PAST FBI FORENSIC TESTIMONY WAS BASELESS! How many innocent people imprisoned, how many lives wrecked, how many family destroyed, by that gigantic steaming pile of false testimony? If US pols cared about justice they’d be calling for, at least!, every case which FBI testimony played a role in being reviews to make sure it wasn’t unverifiable or simply made up.

“Most of the fields of forensics were developed not by scientists, but by law enforcement to generate leads or to help convict suspects once they had been identified.”