81–90 of 211 posts
> Soon after another vehicle pulled up alongside, and someone in a passenger seat took out a gun and shot Herring in the head, Williams told police. I dont understand what Shotspotter has to do with this case at all. The question the case seems to hinge on is “who fired the gun”, not “was a gun fired at this location”. What am I missing?
The fact that some of the evidence the police used to say who did what where was manufactured by the company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Not who you responded to) https://www.crammlawfirm.com/fingerprint-match-jails-innocen... This isn't the case I originally recalled, and doesn't say how many points were matched, but I remember a 5 point match being used to convict a person who was later proven innocent.
Fingerprints aren't "junk science", but they do have error margins and plenty of room for mistakes. The problem is that many juries, judges, prosecutors, and even defenders forget about this. This is the case for many types of evidence; witness statements for example can also be notoriously unreliable. It's not bad to use this kind of evidence, but you do have a problem if you consider any witness statement to be abs…
Fingerprints are directly-recorded facts. What may be junk science is what expert witnesses present about the interpretation of fingerprints.
> The problem is that many juries, judges, prosecutors, and even defenders forget about this.
Juries as triers of fact, and judges insofar as they are ruling on the facts of the case, aren't, in any case, supposed to allow themselves fo be guided by extrinsic knowledge, they are supposed to act based on facts (both direct and the expert knowledge relating to the import of direct facts) provided as evidence, both testimony and exhibits, in the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fingerprints aren't "junk science", but they do have error margins and plenty of room for mistakes. The problem is that many juries, judges, prosecutors, and even defenders forget about this. This is the case for many types of evidence; witness statements for example can also be notoriously unreliable. It's not bad to use this kind of evidence, but you do have a problem if you consider any witness statement to be abs…
> Fingerprints aren't "junk science" Fingerprints are directly-recorded facts. What may be junk science is what expert witnesses present about the interpretation of fingerprints. > The problem is that many juries, judges, prosecutors, and even defenders forget about this. Juries as triers of fact, and judges insofar as they are ruling on the facts of the case, aren't, in any case, supposed to allow themselves fo be g…
That's not really how it works; false positives exist, especially if you consider that a lot of times you have incomplete or smudged fingerprints and there is actually some amount of subjectivity involved in determining a match. See e.g. [1]: "only two properly designed studies of latent fingerprint analysis had been conducted. These both found the rate of false matches (known as “false positives”) to be very high: 1 in 18 and 1 in 30."
Again: useful evidence for sure, but considering them undisputable facts is not wise.
[1]: https://theconversation.com/fingerprinting-to-solve-crimes-n...
> Soon after another vehicle pulled up alongside, and someone in a passenger seat took out a gun and shot Herring in the head, Williams told police. I dont understand what Shotspotter has to do with this case at all. The question the case seems to hinge on is “who fired the gun”, not “was a gun fired at this location”. What am I missing?
>What am I missing? The fact that some of the evidence the police used to say who did what where was manufactured by the company.
> A man spent a year in jail on a murder charge that hinged on disputed AI evidence.
But after the reading the article, the evidence seemed irrelevant?
Maybe the headline should have been:
> AI evidence was manually reclassified after human review in murder case
This year in jail was awaiting the “speedy trial” that is supposed to be guaranteed by the US Constitution. I think that in itself is as much of an issue as the quality of the evidence. How can the government justify taking year away from the life of a man who has not been convicted of anything?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have some links for this? My understanding is the interpretation part can be BS, but stuff like finding and identifying potential ignition or accelerant locations and types should be more settled.
https://theintercept.com/2019/05/05/forensic-evidence-aafs-j... https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/jeff...
It seems to me jail time without verdict is the real problem in this scenario — it’s not clear to me how that’s not “guilty until proven innocent”
House arrest with deferral of your debts and obligations and mandatory reinstatement of your job if you are exhonorated or the charges are removed seems like what you would need at a minimum to live up to "innocent until found guilty".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fingerprinting is junk science. Polygraphs are junk science. Tons of things that have been or are admissible as evidence are junk science.
> Fingerprinting is junk science. How then do you explain the success of Touch ID on Apple devices and the equivalent systems on other phones and tablets? Random people can't just walk up and unlock a Touch ID device with their fingerprint, which suggests that fingerprints are in fact a very good way to tell people apart. Yes, it is possible to make a fake fingerprint that Touch ID will not be able to distinguish fro…
Like are you joking?
Saying TouchID validates fingerprinting is like saying MRI machines validate psychics.
This year in jail was awaiting the “speedy trial” that is supposed to be guaranteed by the US Constitution. I think that in itself is as much of an issue as the quality of the evidence. How can the government justify taking year away from the life of a man who has not been convicted of anything?
A year? Curtis Flowers spent over 20 years on Death Row without being convicted of anything. A couple years ago he was set free! Why? Because of a true crime podcast called In The Dark. Seriously. Listen to season 2 and your mind will be blown. The “justice” system in this country is horrific. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Flowers?wprov=sfti1