Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI testimony on hair analysis contained errors in 90% of cases (2015)

fbi.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 77 posts

Re: FBI testimony on hair analysis contained errors in 90% of cases (2015)

#31

Post by boomboomsubban »

jacobolus wrote: post #14
mkl95 wrote: post #9

Within two weeks I have learnt that bite mark and hair analysis are full of BS. Is there some list of all these shoddy methods?

Polygraphs, fingerprints, DNA, face matching, forensic ballistics, forensic psychology, witness testimony (especially police testimony), ...

DNA has a fair amount more credibility than the others. While it's not the silver bullet people think it is, and it can be used to falsely incriminate someone, there is a scientifically supported method of showing two samples of DNA belong to the same person.

Re: FBI testimony on hair analysis contained errors in 90% of cases (2015)

#32

Post by mistrial9 »

PicassoCTs wrote: post #19
mkl95 wrote: post #9

Within two weeks I have learnt that bite mark and hair analysis are full of BS. Is there some list of all these shoddy methods?

Fire "trace" analysis was proven shoddy too.

interesting - links?

Re: FBI testimony on hair analysis contained errors in 90% of cases (2015)

#33

Post by MerelyMortal »

jacobolus wrote: post #14
mkl95 wrote: post #9

Within two weeks I have learnt that bite mark and hair analysis are full of BS. Is there some list of all these shoddy methods?

Polygraphs, fingerprints, DNA, face matching, forensic ballistics, forensic psychology, witness testimony (especially police testimony), ...

I'm willing to believe that fingerprints are unique until proven otherwise, though I would need to see the actual finger prints and not some computer report claiming they "match". I also know that fingerprints can be faked.

Re: FBI testimony on hair analysis contained errors in 90% of cases (2015)

#34

Post by hedora »

ldoughty wrote: post #21
ROTMetro wrote: post #11

If you or I lie to the court, it is perjury. When it is the FBI, who are granted an additional level of professional authority and trust in their testimony 'because reasons' (even though no testimony should automatically be elevated over other) it's just harmless 'errors made in statements by FBI examiners' as phrased in this article. Having gone through the system, it's all lies. Let's start with plea agreements. Yo…

Firstly, I'm sorry you went through the system and had to face these kinds of issues. I generally agree with you. The fact some of these citizens people were likely incorrectly executed, and others died in prison, based on bad science makes this depressing to read. However, I would factor in intent and knowledge on the part of lab workers and experts when demanding penalties for their action. If they intentionally li…

It's the explicit job of prosecutors to get guilty verdicts regardless of the defendant's guilt. This is the core of the US's adversarial justice system. (In the same way it is the defense attorney's job to get a not guilty ruling.)

I think this should be changed, so that false convictions are treated with the same level of seriousness as police officers shooting unarmed civilians on camera.

Patterns of prosecutorial misconduct should lead to prison time that is the sum of the false convictions, in the worst environment the falsely convicted parties ended up in. (So, probably not the country club minimal security white collar prison.)

Also, the people in charge of this should be untouchable by the currently elected politicians they would likely be investigating. Fixed-term appointments with mandatory recusal rules probably make sense.

Re: FBI testimony on hair analysis contained errors in 90% of cases (2015)

#35

Post by kibwen »

beebeepka wrote: post #28
fnordpiglet wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or prejudices.

Is there a difference? I am also guilty of this and suspect most of us are Tinfoil on: maybe that's why they were pushing this CSI bullcrap for as long as they did.

"Prejudice" is an apt word here, since it literally means "judgment in advance".

Re: FBI testimony on hair analysis contained errors in 90% of cases (2015)

#36

Post by chillingeffect »

mkl95 wrote: post #9

Within two weeks I have learnt that bite mark and hair analysis are full of BS. Is there some list of all these shoddy methods?

in addition to methods, whole entire labs have been found to be faking everything!

https://www.loevy.com/blog/the-fallout-continues-from-massac...

"Last month, the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General began notifying approximately 7,500 people that their drug convictions have been overturned."

Re: FBI testimony on hair analysis contained errors in 90% of cases (2015)

#37

Post by goodluckchuck »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #12
woodruffw wrote: post #5

Ridiculous. So much of law enforcement and forensic "science" is just pretext or pseudoscientific supportive structure for good old gut feelings.

Or prejudices.

It’s generous to assume that they believed the accused to be guilty. Many were frame jobs.

Re: FBI testimony on hair analysis contained errors in 90% of cases (2015)

#38

Post by themitigating »

arcticfox wrote: post #25
kwhitefoot wrote: post #10

It doesn't seem that they will take action to prevent failures of a similar general kind occurring again. There should be legislation regarding the quality of forensic analysis of all kinds.

It feels like there need to be defamation lawsuits that ruin anyone that practice these

Who, the government, that's you, you and I pay for that.

Re: FBI testimony on hair analysis contained errors in 90% of cases (2015)

#40

Post by djleni »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #31
jacobolus wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Polygraphs, fingerprints, DNA, face matching, forensic ballistics, forensic psychology, witness testimony (especially police testimony), ...

DNA has a fair amount more credibility than the others. While it's not the silver bullet people think it is, and it can be used to falsely incriminate someone, there is a scientifically supported method of showing two samples of DNA belong to the same person.

Maybe you know more about this than me, something that makes me uneasy about DNA evidence:

Say you can confirm a sample is 100% a certain person. How do investigators have any idea how it got there? How do you know it’s from a criminal and not the guy that stocked the convenience store shelves?

I tried to look into this and maybe I was searching the wrong thing but found nothing.

Post reply on HN