How reliable is the science behind forensics?

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by freeatlast, Apr 17, 2012.

  1. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Probably more reliable than "eye witness" evidence.
     
  3. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    I wouldn't accuse Frontline of telling the truth, but to answer your question, "science" is as reliable as those who tell us what it is.
     
  4. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    Probably 2/3 reliable, which is 4-in-6 reduced.
     
  5. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,542
    Likes Received:
    208
    The science itself is "mostly" reliable; the interpretation of the data leaves a lot to be desired....
     
  6. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can only assume that many have responded and not watched the video through. It was not simply dealing with how lacking this all is when individual interpretation is involved it was showing that what they are calling science is not really science and even a judge who was made aware of this agreed.
    I have known for years about the fingerprint thing and I can tell you if I set on a jury and all they have is fingerprints I will not convict.
     

Share This Page

Loading...