Rollin' Like Sisyphus

A Laboratory Of Lies

Posted in The Fail Pail by Huckleberry on April 20, 2015

This is a lot less about science and a lot more about corrupt LEO/Prosecutorial conspiracy:

The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000. Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.

Not only is the science unsettled in most of this, taxpayer-funded experts gleefully lie to juries about both the veracity of this unsettled science, and lie about how much that science provides a whizbang CSI-style smoking gun aimed straight at the defendant’s case.
For the fourth amendment to have any viability, DNA should no longer be allowed admissible as evidence in a court of law. For the same reason that Barack Obama and George W. Bush share fairly recent genealogical heritage, a DNA sample comprised of only four building blocks simply isn’t refined enough to provide a Silver Bullet in a prosecution’s case, and even if it were, you are supposed to have a constitutionally protected right to not incriminate yourself – that such is interpreted as verbal testimony only is one of 10,000 reasons why the Republic is gone, really gone, and there’s no getting it back.


5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Doom said, on April 20, 2015 at 23:56

    At this point*, what the difference!?!

    *between science not calling bad science, and prosecutorial misconduct

    Both are supposed to be societal goods. Neither are. It is starting to look like what ate academia is eating everything that academia touches. I’m not sure why you think one is more (or solely?) guilty than the other, when the one you are releasing from blame directly crafts the other. Further, the tools the guilty party, by your mark, were created by the party you considered innocent. Prosecutors stupid, ignorant, of science? Gee wiz. Scientists ignorant about it? Really?

    • Huckleberry said, on April 21, 2015 at 11:17

      I’m not sure why you think one is more (or solely?) guilty than the other

      I don’t.
      Read it again.

      • Doom said, on April 24, 2015 at 02:08

        All right, I’ll bite into this. From “This is a lot less about science and a lot more about corrupt LEO/Prosecutorial conspiracy”, to “taxpayer-funded experts gleefully lie” (which excludes a significant portion of academia), I am failing to see how science isn’t being shown as a less, or minor, portion of the fault?

        By the way, yeah, I would love to see dna excluded. Not really because I believe it to be as much of a faulty science, as a lead in to very risky politics. Total gene sampling, making setups child’s play, especially with the corruption that obviously already exists. I believe in that particular science, just not in scientists, cops, prosecutors, judges, whole courts *cough*familycourt*cough*, or even politicians.

  2. Huckleberry said, on April 24, 2015 at 09:36

    Simply because this statement:

    This is a lot less about science and a lot more about corrupt LEO/Prosecutorial conspiracy
    isn’t a statement assigning blame, fault or responsibility.
    Perhaps I’ll simply reword it thus:

    Contrary to the focus of most other stories in the media discussing this story, the relevance and importance of this story rests less with the failure/fraud-of-science aspects and more with the corrupt nature of the prosecution of law.

    And please be aware that in most of the cases under review, the “taxpayer-funded experts” are employees of the FBI, placing them squarely on the prosecutorial side of the equation.

  3. Doom said, on April 24, 2015 at 15:57

    Okay. No, I get the prosecutor side thing. What I am seeing, and you seem to be missing, is why scientists aren’t sticking up for science by being on the defense side. Romans will be Romans, I guess, but that is no excuse.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: