Forensic science (often known as forensics) is the scientific method of gathering and examining information about the past. This is especially important in law enforcement where forensics is done in relation to criminal or civil law.

Recently, due to the increasing level of corruption in the judiciary , the forensics used by the police and courts are under attack.

We now understand that the police lie in court all the time and it seems that no one is ever charged with perjury.

  • Crime labs are incentivized to get false convictions

    The recent corruption scandal in Massachusetts pointed out assorted flaws in how crime labs are run using a perverse funding scheme. Crime labs are being incentivized to turn out results favorable to the prosecution by getting payments only upon conviction from the state or from court assessed fees from the person convicted. If no conviction results, the crime lab does not get paid as much. Apparently, no one in the judicial system is intelligent enough to see a problem here. The brainiac judges and DAs are clueless.

    Crime labs should never be given preferential treatment for finding a certain result.

    Even after Annie Dookhan was convicted, the state crime falls under the Massachusetts State Police . This in itself is a conflict of interest that will result in even more convictions..

    This crime lab story shows once again the corrupting influence of the War On Drugs.

  • fingerprint reliability

  • burn-pattern analysis: testimony that a fire's burn pattern is evidence of arson

    A burn pattern may possibly show arson and it may possibly show accidents. The evidence would have to be pretty compelling.

  • bullet-lead examinations: used to compare crime-scene bullets with bullets associated with a suspect's gun.

    This issue in forensics come closest to real evidence and is the primary reason suspects like to ditch their guns. You of course have to retrieve the bullets in a reasonable condition (usually out of a body). If the bullet is compressed or damaged, the value of such evidence is diminished.

  • bite-mark analysis: attempts to match a defendant's teeth to marks on a victim

    Bite marks are highly ambiguous even if all bites occur at the same angle. There is no proof that bite marks are unique in any way, unless the biter has missing teeth. Then we might have something close to a match, but still not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The standards board could also question how widely some of the more dubious techniques should be used. Mary Bush, a forensic dentist at the State University of New York in Buffalo, says that there is little evidence that bite marks left in skin can reliably identify perpetrators. In her lab, moulds of different sets of teeth were clamped into the skin of cadavers. Digital images of the marks were then analysed. Often, the marks could not be used to identify the teeth responsible.

    Gregory Golden, president of the American Board of Forensic Odontology, argues that the method is useful for eliminating suspects or determining whether a bite mark is human.

    According to the Innocence Project, however, at least 15 people whose convictions involved bite marks and who served time in prison have been exonerated through DNA evidence since 1993. That alone suggests that the method should be investigated, says Bush. 'We're fighting 30 years of precedent."

  • DNA, the invisible evidence

    DNA evidence is basically invisible to the human eye. In order to get convicted on the basis of DNA evidence, you simply believe what you are told by the prosecution. This is just like believing that a defendant confessed to a crime. You have no visible evidence that your brain can clearly and unambiguously understand. You have to place your trust in what the police say, (Hint: police and DAs lie all the time).

    In earlier times, people were hung or burned at the stake because church leaders would state that they were possessed by demonic forces or were witches. DNA is like that.

    Can DNA be trusted ? No!

  • dog-scent lineups: match a suspect's scent to one collected at a crime scene

    When the police say the scent of a suspect is the same as the scent at a crime scene, are you actually going to believe it? If the dog could unambiguously communicate with you in the language of your preference, that would give credence to the dog as a witness. But since they do not understand english, you are once again placed in the position of merely believing what the police say (and police lie all the time).

    Dogs are also used to circumvent (or create) probable cause. Dogs can easily be trained to bark on the movement of an arm. a facial expression of its trainer or on a keyword like drugs Would you trust your fate to a dog? If not, you should not place someone else's fate on what a dog says, because we know that dogs have a very limited vocabulary, and we cannot understand a single utterance of theirs.

    In 2010, a team of researchers at the University of California, Davis set out to test the reliability of drug- and bomb-sniffing dogs.

    The team assembled 18 police dogs and their handlers and gave them a routine task: go through a room and sniff out the drugs and explosives.

    But there was a twist. The room was clean. No drugs, no explosives. In order to pass the test, the handlers and their dogs had to go through the room and detect nothing.

    But of 144 runs, that happened only 21 times, for a failure rate of 85 percent.

    Although drug-sniffing dogs are supposed to find drugs on their own, the researchers concluded that they were influenced by their handlers, and that's what led to such a high failure rate.

    Police drug sniffing dogs are simply probable cause generators. They are trained to bark on a whim. A slight tug, a word from the dog trainer, a hand signal, a turn of the trainer's left or right foot. perhaps the trainer's left leg moving

    How do you argue that a dog barking on command is wrong? In my opinion, if the dog cannot understand the oath to not commit perjury he cannot legally testify in court and be cross examined as the Sixth Amendment requires.

    U.S. Constitution: Amendment VI

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense

  • marijuana detection field kits false positives

    According to researchers, marijuana detection field kits give way too many false positives.

The real reason for having to challenge any of this is that over time, we have taken note, time and time again, that the police and DAs lie all the time because no one is ever charged with perjury.

Send comments to: