The forensics crisis: When "scientific evidence" lacks science
By ramontomeydw // 2025-09-26
Copy
 
  • Many courtroom forensic techniques (firearms matching, bite marks, hair analysis) rely on subjective judgment rather than validated science, raising doubts about their reliability.
  • Methods like bullet matching use vague, experience-based criteria, with studies showing error rates as high as 52 percent when inconclusive results are counted as mistakes.
  • Despite the Daubert standard requiring scientific reliability, courts still admit unproven forensic evidence (e.g., fingerprints lack statistical validation).
  • Agencies and courts ignore recommendations (e.g., PCAST’s 2016 report) to exclude invalid methods, perpetuating wrongful convictions.
  • Unreliable forensics misleads juries, enables prosecutorial abuse and erodes trust in justice – demanding oversight by independent scientists to counter bias.
In the hallowed halls of justice, where guilt and innocence are decided, the very science presented as irrefutable truth is facing a crisis of credibility. For decades, forensic techniques like firearms identification, bite mark analysis and hair comparison have been used to secure conviction. Yet a growing chorus of scientists and legal experts warns that many of these methods are built on a shaky foundation of subjective judgment rather than rigorous science. The question first posed in 2003 by Donald Kennedy, then editor of the journal Science, remains painfully relevant: Is "forensic science" an oxymoron? The problem lies in the distinction between a practitioner's expertise and scientific validity. Firearms examiners, for instance, claim the ability to match a bullet to a specific gun with near certainty. However, as critical reports from the National Research Council in 2009 and the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in 2016 have highlighted, the field lacks a precise, scientifically validated process. The guidelines for a "match" are circular, relying on an examiner's subjective experience of what constitutes "sufficient agreement." The scientific tests that do exist reveal a different story. Studies like those conducted by the Ames Laboratory report deceptively low error rates by categorizing a high volume of "inconclusive" results as correct. When these inconclusive responses are rightly treated as errors, the false-positive rate can skyrocket to 52 percent. Even more damning is the lack of reproducibility, with the same examiner often reaching a different conclusion upon a second look at the same evidence.

Fingerprints, ballistics and lies

This skepticism extends beyond ballistics. The 1993 Daubert standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court was meant to ensure that expert testimony is grounded in reliable science, considering factors like error rates and peer review. Yet, as a ruling by the late Judge Louis Pollak (1922-2012) demonstrated, even fingerprint evidence – long considered the gold standard – can falter under this scrutiny due to a lack of statistical verification of its reliability. Despite these known issues, criminal justice agencies have been slow to reform, often resisting independent evaluation of their methods. The 2016 PCAST report went so far as to recommend that evidence from several disciplines – including bite marks, firearms identification and hair analysis – should not be admitted in federal criminal courts due to a lack of "foundational validity." (Related: Landmark report recommends against admitting ballistics testimony as court evidence.) The implications are profound, threatening the integrity of thousands of past and future convictions. When forensic experts present unvalidated techniques with an aura of scientific infallibility, they risk bamboozling juries and judges, leading to wrongful convictions. "Admitting unreliable forensic evidence in court can lead to wrongful convictions by misleading jurors with false or manipulated data, while also undermining public trust in the justice system by exposing its vulnerability to corruption and deception," Brighteon.AI's Enoch also points out. "Such evidence is often weaponized by authorities to target dissidents and reinforce unjust prosecutions, aligning with broader agendas of control and suppression." The solution, as proposed by scientists themselves, is the increased presence of "anti-expert experts" in courtrooms – research scientists who can translate complex principles and expose flawed methodologies. Until the legal system prioritizes scientific rigor over tradition, the pursuit of justice will remain compromised by unreliable evidence. FakeScience.news has more similar stories. Watch this conversation between Paul Preson and ballistics audio investigator John Cullen about the assassination attempts on President Donald Trump. This video is from the TruthSeeker channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

Wholly corrupt FBI guilty of pushing flawed "bullet markings" junk science in order to win gun-related convictions. Forensic science in crisis: Flawed methods lead to wrongful convictions. Traditional bullet matching lacks foundational scientific validation. Sources include: ScientificAmerican.com Science.org NAAG.org Brighteon.ai Brighteon.com
Copy