I watch a lot of true crime/forensics shows and he’s frequently featured. Now I have to wonder.
So much of that forensics stuff is hokum. Or at least way less certain than it’s portrayed on tv or in court. Citations needed did an episode or 2 on i
One of my favorite examples is bite mark analysis. If you follow the references in studies, they all say that they point to experimental evidence, but the bottom just falls out and there’s nothing but some claims that some guy thought it’s possible.
The Obama administration actually started a National Commission on Forensic Science that made lots of great recommendations for how to fix most of the problems with forensic science. Of course, the courts and the cops didn’t like that they had to throw away precedent for tools they could use to convict people, and the Trump administration dissolved the commission, so it got put on the back burner. Hopefully it will be taken up again soon.
Fire investigation has faced a similar rethinking. Most investigators are looking for arson to begin with and the “science” is mostly lore.
Texas executed a likely innocent man in 2004 on spurious “fire evidence” and the highly questionable testimony of a cellmate.
The man lost three children, was accused of murdering them, and then was murdered in turn.
And some people still think that capital punishment is a good idea.
That should tell you everything you need to know about this (so-called) “true crime” shit…
Brooklyn Nine Nine was prescient…
The flies don’t lie!
I wonder how many cases will have to be revisited because of this lying shitbag.
