CSI Is A Lie

[Mergie Master]

This is why I don't trust anything that comes out off any "official" source. There's more crookedness in this 2015 article than most can fathom. That's why I've always said there is no way I would vote guilty in a death penalty case on DNA evidence alone. If they want me as a juror to vote to take another persons life they need to show me some evidence I can actually see myself. I'm not going to depend on what some lab lackey says about an invisible molecule. That's just how I'm put together. There is way too much corruption on every level for me to depend on something I can't see.

▬ ▬ ▬
Forty years ago, Bob Dylan reacted to the conviction of an innocent man by singing that he couldn't help but feel ashamed "to live in a land where justice is a game." Over the ensuing decades, the criminal-justice system has improved in many significant ways. Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut: "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," the newspaper reported, adding that "the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death."

CSI Is a Lie

▬ ▬ ▬

[Swamp Rat]

The single best answer to forensic analysis quality is some form of qualified oversight. The article brings up some valid points - the better labs have long ago addressed these. But some places do indeed have issues, and those issues inevitably come to the surface, and hopefully anybody wrongfully convicted gets their well-deserved redress. We ALWAYs hear of those labs, look at what went wrong, and make sure we aren't making the same mistakes.

We have MULTIPLE layers of QC oversight in our lab that, to me, eliminate the risk of "bad science" going out the door.