David Codrea is a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
View all posts by admin
3 thoughts on “We’re the Only Ones Unscientific Enough”
OMG, don’t let them try to tell us that witches are NOT made of wood!
It’s settled science!
Wonder if any party to the case argued the “settled science” that the “ballistic fingerprint databases” kept for years by NJ and/or NY were abandoned when after a few years of data collection they began resulting in matches between crime weapons and TOO MANY other uninvolved guns?
I’m no forensic analyst, but looking at the included photo in that article, it’s more likely than not a match, but my question is, a match to what?
Those “toolmarks” could be from the gun, or from machines at the primer manufacturer or ammunition manufacturer. (That IS the primer cap we’re looking at, right?) And as I recall, primer caps are VERY soft metal, so they could even be from the packaging and/or shipping processes.
If it’s from the primer or ammo manufacturer or from shipping, any number of primers from any number of casings, spent or unspent, could be a “match”. In which case this “evidence” is even less reliable than “microstamping”.
I trust the forensics team at OSP did their due diligence in ruling out — to the judges’ and juries’ satisfaction — toolmarks from the manufacturers as opposed to toolmarks from the gun, right? Right!?
But the nail in the coffin is that the results can’t be replicated. That means, scientifically and statistically, that there are other factors the forensic analysts have not been able to isolate or control for. And as there are no objective standards for this kind of analysis, that implies that nobody else has been able to isolate or control for them, either.
“Junk science”, indeed.
I’ve overheard folks in what passes for our criminal justice system complain that TV shows are screwing up their trials due to jurors and prospective jurors thinking that what they see on the tube is true in real life instead of some screenwriter’s exercise of artistic license.
OMG, don’t let them try to tell us that witches are NOT made of wood!
It’s settled science!
Wonder if any party to the case argued the “settled science” that the “ballistic fingerprint databases” kept for years by NJ and/or NY were abandoned when after a few years of data collection they began resulting in matches between crime weapons and TOO MANY other uninvolved guns?
I’m no forensic analyst, but looking at the included photo in that article, it’s more likely than not a match, but my question is, a match to what?
Those “toolmarks” could be from the gun, or from machines at the primer manufacturer or ammunition manufacturer. (That IS the primer cap we’re looking at, right?) And as I recall, primer caps are VERY soft metal, so they could even be from the packaging and/or shipping processes.
If it’s from the primer or ammo manufacturer or from shipping, any number of primers from any number of casings, spent or unspent, could be a “match”. In which case this “evidence” is even less reliable than “microstamping”.
I trust the forensics team at OSP did their due diligence in ruling out — to the judges’ and juries’ satisfaction — toolmarks from the manufacturers as opposed to toolmarks from the gun, right? Right!?
But the nail in the coffin is that the results can’t be replicated. That means, scientifically and statistically, that there are other factors the forensic analysts have not been able to isolate or control for. And as there are no objective standards for this kind of analysis, that implies that nobody else has been able to isolate or control for them, either.
“Junk science”, indeed.
I’ve overheard folks in what passes for our criminal justice system complain that TV shows are screwing up their trials due to jurors and prospective jurors thinking that what they see on the tube is true in real life instead of some screenwriter’s exercise of artistic license.