Is It Forensics or Is It Junk Science?

It’s amazing to me that courts keep letting police and law enforcement trot out new “evidence” with no evidence supporting the negative claims: take “bite mark analysis” that was introduced as fact despite their being no negative testing (obviously a bite mark matches the bite of an assailant, but that only matters if it doesn’t also match 1000s if other people. You get similar stupidity with their retconning of profiling , etc which are also nonsense.

We already know the law enforcement will lie, conceal, and violate the law to get convictions, so it seems the bare minimum to require all new forms of evidence have an unbiased third party review and evidence showing that it’s not just doing correlation vs causation vs intentionally ignoring negative evidence.

There's a lot of woo woo in forensic science -- folks were lucky Ted Bundy left behind so much evidence, since things like bite mark evidence paired with an illegal search leading to his initial arrest made him nearly walk free.

(I took a forensics course once, it's astounding how mixed in with very good and cool stuff like DNA testing there's so absolutely wild nonsense)