The heiress at Harvard who helped revolutionize murder investigations
bostonglobe.com
bostonglobe.com
https://www.propublica.org/article/understanding-junk-scienc...
The innocence project is rather pointed example of how many times forensic science has been used improperly to sentence people to death.
You can note all the weasel words they use, as well as weaseling and interpreting other's words to mean what they want them to mean.
How they say junk science has "limited evidence" to justify it, but then later on link to studies with limited evidence that are supposed to justify their claims.
How they explicitly link to some evidence that supposedly justifies their claims but for other claims they just say "studies exist" but don't bother to provide names, dates, or any details about the studies.
Going to just stop reading there and mark that notch down as propublica being a source of "junk journalism".
It might make a nice temporary online community to digitize and reveal one nutshell per month.
I suppose it might undermine their use in education to have a public answer for each of them, however.
But that's how Columbo[0] solves almost every case, using the perpetrator's over-reliance on "other evidence that may be present" against them.
Sure, which is why I included a link for those not familiar.
>whose presentation had little to do with the actual work of solving crimes.
It seems very plausible to me that for a pre-meditated murder, the perpetrator might very well try to create fake but valid-seeming evidence pointing away from them, as much as creating an alibi. So I think the need to distinguish real evidence from fake (as Columbo is wont to do) is very much involved in the actual work of solving crimes.