requested by @youre-where-i-wanna-go
*I would note that describing handwriting analysis as 'useless' is subjective, and that the error rate is still a subject of study. However, it is still broadly considered questionable and it's usefulness is not established.
The research around criminal profiling is mixed, and it has not been proved to be useful or scientifically sound.
From a scientific paper on criminal profiling: 'Findings reveal that this forensic technique is as yet to be statistically validated'
From a second scientific paper on criminal profiling: 'The limited evidence suggests that police officers think that CP is a useful investigative tool, but the empirical evidence does not support the scientific validity of profilers’ predictive abilities.'
Microscopic hair analysis is also not considered reliable.
From an article on forensic microscopic hair analysis: 'Microscopic hair analysis is a flawed forensic technique, its deficiencies exacerbated when coupled with dubious statistical conclusions proffered into testimony'
Bite mark analysis is also unreliable and not scientifically backed.
From a scientific paper on bite mark analysis in forensics: 'Moreover, recent reviews of the field's claims, as well as recent empirical findings, have underscored the lack of reliability and validity of the most fundamental claims about the ability of forensic dentists to identify the source of bite marks on human skin.'
Fingerprint analysis, whilst generally more reliable, is subjective and can result in errrors.
From a scientific paper on fingerprint analysis: 'Five examiners made false positive errors for an overall false positive rate of 0.1%. Eighty-five percent of examiners made at least one false negative error for an overall false negative rate of 7.5%. Independent examination of the same comparisons by different participants (analogous to blind verification) was found to detect all false positive errors and the majority of false negative errors in this study. Examiners frequently differed on whether fingerprints were suitable for reaching a conclusion.'
Firearm identification, which uses the analysis of bullet stratification (impressions from the barrel of the gun), are unreliable and not scientifically validated.
From a Scientific American article on firearms forensics: 'They claim they can “match” a cartridge case or bullet to a specific gun, and thus solve a case. Science is not on their side, however. Few studies of firearms exist and those that do indicate that examiners cannot reliably determine whether bullets or cartridges were fired by a particular gun.'
Composition Bullet Lead Analysis was discontinued after being found unreliable.
From the book Forensic Science Reform: 'Compositional bullet lead analysis (CBLA) was a method used solely in the US by the FBI Laboratory to compare the content of bullet lead and make an attribution of source (manufacturer, production unit, box of bullets). Although the chemical analysis methods used are sound, flaws in the interpretation and statistics lead to misevaluations of evidence and overstating its probative weight. Significant criticism led the FBI to ask the National Academies of Science to convene a Committee to review its methods and protocols. Based in part on the Committee's report, the FBI discontinued CBLA in 2005.
The error rate of forensic handrwriting analysis is still a subject of debate, and the reliability has been improved somewhat recently by making the process more standardized, but it is still not always accepted as admissable evidence in court due to it's questionable scienfic validity.
From a How Stuff Works article on handwriting analysis: 'Certainly, the most significant shortcoming of using handwriting analysis as a scientific basis is the fact that it is ultimately subjective. This means that its acceptance in the scientific community and as evidence in court has historically been shaky.
Only recently, as the training of analysts has become more standardized and organizations have put certification procedures in place, has handwriting analysis started to gain more acceptance as a reproducible, peer-reviewed scientific process.
The results of a handwriting comparison are still not always accepted as evidence in a court case, partly because the science has a few more hurdles to clear, including determining a reliable error rate in analysis and setting standards for the comparison process.'
titsay
vaporwave
