Slightly off topic, but I feel maybe in this sprawling thread it doesn't even matter.
But, has anyone else on recent years become totally blackpilled on expert witnesses, and forensic science in general? I've been researching this topic alot and well, essentially all of it is hooey.
Blood spatter analysis is pseudoscience, fire analysis is pseudoscience, ballistics analysis is unreliable and essentially pseudoscience, fingerprints are not reliable, and the certainty with which they are presented is pseudoscience. hair analysis is unreliable pseudoscience. Bite mark analysis is made up pseudoscience.
None of these forensic methods have been backed up by scientific method and peer reviewed analysis. They always fall apart when done so in lab settings. They are genuine hokum.
They don't rely on scientific method, they rely on a so called experts who have no backing but their experience (and when you look up the minimum requirements for what qualifies someone as an "expert witness", it's bone chilling), and these witnesses are bought and paid for by the state. Often defense attorneys and public defenders do not have the experience nor the resources to properly challenge these expert witnesses on either their qualifications nor the science itself behind their assertions.
The problem only becomes more terrifying once you realize how many people have been falsely convicted on bogus expert testimony, and then later exonerated. It's more jarring when you think of how many are still probably rotting in cells who havent had the resources to challenge their bogus convictions on expert testimony.
This is a MASSIVE problem, and the system is essentially broken right now. More people need to be made aware of this.
