Forensic Non-Science

The public holds exaggerated views of the quality of the scientific foundations of a surprising number of forensic sciences, as well as of the courts' scrutiny of that evidence...In a number of forensic science disciplines, forensic science professionals have yet to establish either the validity of their approach or the accuracy of their conclusions. Much forensic evidence including, for example, bite marks and firearm and tool mark identifications is introduced in criminal trials without any meaningful scientific validation, determination of error rates, or reliability testing. Studies of wrongful convictions based on DNA exonerations have found forensic errors and exaggerations to be second only to eyewitness errors.

Dr. Michael J. Saks, December 2016