Good news about Barry George

[MRT]

OK, I'm expecting a lot of flak for this one. I don't know if Barry George murdered Jill Dando (though it seems highly unlikely) but the original trial verdict was certainly a travesty. I didn't think you could convict someone on circumstantial evidence plus some extremely dodgy forensics.

I find it amazing the way that forensic evidence is presented in courts as uncontested scientific fact when that is often very far from the truth. Did you know, for instance, that the idea that all finger prints are unique has never been scientifically tested? It is an article of faith that US courts don't want tested.

[brodski]

I don't know if Barry George murdered Jill Dando (though it seems highly unlikely) but the original trial verdict was certainly a travesty.

I agree with you about the verdict being dodgy but I’m not sure I agree with your reasoning.

I didn't think you could convict someone on circumstantial evidence plus some extremely dodgy forensics.

you can convict someone on whatever convinces a jury. Circumstantial evince can actually be pretty robust, in fact I would go as far to say that most cases that go before a jury are decided on circumstantial evidence, unless there is a direct witness to all aspects crime what else can you go on?

I find it amazing the way that forensic evidence is presented in courts as uncontested scientific fact when that is often very far from the truth.

Um no, forensic evidence and interpretation of the evidence is almost always challenged by the defence. I think you may have been watching a little too much CSI.

Did you know, for instance, that the idea that all finger prints are unique has never been scientifically tested?

Just what sort of testing are you talking about? All we need to do to disprove the hypothesis is find one exception, the failure of the hypothesis to be falsified in this manner is evidence for the uniqueness of fingerprints. We have over 100 years worth of data to go on.

If you want to discuss the failings of fingerprinting you’d be better off looking at eth subjective nature of partial fingerprint interpretation.

It is an article of faith that US courts don't want tested.

Ok, you’ve lost me know What have US courts got to do with any of this?

[MRT]

The circumstantial evidence was no good either. It showed the hallmarks of a professional hit while George was shown to be hardly capable of anything like that.

Regarding fingerprints: there has been no scientific study to assess their accuracy - with DNA tests the results are expressed as a probability whereas fingerprints are on the basis of 'take or leave it - I'm an expert'

At the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in the Commonwealth vs Patterson murder trial, it was judged that because fingerprint examiners believe the system is fail safe, there is no need for a scientific study to examine accuracy!

There may be 100 years of experience but nobody checked ALL of those fingerprints against ALL the others. Usually, tests are only made against a fairly small sample compared with the population as a whole.

Studies have found gunshot residues as a contaminent in forensic laboratories. Also, the metals supposedly 'unique' to gunshot residue are also produced by using industrial tools and fireworks.

What is more, studies have shown that gunshot residue disperse for some time after a shooting. There may be more residue on someone arriving after a shooting than on the shooter who runs away. The residue will also find its way into police cars which are used to take suspects away.

[Cuddles]

Regarding fingerprints: there has been no scientific study to assess their accuracy

That's simply not true, as five seconds with Google will show you. Certainly, fingerprinting is not as thouroughly studied as it should be, but to claim there are no studies at all is just dishonest.

At the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in the Commonwealth vs Patterson murder trial, it was judged that because fingerprint examiners believe the system is fail safe, there is no need for a scientific study to examine accuracy!

As Brodski asked, what does the US have to do with it?

There may be 100 years of experience but nobody checked ALL of those fingerprints against ALL the others. Usually, tests are only made against a fairly small sample compared with the population as a whole.

Nobody has checked all snowflakes against all others, but we can still say with absolutel certainty that no two snowflakes will ever be identical when compared.

Studies have found gunshot residues as a contaminent in forensic laboratories. Also, the metals supposedly 'unique' to gunshot residue are also produced by using industrial tools and fireworks.

What is more, studies have shown that gunshot residue disperse for some time after a shooting. There may be more residue on someone arriving after a shooting than on the shooter who runs away. The residue will also find its way into police cars which are used to take suspects away.

Which is exactly why this conviction has been overturned - the gunshot residue was presented in a misleading way. What exactly are you trying to argue?

[chillzero]

The circumstantial evidence was no good either. It showed the hallmarks of a professional hit while George was shown to be hardly capable of anything like that.

What hallmarks of a professional hit?

[MRT]

That's simply not true, as five seconds with Google will show you. Certainly, fingerprinting is not as thouroughly studied as it should be, but to claim there are no studies at all is just dishonest.

I didn't claim there were no fingerprint studies, I stated that there had been none to properly assess their accuracy, which is the normal way that scientific results are presented (as with the odds given with DNA testing)*. It is, instead, presented as a 'take or leave it' matter of judgment by practitioners who are left to assess their own reliability against whatever standards they decide. This was the result of the Massachussets judgment.

*There has been one preliminary study (Journal of Forensic Identification, vol 56, page 55), after a century of fingerprint use, but more are needed, as with any scientific research.

As Brodski asked, what does the US have to do with it?

Err, Massachusetts is in America and, like here, judgments are accepted as precedents. I was talking about fingerprints as an example of the misuse of science in courtroom procedures, not specific to the Geirge case.

Nobody has checked all snowflakes against all others, but we can still say with absolutel certainty that no two snowflakes will ever be identical when compared.

How are snow and fingerprints similar? It hardly matters if two snowflakes are the same. It matters very much if you wrongly convict someone. The FBI conceded that a false fingerprint identification wrongly implicated an Oregon lawyer in the Madrid train bombings on 2004. Will that do to 'falsify the hypothesis'? It certainly rattled the FBI!

Which is exactly why this conviction has been overturned - the gunshot residue was presented in a misleading way. What exactly are you trying to argue?

The point of the thread was that science is sometimes misused in courtrooms, with Geirge as a topical reference. Juries are often convinced by forensic evidence simply because the they are not told that such evidence is controvertial.

Re hit: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...8/ai_n14219764

So I'm dishonest, am I? Well, that being the case, I won't bother posting here any more since I'm sure you don't want dishonest people on this forum!

[Legaleagle]

OK, I'm expecting a lot of flak for this one. I don't know if Barry George murdered Jill Dando (though it seems highly unlikely) but the original trial verdict was certainly a travesty. I didn't think you could convict someone on circumstantial evidence plus some extremely dodgy forensics.

I don't know the full details of the Barry George trial. I did see a "Panorama "or "Trevor McDonald" type thing on the box a week or two ago, but to be honest I didn't think that what they presented was enough to convince me either way.

Do you have any links to authoritative articles you have read on this subject which might help?

By the way, why do you say that it is "good news" about Barry George?

I find it amazing the way that forensic evidence is presented in courts as uncontested scientific fact when that is often very far from the truth. Did you know, for instance, that the idea that all finger prints are unique has never been scientifically tested? It is an article of faith that US courts don't want tested.

I don't think that's right. Again, some links or references to evidence might help. I agree that forensic evidence can be difficult for Juries, but the evidence can be, and is, challegned by the Defence lawyers. also, the Judge is supposed to direct the Jury as to the weight they give to such evidence in his summing up, so it's not correct that such evidence is presented as "uncontested scientific fact".

[Cuddles]

I didn't claim there were no fingerprint studies, I stated that there had been none to properly assess their accuracy, which is the normal way that scientific results are presented (as with the odds given with DNA testing)*. It is, instead, presented as a 'take or leave it' matter of judgment by practitioners who are left to assess their own reliability against whatever standards they decide. This was the result of the Massachussets judgment.

*There has been one preliminary study (Journal of Forensic Identification, vol 56, page 55), after a century of fingerprint use, but more are needed, as with any scientific research.

So you didn't bother spending 5 seconds with Google then? Here, I'll do it for you: http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=fingerprint+study& meta=&btnG=Google+Search
The very first link is this. Which is in fact a scientific study to assess the accuracy of fingerprints. The third link is this, which refers to, let me see, well look at that, it's another scientific study to assess the accuracy of fingerprints. Forgive me if I assume you're talking out of your arse.

Err, Massachusetts is in America and, like here, judgments are accepted as precedents. I was talking about fingerprints as an example of the misuse of science in courtroom procedures, not specific to the Geirge case.

So, nothing then.

How are snow and fingerprints similar? It hardly matters if two snowflakes are the same. It matters very much if you wrongly convict someone. The FBI conceded that a false fingerprint identification wrongly implicated an Oregon lawyer in the Madrid train bombings on 2004. Will that do to 'falsify the hypothesis'? It certainly rattled the FBI!

The consequences are irrelevant. The point is, you criticised fingerprinting because no-one has ever compared all fingerprints to all other fingerprints. This is a completely stupid argument because you don't need to do that in order to be able to say that they are all different, at least with a high degree of probability. Snowflakes are a perfect demonstration of this.

The point of the thread was that science is sometimes misused in courtrooms, with Geirge as a topical reference. Juries are often convinced by forensic evidence simply because the they are not told that such evidence is controvertial.

And as Brodski has already pointed out, the defence will always contest the evidence and claim that it is controversial, whether it really is or not. That's pretty much what the defence is for. The justice system is in no way perfect, and the outcome can depend on which lawyer is more persuasive, but pretending that juries aren't told about problems with the evidence is just silly.

So I'm dishonest, am I? Well, that being the case, I won't bother posting here any more since I'm sure you don't want dishonest people on this forum!

Yes, you are. You made a claim which was provably wrong without even doing the most cursory check to support it. When told how you could easily check it, you simply repeated the false claim. That is dishonest.

[MRT]

http://lpr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...tract/mgm020v1

[chillzero]

It showed the hallmarks of a professional hit while George was shown to be hardly capable of anything like that.

What hallmarks of a professional hit?

[Mojo]

If you want to wade through it, the Court of Appeal judgment, discussing the evidence presented at trial, can be found here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/2722.html

[MRT]

I started this thread because I thought it would be of interest to a skeptical audience. I thought the fact that scientists have pointed out that fingerprint analysis has not, so far, been validated scientifically would have attracted the interest of skeptics for whom, I assume, science is seen as a benchmark against which to measure any claim.

I also thought that it might be of interest to discuss whether scientific evidence presented in court should always be accompanied by a statement of any limitations with tests that should be considered, irrespective of which side presents the evidence.

I also thought that the fact that fingerprint techniques and the presentation of scientific evidence in court had been questioned by scientists and lawyers would have been better known.

Clearly, in all these assumptions I was wrong. Instead, I have been personally abused for my trouble and, frankly, I no longer give a stuff about this thread or any other on this forum.

[brodski]

If you’re interested in discussion, don’t get offended when people disagree with you.
And stop saying “I’m going, really, honestly, no I am! I’m not going to reply any more, I’ve had it this time”. The first time it makes you look like a drama queen, the second time is just sad.

[Cuddles]

I started this thread because I thought it would be of interest to a skeptical audience. I thought the fact that scientists have pointed out that fingerprint analysis has not, so far, been validated scientifically would have attracted the interest of skeptics for whom, I assume, science is seen as a benchmark against which to measure any claim.

And yet you refused to provide any actual evidence for your claims.

I also thought that it might be of interest to discuss whether scientific evidence presented in court should always be accompanied by a statement of any limitations with tests that should be considered, irrespective of which side presents the evidence.

Although this is the first time you've mentioned this, so you obviously didn't think it was interesting enough to bother actually discussing it.

I also thought that the fact that fingerprint techniques and the presentation of scientific evidence in court had been questioned by scientists and lawyers would have been better known.

And as far as I know, everyone here did know it. Certainly no-one has denied it.

Clearly, in all these assumptions I was wrong. Instead, I have been personally abused for my trouble and, frankly, I no longer give a stuff about this thread or any other on this forum.

You haven't been personally abused, your complete lack of evidence or any sensible argument has been abused. As Brodski says, if you're going to leave, just get on with it. Don't keep posting about how you're going to leave.

[Admin]

:-\

I think we could have debated this one a little better. This is the 'general discussion' section so some leeway for qualitative discussion is fine by me. Just follow up on points of interest by asking for references.

I'd certainly like to know exactly what the evidence was that George was convicted with. I'll read that link Mojo - thanks for the info.