Forensic failures in the U.S.

Fingerprint science "does not guarantee that two analysts following it will obtain the same results."
Shoeprint and tire-print matching methods lack statistical statistical backing, making it "impossible to assess."
Hair analyses show "no scientific support for the use of hair comparisons for individualization in the absence of (DNA)."
Bullet match reviews show "scientific knowledge base for tool mark and firearms analysis is fairly limited."
Bite-mark matches display "no scientific studies to support (their) assessment, and no large population studies have been conducted."
"No measurement or scientific determination is immune from error," says forensic scientist Thomas Bohan of Medical and Technical Consultants in Portland, Maine, noting the report found many evidence-gathering tools "plausible" but lacking in statistical backing. "I can also say as a forensic scientist that no technique for which the error rate is unknown should form the basis of trial testimony."
"Forensic science should be a science," says William Watson, chairman of the Association of Forensic DNA Analysts and Administrators in Austin. "The reality is that this report is going to cause a lot of pain for people in my field. Defense lawyers will use it to challenge in all sorts of situations. But we need to go through this to professionalize things and protect innocent people and the public."







Link: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-02-18-crime-lab_N.htm