FBI overstated forensic hair matches in nearly all trials before 2000

Started by Syt, April 19, 2015, 01:03:10 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

lustindarkness

Bah, this is nothing new, ever heard of the Salem With Trials?
Grand Duke of Lurkdom

grumbler

Quote from: lustindarkness on April 23, 2015, 05:17:20 PM
Bah, this is nothing new, ever heard of the Salem With Trials?

Yeah.  One of the better Skyrim mods.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

dps

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 11:09:23 AM
I was a Law Clerk for one of the first judges to rule recovered memory evidence was inadmissible.  I was able to see first hand how important an impartial judge is in our system of justice.  At the time it was a very unpopular decision.  The media was very critical because, of course, they had not taken the time to read the lengthy reasons for judgment which provided a detailed explanation of why recovered memory evidence was flawed.  The media picked up the story as an accused getting off on a technicality.  Now the decision is accepted as being obviously correct.  But I wonder what might have happened if we had elected judges...

My impression was that that "recovered memory" crap was used mostly in civil trials, and that the general public thought it was bunk all along.

grumbler

Quote from: dps on April 24, 2015, 08:59:16 AM
My impression was that that "recovered memory" crap was used mostly in civil trials, and that the general public thought it was bunk all along.

I am pretty sure people went to prison on rape convictions based on recovered memories.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

crazy canuck

Quote from: dps on April 24, 2015, 08:59:16 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 11:09:23 AM
I was a Law Clerk for one of the first judges to rule recovered memory evidence was inadmissible.  I was able to see first hand how important an impartial judge is in our system of justice.  At the time it was a very unpopular decision.  The media was very critical because, of course, they had not taken the time to read the lengthy reasons for judgment which provided a detailed explanation of why recovered memory evidence was flawed.  The media picked up the story as an accused getting off on a technicality.  Now the decision is accepted as being obviously correct.  But I wonder what might have happened if we had elected judges...

My impression was that that "recovered memory" crap was used mostly in civil trials, and that the general public thought it was bunk all along.

We should work on recovering your memory of those events.  :D