363
Weinstein victims’ fury as rape conviction overturned as Bragg commits to retry case
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
363 points (100.0% liked)
News
24715 readers
3255 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It must be amazing to have that much money and influence.
Coincidentally the podcast I'm listening to as I type this is talking about a man sitting on death row who was convicted solely on the testimony of one "bite mark analyst" who was later shown to be an absolute fraud in a field that is already highly dubious at best. The appeals court in his case feels that just because the "expert" was wrong in all his other cases doesn't necessarily mean he was wrong in his. So that's cool.
https://news.yahoo.com/bite-mark-analysis-no-basis-204726311.html
That’s disgusting that the courts just can’t admit when they are wrong. Even after the testimony fell through, they still wanted to get a guilty plea out of the guy. I’m not surprised this is in the south. smh
That, right there, is the most disgusting part of the American ~~justice~~ legal system: nobody from the judge on down to the beat cop gives the slightest flying fuck about catching the correct perp; they only care about securing convictions so their records look good. They wanted him to absolve them of having fucked up and imprisoned the wrong person, and his continued imprisonment is nothing but an attempt to force that absolution from him.
Not just the court. The prosecutor's office as well. Their position is "we are ok with letting you go; as long as we can do it without admitting that we made a mistake".
And this is an institutional problem. The conviction happened 38 years ago. Everyone involved in prosecuting the case is gone. The office of the prosecutor is simply unable to admit that the office made a mistake.
A huge amount of so-called forensic "science" is dubious. Blood splatter analysis, bite mark analysis, voice print analysis, handwriting analysis, all bullshit. Even more 'respected' forms of forensic analysis are not slam-dunks like people, including people on juries, are convinced they are. Fingerprints can be misidentified, especially if it's a partial print (and it's a myth that no two are alike anyway). DNA samples can be tainted.
Basically, the entire field of forensics is built on a lot of very shaky ground and, unfortunately, has resulted in a lot of wrongful convictions. It needs to be overhauled by actual scientists.
As far as I know, there has never been two people with the same fingerprints, it isn't a myth.
Not that we shouldn't be critical of our standards when it comes to evidence and what not.
We have no idea if there have never been two people with the same fingerprints. It's never been tested and there's no way to test it since the majority of people who have existed are now dead. I would say that puts that claim squarely in myth territory until there can be some way to show that it's true beyond "we haven't found two matching sets out of the small subset of people we've fingerprinted."
Anyway...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/myth-fingerprints-180971640/
This is true. Similarly, we haven't tested and have no means to test if two well-shuffled decks have ever matched. But we do understand the mechanisms that underlie these phenomena, and (specific or ballpark) likelihood of an exact match occurring, and from those odds can make a reasonable assertion that a match has (in all likelihood) never occurred.
That being said, the approximate impossibility of an exact match does not make up for the other issues of fingerprinting as you quoted. The chances of finding someone's fingerprint whole and readable to compare to a control may be far more likely than two distinct people matching exactly, but far more often the prints being used are nowhere near "whole and readable"
Okay, please show these odds since they are known.
From a quora post because IDGAF and I'm not doing any more deliberate research on this than that:
Dunno who Galton is, but there ya go
So some random person made a calculation according to another random person on fucking Quora and you think those are actual odds?
That's so amazingly dishonest that I don't know what else to say.
But let's say he's right. Let's say it's 1 in 64 billion. There have been over 100 billion people. That means at least 2 people have the same fingerprints based on the odds you have given me without checking their accuracy.
So thanks for proving my point.
Another two second Google search, it was Francis Galton who calculated those odds.
I don't think 1 or 2 pairs of people having had fingerprints that matched from the dawn of humanity to today is sufficient to say it's a myth that "no two people have the same fingerprint". The likelihood that two living people, or even two people who lived at the same time ever, shared fingerprints, is still effectively 0. I'm not trying to say fingerprints are magic, just that they are relatively unique. That's not a myth.
It's clear you have strong feelings on this, and I really don't, so I don't expect I'll be engaging further. I'm sorry for any distress.
Oh, Fancis Galton. Then it must be true. Could a 19th century racist who didn't even understand the concept of genetics possibly be wrong?
That literally makes that statement false. i.e. a myth.
Seriously, dude... you used the work of a 19th century racist, the literal founder of the racist "science" of eugenics, who couldn't possibly calculate odds accurately, to show, based on that work, the statement about fingerprints was false and you're now saying, "well just because that statement is false, you can't really say that it isn't true."
But please, do show me what Dr. Mengele thought on the subject next.
Imo, something isn't a myth just because it's hard to prove definitely due to a near infinite amount of samples. By the same argument you could pretty much discredit most knowledge. Dna being unique or the speed of light because we haven't tested all individual photons.
Its healthy to always acknowledge the possibility but if there's a mountain of evidence pointing one way, you kind of go with what you have.
Obviously though, it's insane we don't have better standards. It sounds like most times, it boils down to a judgment call from an expert and that is clearly not okay.
You're assuming the fingerprint is perfect. It might not be. In enough cases they do not have the full fingerprint. Then if there's a match, was it actually a match or not?
For above, this caused problems though times. Especially with huge fingerprint databases.
Disagree with your statement that there's loads of evidence pointing that fingerprint are unique. That's not how they're used. And there's enough cases where it went wrong.
Yes and it has nothing to do with two people having the same fingerprint. We need to be much more precise on how we measure differences and what samples we allow (like no partials) but there isn't an inherent fault in fingerprint evidence because there are multiples of the same one floating around.
I'm arguing against the notion that it's individuals can have the same exact fingerprint and not talking about how we process them.
That's not how science works at all. You don't need to test individual photons to know the speed of light. That involves mass and energy. There's a famous equation that allows you to calculate it if you re-order the variables, E=mc².
You do not present a hypothesis that has no evidence to back it up and pretend it's true. That is not fact, that is folklore. Mythology.
You don't ignore all the evidence just because every single bit of possible data hasn't been parsed.
There has never been two individuals with the same fingerprint, out of all the fingerprints we have collected, they are all unique. This kind of points to all of them being unique and this will be true until we find one that isn't.
How many fingerprints have been collected versus how many humans have ever lived?
Again, that's not how science works.
So dna isn't unique as well? And I mean, we haven't boiled every drop of water on the planet, how can we know all water boils at 100c at sea level.
There isn't much things we know that was tested to such an extent.
You really do not understand how science works. You are arguing that the test for uniqueness is the same as the test for uniformity.
If someone were to claim that every drop of water is unique, you would have a point. No one is claiming that. That is the claim about fingerprints and it is a claim which has never been tested to the satisfaction of anyone working in that field of science.
I'm not saying it's proven beyond a doubt, my point is that something that has turned out true the millions of times we have checked can't possibly be a myth.
You can say there's a possibility of it being wrong but shouldn't lump it in with antiquity gods just for the sake of your argument.
There's a whole range between fantasy and certain beyond a doubt, you should stop assuming I'm an idiot and ask yourself why you are so adamant about defending the extreme in such an abrasive manner.
Can't possibly be a myth? So you know for a fact that, based on the supposed millions of times that we have checked (have we checked millions of times? do you know?) no two of the estimated 100 billion people that have lived over the course of the past 200,000 years had the same fingerprints, yes? And you can present empirical evidence to support that claim? Because I'm really not sure how you can claim that with any sort of certainty based on a sample size of what is likely less than 1% of that number over the course of less than two centuries.
Otherwise, I think it could possibly be a myth.
Thing is, as with DNA, the whole fingerprint is not examined, just certain reference points. The chances of 10 points in a particular print matching another random person's are much much greater than the whole fingerprint.
You can run a better match test than that on GIMP just by using the difference blend mode and some rotation. It's absurd that this is what they rely on instead.
I and the other user are talking about the actual fingerprint on the finger which looking at it now might not be the right term.
I'm mainly saying I don't believe something is automatically false just because we haven't verified all 8 billion datapoints, even more so when we've already sampled quite a bit. I don't get why it's fantasy or a myth like the other user is saying.
https://chtbl.com/track/5899E/podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/pscrb.fm/rss/p/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/e5f91208-cc7e-4726-a312-ae280140ad11/0ce5b86e-42bf-41bd-919f-b15a0139551e/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=d64f756d-6d5e-4fae-b24f-ae280140ad36
Hope this link works. Behind the Bastards is doing a few episodes on the bastards of forensic science.
I hope you read Radley Balko. He has done so much to expose the fraud of things like bite marks and other shit done by MEs.
This is why conservatives (or anyone else opposed to science and education) should not be allowed to work in criminal justice or law enforcement.