JohnRich 4 #1 November 20, 2007 News:FBI's Forensic Test Full of Holes Hundreds of defendants sitting in prisons nationwide have been convicted with the help of an FBI forensic tool that was discarded more than two years ago. But the FBI lab has yet to take steps to alert the affected defendants or courts, even as the window for appealing convictions is closing, a joint investigation by The Washington Post and "60 Minutes" has found. The science, known as comparative bullet-lead analysis, was first used after President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963. The technique used chemistry to link crime-scene bullets to ones possessed by suspects on the theory that each batch of lead had a unique elemental makeup. In 2004, however, the nation's most prestigious scientific body concluded that variations in the manufacturing process rendered the FBI's testimony about the science "unreliable and potentially misleading." Specifically, the National Academy of Sciences said that decades of FBI statements to jurors linking a particular bullet to those found in a suspect's gun or cartridge box were so overstated that such testimony should be considered "misleading under federal rules of evidence." A year later, the bureau abandoned the analysis. But the FBI lab has never gone back to determine how many times its scientists misled jurors...Full Story: CBS News Aw shucks, they're just gun people, and therefore they deserve to be in jail anyway. The FBI don't need no steenkin' scientific proof. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #2 November 20, 2007 I'm interesting in responses from those here who think that we should try ballistic serial stamping as an experiment on 35M people (yeah, you, Bill). No possible danger of false convictions, are there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #3 November 20, 2007 Quote News: FBI's Forensic Test Full of Holes Hundreds of defendants sitting in prisons nationwide have been convicted with the help of an FBI forensic tool that was discarded more than two years ago. But the FBI lab has yet to take steps to alert the affected defendants or courts, even as the window for appealing convictions is closing, a joint investigation by The Washington Post and "60 Minutes" has found. The science, known as comparative bullet-lead analysis, was first used after President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963. The technique used chemistry to link crime-scene bullets to ones possessed by suspects on the theory that each batch of lead had a unique elemental makeup. In 2004, however, the nation's most prestigious scientific body concluded that variations in the manufacturing process rendered the FBI's testimony about the science "unreliable and potentially misleading." Specifically, the National Academy of Sciences said that decades of FBI statements to jurors linking a particular bullet to those found in a suspect's gun or cartridge box were so overstated that such testimony should be considered "misleading under federal rules of evidence." A year later, the bureau abandoned the analysis. But the FBI lab has never gone back to determine how many times its scientists misled jurors... Full Story: CBS News Aw shucks, they're just gun people, and therefore they deserve to be in jail anyway. The FBI don't need no steenkin' scientific proof. Yeah. That really helped find JFK's REAL killer(s). Can anyone say LBJ?I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #4 November 20, 2007 Quote In 2004, however, the nation's most prestigious scientific body concluded that variations in the manufacturing process rendered the FBI's testimony about the science "unreliable and potentially misleading." Specifically, the National Academy of Sciences ...... etc Oooh- does that mean you believe that reports of the National Academy of Sciences are the best science we have?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #5 November 20, 2007 QuoteQuote In 2004, however, the nation's most prestigious scientific body concluded that variations in the manufacturing process rendered the FBI's testimony about the science "unreliable and potentially misleading." Specifically, the National Academy of Sciences ...... etc Oooh- does that mean you believe that reports of the National Academy of Sciences are the best science we have? If you support a report from them, bad science, if you think thier report is bad science, it is the truth"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #6 November 21, 2007 Quote I you support a report from them, bad science, if you think thier report is bad science, it is the truth ??? Another gibberish comment. Can you translate it into English for us?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #7 November 21, 2007 Quote Quote I you support a report from them, bad science, if you think thier report is bad science, it is the truth ??? Another gibberish comment. Can you translate it into English for us? Why? My point was made"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #8 November 21, 2007 Quote Quote Quote I you support a report from them, bad science, if you think thier report is bad science, it is the truth ??? Another gibberish comment. Can you translate it into English for us? Why? My point was made I see you had to edit out the gibberish, though. Kind of destroys your credibility, don't you think?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #9 November 21, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote I you support a report from them, bad science, if you think thier report is bad science, it is the truth ??? Another gibberish comment. Can you translate it into English for us? Why? My point was made I see you had to edit out the gibberish, though. Kind of destroys your credibility, don't you think? Replying to you??? No, I do not believe so. Still made my pointUnlike you, I like (try) to keep my replys respectful. Do I fail on ocastion? Yes, I am human but, again, unlike you, I need other opinions (the respectful type) to learn and grow. And we all know you are all grown up dont we perfessor ( intentional mis-spelling) I did that so you can feel in charge belittling someone with whom you do not agree.....again"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #10 November 21, 2007 I'm impressed that you ascribe such power to my opinions. According to you I can affect the truthfulness of a National Academy of Sciences report just by forming an opinion of it. Very cool! I guess I could sell this service for a fortune. Of course, it could simply be that you are looking in your mirror again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #11 November 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote In 2004, however, the nation's most prestigious scientific body concluded that variations in the manufacturing process rendered the FBI's testimony about the science "unreliable and potentially misleading." Specifically, the National Academy of Sciences ...... etc Oooh- does that mean you believe that reports of the National Academy of Sciences are the best science we have? If you support a report from them, bad science, if you think thier report is bad science, it is the truth "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #12 November 21, 2007 Quote I'm impressed that you ascribe such power to my opinions. According to you I can affect the truthfulness of a National Academy of Sciences report just by forming an opinion of it. Very cool! I guess I could sell this service for a fortune. Of course, it could simply be that you are looking in your mirror again. Now here is a twist on what I said"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #13 November 21, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote In 2004, however, the nation's most prestigious scientific body concluded that variations in the manufacturing process rendered the FBI's testimony about the science "unreliable and potentially misleading." Specifically, the National Academy of Sciences ...... etc Oooh- does that mean you believe that reports of the National Academy of Sciences are the best science we have? If you support a report from them, bad science, if you think thier report is bad science, it is the truth "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #14 November 21, 2007 Quote Quote I'm impressed that you ascribe such power to my opinions. According to you I can affect the truthfulness of a National Academy of Sciences report just by forming an opinion of it. Very cool! I guess I could sell this service for a fortune. Of course, it could simply be that you are looking in your mirror again. Now here is a twist on what I said No twist needed. It's just clarifying your statement.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #15 November 21, 2007 Quote Quote Quote I'm impressed that you ascribe such power to my opinions. According to you I can affect the truthfulness of a National Academy of Sciences report just by forming an opinion of it. Very cool! I guess I could sell this service for a fortune. Of course, it could simply be that you are looking in your mirror again. Now here is a twist on what I said No twist needed. It's just clarifying your statement. Well, there he goes again, showing his liberal elitist sideYaaaaaaaaaaa John, I know you know what everyone is thinking (or is that what they are supposed to think?)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #16 November 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote In 2004, however, the nation's most prestigious scientific body concluded that variations in the manufacturing process rendered the FBI's testimony about the science "unreliable and potentially misleading." Specifically, the National Academy of Sciences ...... etc Oooh- does that mean you believe that reports of the National Academy of Sciences are the best science we have? If you support a report from them, bad science, if you think thier report is bad science, it is the truth Maybe I'm not understanding the statement (I am thrown a bit by the sentence structure). Are you saying the NAS practices bad science? All of the time? Part of the time? Or that we should be able to tell when it is bad?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #17 November 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote In 2004, however, the nation's most prestigious scientific body concluded that variations in the manufacturing process rendered the FBI's testimony about the science "unreliable and potentially misleading." Specifically, the National Academy of Sciences ...... etc Oooh- does that mean you believe that reports of the National Academy of Sciences are the best science we have? If you support a report from them, bad science, if you think thier report is bad science, it is the truth Maybe I'm not understanding the statement (I am thrown a bit by the sentence structure). Are you saying the NAS practices bad science? All of the time? Part of the time? Or that we should be able to tell when it is bad? No, I was being a bit obtus. In a nut shell. If kallend supports the report I will think it is bad science. If he does not support it I know then it is good science. I am just taking Johns aproach to the world"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #18 November 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote In 2004, however, the nation's most prestigious scientific body concluded that variations in the manufacturing process rendered the FBI's testimony about the science "unreliable and potentially misleading." Specifically, the National Academy of Sciences ...... etc Oooh- does that mean you believe that reports of the National Academy of Sciences are the best science we have? If you support a report from them, bad science, if you think thier report is bad science, it is the truth Maybe I'm not understanding the statement (I am thrown a bit by the sentence structure). Are you saying the NAS practices bad science? All of the time? Part of the time? Or that we should be able to tell when it is bad? He was responding to baiting/trolling behavior exhibited by someone who seems obsessed with following him around and disrupting his use of the forums. It's very clear in this thread. Supposed to be against the rules, but a special exception seems to apply. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #19 November 25, 2007 Just remember that Dr. John Kallend Phd. who is a tenured professor at IIT, is of the opinion that an article he has not researched, nor that he is an expert in the field, has opined in an open forum that a study performed by scientists at NAS, is rubbish, because it does not support his political, and ideologic beliefs. My how professional of him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #20 November 25, 2007 Quote Just remember that Dr. John Kallend Phd. who is a tenured professor at IIT, is of the opinion that an article he has not researched, nor that he is an expert in the field, has opined in an open forum that a study performed by scientists at NAS, is rubbish, because it does not support his political, and ideologic beliefs. My how professional of him. You are wrong, as usual. I have expressed no opinion whatsoever about the report from the NAS. All I asked JohnRich was: "Does that mean you believe that reports of the National Academy of Sciences are the best science we have?" Perhaps you can explain logically how you interpreted that to mean what you wrote above.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #21 November 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote In 2004, however, the nation's most prestigious scientific body concluded that variations in the manufacturing process rendered the FBI's testimony about the science "unreliable and potentially misleading." Specifically, the National Academy of Sciences ...... etc Oooh- does that mean you believe that reports of the National Academy of Sciences are the best science we have? If you support a report from them, bad science, if you think thier report is bad science, it is the truth Maybe I'm not understanding the statement (I am thrown a bit by the sentence structure). Are you saying the NAS practices bad science? All of the time? Part of the time? Or that we should be able to tell when it is bad? No, I was being a bit obtus. In a nut shell. If kallend supports the report I will think it is bad science. If he does not support it I know then it is good science. I am just taking Johns aproach to the world I'll ask the same (unanswered) question of you as I asked JohnRich: Do you believe that reports of the National Academy of Sciences are the best science we have?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #22 November 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote In 2004, however, the nation's most prestigious scientific body concluded that variations in the manufacturing process rendered the FBI's testimony about the science "unreliable and potentially misleading." Specifically, the National Academy of Sciences ...... etc Oooh- does that mean you believe that reports of the National Academy of Sciences are the best science we have? If you support a report from them, bad science, if you think thier report is bad science, it is the truth Maybe I'm not understanding the statement (I am thrown a bit by the sentence structure). Are you saying the NAS practices bad science? All of the time? Part of the time? Or that we should be able to tell when it is bad? No, I was being a bit obtus. In a nut shell. If kallend supports the report I will think it is bad science. If he does not support it I know then it is good science. I am just taking Johns aproach to the world I'll ask the same (unanswered) question of you as I asked JohnRich: "Do you believe that reports of the National Academy of Sciences are the best science we have?" And I will answer the same as I have before. If YOU support a report from them then, that report is shit. If you disagree with one of thier reports, I know it is truthful. Suck on that"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #23 November 25, 2007 Quote And I will answer the same as I have before. If YOU support a report from them then, that report is shit. If you disagree with one of thier reports, I know it is truthful. Suck on that I'm still impressed that you ascribe such incredible power to my opinions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #24 November 25, 2007 Quote Quote And I will answer the same as I have before. If YOU support a report from them then, that report is shit. If you disagree with one of thier reports, I know it is truthful. Suck on that I'm still impressed that you ascribe such incredible power to my opinions. That is the point. Your powers, much like your opinions, are not worth shit Why?? Because you chuck chum only to see the responseYou are funny sirthank you"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #25 November 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote And I will answer the same as I have before. If YOU support a report from them then, that report is shit. If you disagree with one of thier reports, I know it is truthful. Suck on that I'm still impressed that you ascribe such incredible power to my opinions. That is the point. Your powers, much like your opinions, are not worth shit Why?? Because you chuck chum only to see the responseYou are funny sirthank you So what do you think of the NAS report on lead in bullets? Or are you anxiously waiting for my opinion before forming your contrary one?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
