Not content using the usual pseudoscience (psychological profiling/blood spatter analysis/ballistics analysis/etc.) to totally not solve crimes, American law enforcement turns to "dowsing"

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Sure, why not?  It's not like any other criminal investigation technique other than DNA analysis is based on actual science anyway!

 

"Witching" To Find Corpses? This Police Training Alarms Experts.

WWW.THEMARSHALLPROJECT.ORG

---

At the National Forensic Academy, crime scene investigators learn to dowse for the dead, though it’s not backed by science.

 

Quote

 

There’s a body buried here — somewhere.

 

Five crime scene investigators wearing white Tyvek suits and purple Latex gloves pace through a Tennessee woodland in a slow wave, searching for areas of sunken ground and other clues that might indicate a gravesite. The chill morning air is scented with loam, leaves, pine needles — and a hint of human decay.

 

The agents mark three suspicious depressions in the dirt with red flags and discuss their options for investigating further. One student asks about dowsing rods.

 

“You want to use some?” replies Arpad Vass, an instructor at the National Forensic Academy in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where law enforcement officers come to learn how to use science to solve crimes — at least in theory. “I use them on everything.

 

”There are no official dowsing rods at hand, but that doesn’t matter. “You can use the flags,” Vass offers. “Bend them like you would coat hangers.

 

”Fred Ponce, a private detective from Miami, Florida, with a dark mustache and beard, gets right to work. He tears the red plastic rectangles off two stakes and spaces his hands to measure about 12 inches of straight steel, then bends the remaining metal into handles. Holding the stakes like six shooters, he walks over one of the suspected gravesites. The stakes cross. He does it again. They cross. And again. They cross.

 

“I’m not kidding,” Ponce says, marveling that his DIY grave finder seems to be working.

 

 

Let's see what the FBI has to say:

 

Forensic Spotlight: Dowsing for Human Remains — Considerations for Investigators | FBI: Law Enforcement Bulletin

LEB.FBI.GOV

---

Investigators should rely on research to decide whether dowsing is appropriate, reliable, and valid.

 

 

Quote

 

Dowsing, also called “divining” or “witching,” refers to the practice of observing a pointer — often a forked stick, rods, bent wires, or a pendulum — move in response to some type of influence or transmitter. Some consider it a reliable method for locating underground items of interest, including water, oil, and ore. There are even those who believe that dowsing can help locate buried remains (sometimes called “grave witching”).

 

However, many consider dowsing a controversial practice or even pseudoscience, with no scientific or widely accepted explanation for what influences the response or how and why the practice works. Various explanations have included disturbed soil, magnetic fields, piezoelectric properties of bone, radiation fields, extrasensory perception, cryptesthesia, divine intervention, or other paranormal phenomena.

 

 

[legend]

Jesus fucking Christ. Lets just burn this country to the ground already.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Even fingerprint analysis "might as well" be a pseudoscience for all intents and purposes:

 

Fingerprinting's Accuracy is Suspect, And Not Science Based

WWW.ACSH.ORG

---

A working group with the American Association for the Advancement of Science released a new report stating that any claim of precision in identifying a specific person from a fingerprint is

 

Quote

 

While it's true that when the fingerprints of all 10 digits are taken together, there's an excellent – potentially near-perfect – chance of identifying a single person. But certainly, when it comes to crime-scene collection, examiners very rarely come across all 10 prints – and all of which that are in usable condition. And as a matter of simple reasoning and logic, there can never be 100% certainty in positively identifying an individual, because to do so investigators would need access to fingerprint records of everyone alive on Earth. And that, of course, is not possible, among many other reasons, because millions of people are constantly being born all over the globe.

 

Now, critics may say, isn't this thought process rather ridiculous? Because when police are attempting to apprehend a suspect who committed a crime, of course not every single person on the planet was in a position to commit the crime. Yes, that's true. But what the authors are pointing out is an essential distinction, namely that investigators and prosecutors must recognize the flaws in the current process, flaws which exist and cannot be overlooked when scientific standards are applied. 

 

 

[skillzdadirecta]

Fingerprint evidence always seemed iffy to me. I watched a true crime series recently and they talked about how fingerprints were used back in the 70's. There would literally be a guy looking at the prints and trying to match them by eye to prints they had on file. I thought to myself there's no way that could be accurate. Scent evidence based on Dogs has need called in to question as well. So has identification by hair that isn't DNA based. A lot of evidence we think is pretty reliable actually isnt.

[Jason]

Witch Lives Matter

[GeneticBlueprint]

The origins of the religion of my upbringing were steeped in this stuff. Weird to see it rear its head in this context.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

9 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Fingerprint evidence always seemed iffy to me. I watched a true crime series recently and they talked about how fingerprints were used back in the 70's. There would literally be a guy looking at the prints and trying to match them by eye to prints they had on file. I thought to myself there's no way that could be accurate. Scent evidence based on Dogs has need called in to question as well. So has identification by hair that isn't DNA based. A lot of evidence we think is pretty reliable actually isnt.

 

And let's not forget just how reliable "eye witness testimony" or identification based on police line-ups or sketch artists are either.

 

The fact of the matter is that practically all of these investigative techniques --"forensic" or otherwise -- are essentially no better than astrology and have no place in determining guilt or innocence.  

 

To paraphrase a somewhat famous case where forensic science played a prominent role, "If the evidence ain't DNA, you must throw it away!"

[Comet]

Reminds me of Project Stargate, except way less fun and much more depressing in its actual usage 

[Brick]

While I know that a lot of these forensic techniques aren't all that reliable, I don't think I've heard why they aren't. So what makes blood splatter, or ballistics not accurate? 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, Brick said:

While I know that a lot of these forensic techniques aren't all that reliable, I don't think I've heard why they aren't. So what makes blood splatter, or ballistics not accurate? 

 

Blood spatter analysis:

How a Dubious Forensic Science Spread Like a Virus

FEATURES.PROPUBLICA.ORG

---

From his basement in upstate New York, Herbert MacDonell launched modern bloodstain-pattern analysis, persuading judge after judge of its reliability. Then he trained hundreds of others. But what if they’re getting it wrong?

 

 

Ballistics analysis:

Defective Science: debunking the myth of ballistic fingerprinting - Paratus

PARATUS.INFO

---

Dr. David Klatzow's monumental work regarding ballistic fingerprinting is finally published. It thoroughly debunks the forensic pseudoscience.

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Brick said:

While I know that a lot of these forensic techniques aren't all that reliable, I don't think I've heard why they aren't. So what makes blood splatter, or ballistics not accurate? 

The short version is that repeating the same methods many times in experiments generates different results, which means there is close to nothing to actually be determined by using these techniques.

[Brick]

4 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Blood spatter analysis:

How a Dubious Forensic Science Spread Like a Virus

FEATURES.PROPUBLICA.ORG

---

From his basement in upstate New York, Herbert MacDonell launched modern bloodstain-pattern analysis, persuading judge after judge of its reliability. Then he trained hundreds of others. But what if they’re getting it wrong?

 

 

Ballistics analysis:

Defective Science: debunking the myth of ballistic fingerprinting - Paratus

PARATUS.INFO

---

Dr. David Klatzow's monumental work regarding ballistic fingerprinting is finally published. It thoroughly debunks the forensic pseudoscience.

 

 

I will have to read these when I have more time. Any others on other "not actually science" forensic science techniques? 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, Brick said:

 

I will have to read these when I have more time. Any others on other "not actually science" forensic science techniques? 

 

Criminal profiling:

Criminal profiling doesn’t work. TV shows should maybe stop celebrating it.

WWW.VOX.COM

---

Psychologists cannot, it turns out, catch criminals with the power of their minds.

 

Psychological profiling 'worse than useless' | Psychology | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Profiling of killers has no real-world value, wastes police time and risks bringing the profession into disrepute, experts say

 

[ThreePi]

I would imagine fingerprinting would still be useful in eliminating suspects as opposed to identifying suspects. None of these will be a silver bullet, but meant to provide plausibility. Like, a shoe print is going to be even less unique than a fingerprint, but if a criminal happens to own a pair of shoes that match a print at a scene of a crime its potentially sognificant.

 

Edit - I know there is a typo there, but "sognificant" seems like a funny word so I'm going to leave it.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, ThreePi said:

I would imagine fingerprinting would still be useful in eliminating suspects as opposed to identifying suspects. None of these will be a silver bullet, but meant to provide plausibility. Like, a shoe print is going to be even less unique than a fingerprint, but if a criminal happens to own a pair of shoes that match a print at a scene of a crime its potentially sognificant.

 

Edit - I know there is a typo there, but "sognificant" seems like a funny word so I'm going to leave it.

The largest issue with crime scene finger prints is the quality of the prints. Partials or smudged prints are the norm, nice clean prints are the exception.

 

As technology improves, touch DNA will likely replace finger print analysis as the best best way to use finger prints for investigation AMD prosecution.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Even if the techniques were perfect we still have dumb as rock cops who would have to do all of this science so safe to say if you get arrested for a crime they’re gonna do their “best” to make sure you do time for something

[legend]

Every day that passes I become more confused about how the world manages to work at all.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just now, legend said:

Every day that passes I become more confused about how the world manages to work at all.

This is why the machines will never win

[ThreePi]

42 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Even if the techniques were perfect we still have dumb as rock cops who would have to do all of this science so safe to say if you get arrested for a crime they’re gonna do their “best” to make sure you do

time for something

 

The guy who is pulling you over for doing 47 in a 45 zone is not the guy who is dusting for prints.

[stepee]

wow i’m starting to wonder if maybe dexter was just killing innocent people

[Kal-El814]

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

The largest issue with crime scene finger prints is the quality of the prints. Partials or smudged prints are the norm, nice clean prints are the exception.

 

As technology improves, touch DNA will likely replace finger print analysis as the best best way to use finger prints for investigation AMD prosecution.

 

Also, AFAIK, there is is often a “does this print match this print” kind of analysis going on, as opposed to, “here’s a print, does it match any prints in this set which may or may not contain any prints obstinate from the suspect.”

 

Also AMD has enough problems keeping up with Intel, don’t put this on them too.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, Kal-El814 said:

Also AMD has enough problems keeping up with Intel, don’t put this on them too.

 

And nVidia!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 hours ago, ThreePi said:

 

The guy who is pulling you over for doing 47 in a 45 zone is not the guy who is dusting for prints.

Murder clearance rates are sub 50%. You so sure about that?