http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._hair_analysis_bite_marks_fingerprints.2.html http://www.westernjournalism.com/how-dna-is-turning-us-into-a-nation-of-suspects/ Sometimes when they don't quite have enough to put the suspect away, they will fudge a little bit of the evidence. The jury only knows what they are told, and who's going to doubt the experts? I find this very unsettling. Maybe outrageous and alarming are the right words?
As you have every right to be. But until people realize that the problem lies not with government as that is but a fiction and focuses on the actual problem, the psychopaths that do things well beyond their authority and hold them personally accountable, this matter will persist. Personally I like; along with;
First you are alarmed and outraged that the law is rigged and then this. Second, are you really aware of what a "law" really encompasses? And lastly, what makes you think that any "appointed" person is actually "official" mush less capable of upholding any law?
I mean, you can pass a law that says people who break the law go to prison, and only people who break the law go to prison, but that law will not necessarily do any good. Written laws cannot make things happen on their own. Many people do not seem to grasp this. It takes people to implement the law, and sometimes those people make mistakes, or are corrupt. And then you have people who never broke the law going to prison, or sometimes in other cases people who are known to have broken the law do not go to prison.
In the early 1990s, Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, an attorney and chemist who worked at the FBI as a Supervisory Special Agent, noticed troubling practices in the in the bureau's Investigation Laboratory. There were "alterations of reports, alterations of evidence, folks testifying outside their areas of expertise in courts of law," said Whitehurst. "[Really] what was going on was human rights violations. We have a right to fair trials in this country... And that’s not what was going on at the FBI lab." In 1994, he blew the whistle on the "systemic forensic fraud" he witnessed. Nothing happened. So he took his case to the Department of Justice. The FBI didn’t like that. Whitehurst was eventually chased out of the Bureau, but not before winning a $1.16 million settlement. Unfortunately, however, the wheels of justice turn slowly at the Bureau. "It wasn't until ten years later that Whitehurst was finally vindicated,” notes the National Whistleblower Legal Defense and Education Fund note, "when a scathing 500+ page study of the lab by the Justice Department Inspector General, Michael Bromwich, concluded major reforms were required in the lab." But by then, an untold number of people had been convicted with the help of tainted evidence -- evidence the DOJ knew was tainted. In 2012 the Washington Post published an extensive review of the FBI and DOJ failures to properly review the cases impacted by the FBI lab scandal, based on Whitehurst’s research. As a result, the DOJ agreed to conduct yet another review of hair cases in collaboration with the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL). 3,000 cases were identified by the government that had used microscopic hair analysis from FBI examiners. 500 have been reviewed as of March 2015. 268 included pro-prosecution testimony from FBI examiners. 257 (96 percent) contained erroneous statements from "FBI experts". At least 35 of these cases involved convicted criminals who received the death penalty, according to the National Whistleblower Legal Defense and Education Fund. https://www.dcclothesline.com/2019/...a-were-out-of-control-long-before-russiagate/ (#5)
