PSEUDO-SCIENCE

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY PSEUDO-

SCIENCE
• It is a discipline or practice.
• It is presented as scientific.
• It may be presented as “scientific” by one who
has scientific degrees.
• It is not supported by scientific evidence.
• It does or did not employ the scientific method.
• It is not falsifiable.
• It may coincidentally (შემთხვევით) be accurate.
(A broken clock is right twice each day.)
 A REVIEW
• SCIENTIFIC METHOD
– Hypothesis
– Experiment testing the hypothesis
– Results
– Conclusion
• Confirm hypothesis
• Refute hypothesis
 A REVIEW
• Falsifiable
– A theory or hypothesis that has the possibility of
being shown to be false.
– Example – this marker will fly to the ceiling.
– Example – all geese are black.
FORENSIC DENTISTRY
 DR. MICHAEL WEST
• Hundreds of cases
• Methods:
– When a bite mark was not clearly visible, West
pressed the cast of the suspect’s teeth into the
victim’s skin.
– West found “bite marks” when no one else could
find them.
– West testified “without doubt” “certainty.”
– West claimed that only he could perform his
methods.
 DR. MICHAEL WEST’S DOWNFALL
• Attorney Christopher Plourd.
– His investigator gave Dr. West bite mark
photographs from a case that Plourd was
defending, telling him it was from another case.
– His investigator presented West with a plaster cast
of the “suspect’s” teeth.
• West compared the cast with the photos and
concluded that “the odds . . . that these
weren’t the teeth . . . would be almost
astronomical.”
WEST USED SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE
• “Occlusal plane”
• “Diastema”
• “Facets”
 WEST’S PROBABILITY STATEMENT
• “The odds of that happening, if these were
not the teeth that created this bite, would be
almost astronomical.” [Near certainty]

• “I believe that can lead an odontologist to

only one opinion . . . That these teeth did
create that mark.” [Certainty]
 DR. MICHAEL WEST
• Dr. West’s problem: the cast was of the
investigator’s teeth.

• IN GENERAL, BITE MARK ANALYSIS HAS BEEN

SHOWN TO HAVE A 63% ERROR RATE.

• THE “SCIENCE” CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED.

 VALID FORENSIC DENTISTRY
• IDENTIFICATION OF A BODY BY COMPARING
THE BODY’S TEETH WITH KNOWN DENTAL
RECORDS.
• DETERMINING AGE.
 FIREARMS ANALYSIS
• CARTRIDGE MARKS
• BULLET MARKS
• BULLET LEAD ANALYSIS
 BULLET LEAD ANALYSIS
• Quantitative chemical analysis
– % Arsenic
– % Antimony
– % Tin
– % Copper
– % Bismuth
– % Silver
– % Cadmium
 BULLET LEAD ANALYSIS
• The theory:
– The chemical composition of bullets is variable but
bullets from the same box will have the same
chemical composition.
– Chemical composition means the percentages of
the elements (Arsenic, etc.) in the previous slide.
– If the percentages fall within a certain range, then
the examiner declares that the crime scene bullet
(or bullet fragment) and the bullet seized from the
suspect came from the same box.
 BULLET LEAD ANALYSIS
• Quantitative chemical analyses ARE SCIENCE.
• But is the theory behind bullet lead analysis
science?
 BULLET LEAD ANALYSIS
• THESE WERE ASSUMPTIONS!
• The theory had never been subjected to
empirical testing.
• In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences
examined and tested the assumptions. [You
have their report.]
 BULLET LEAD ANALYSIS
• Conclusions of the National Academy of
Sciences:
– The methods of analyzing composition are sound.
– The statistical analysis is not sound.
– The theory, that bullets in a given box are similar,
is not sound. “Variations among and within lead
bullet manufacturers make any modeling of the
general manufacturing process unreliable and
potentially misleading . . . comparisons.” (NSC
Report, p. 5).
 BULLET LEAD ANALYSIS
WHAT DID THE FBI DECIDE?

“One factor significantly influenced the

Laboratory's decision to no longer conduct the
examination of bullet lead: neither scientists nor
bullet manufacturers are able to definitively
attest to the significance of an association made
between bullets in the course of a bullet lead
examination.”
CARTRIDGE MARKS
FIRING PIN IMPRESSION
BULLET STRIATION
BULLET STRIATION
TOOL MARK COMPARISON
 COMMENTARY
“Toolmark and firearms analysis suffers from the
same limitations discussed above for impression
evidence. Because not enough is known about the
variabilities among individual tools and guns, we
are not able to specify how many points of
similarity are necessary for a given level of
confidence in the result. Sufficient studies have not
been done to understand the reliability and
repeatability of the methods.”

Strengthening Forensic Science, p. 154.

 COMMENTARY
“Individual patterns from manufacture or from
wear might, in some cases, be distinctive
enough to suggest one particular source,
but additional studies should be performed to
make the process of individualization more
precise and repeatable.”

Ibid.
 COMMENTARY
What the commentary means is that you can
look at the obvious matches, like those in the
photos in this lecture, but you cannot draw good
conclusions about the less obvious.

In other words, an “expert” should not draw

conclusions that are not obvious to the non-
expert.
BULLET STRIATION
 ARSON INVESTIGATIONS
• ALLIGATOR CHARRING
• CRAZED GLASS
• NARROW V BURN PATTERN
• POOLED BURN PATTERN
ALLIGATOR CHAR
CRAZED GLASS
V BURN PATTERN

Believed to show source of the fire

POOLED BURN PATTERN

Thought to show use of accelerant, like benzine

 ARSON INVESTIGATION
These patterns were considered to be strong
indications of arson. (For example, a V pattern,
without an apparent source.)

This was sometimes correct, but not always.

 ARSON INVESTIGATION
• This was passed down as wisdom and
knowledge from arson investigator to arson
investigator.
• Inherited wisdom: When do you make cha
cha?
– “make cha cha when snow falls on the
mountains.”
• It may be accurate but. . . .
 ARSON INVESTIGATION
• In the late 1990s and early 2000s, there was
an attempt to verify burn pattern assumptions
with empirical evidence – scientific
investigations.
• Studies found that the assumptions, although
sometimes correct, were not reliable.
• The same burn patterns appeared when fires
were not set by a person.
 SHOEPRINT CASTS

Source: forensicresources.co.uk
 SHOEPRINT CASTS
Used properly to prove murder in a Montana
case.
 SHOEPRINT CASTS
In the case of Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, a court
held that a prosecutor would be required to pay
the accused. The prosecutor had consulted with
several shoe print experts who told him that the
shoe print did not match the accused’s. The
prosecutor kept looking for another expert who
would say what he wanted.
GAIT ANALYSIS
 VOICE ANALYSIS
Michele Catanzaro, Elisabetta Tola, Philipp
Hummel & Astrid Viciano, “Voice Analysis
Should Be Used with Caution in Court,” Scientific
American (January 25, 2017).

This is not the same as “ის ჟღერს მას.”

You can ask a witness if the voice s/he heard

sounded like ____’s. But this is not “analysis.”
 HANDWRITING ANALYSIS &
QUESTIONED DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
• Handwriting analysis is different from
questioned document analysis.

• Handwriting analysis is what Bertillon

attempted – is the handwriting Dreyfus’s?

• Questioned document asks what, not who:

Forgery? Alteration?
 HANDWRITING ANALYSIS &
QUESTIONED DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
• Handwriting analysis has a high rate of error –
22% to 36% in two studies. (See Reference
Manual at 88-89).

• Questioned document asks: Forgery? Alteration?

• Questioned document analysis tends to be more

reliable.

• The “Broken O.”

 YOUR PAPERS

• I will correct but not grade for English usage,

so do NOT WORRY about English grammar.