Sessions: We’ll Do Forensics Without All That Science Stuff

“Attorney General Jeff Sessions will end a Justice Department partnership with independent scientists to raise forensic science standards and has suspended an expanded review of FBI testimony across several techniques that have come under question, saying a new strategy will be set by an in-house team of law enforcement advisers.”
 
See Sessions orders Justice Dept. to end forensic science commission, suspend review policy
Government by ignorant people just doesn’t work, it seems. Now the USA’s Department of Justice will dispose of inconvenient science to streamline operations. [SARCASM]Who cares if the prisons are full of the wrongfully convicted? Who cares if a bunch were actually executed? Tough. We’ll do it our way and we’ll dodge outside scrutiny just to make sure the boat doesn’t rock.[/SARCASM]

This is what you get when you elect a raving lunatic to hire other lunatics to run things. Do better, USA.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.

This entry was posted in politics, technology and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Sessions: We’ll Do Forensics Without All That Science Stuff

  1. oiaohm says:

    http://cordis.europa.eu/docs/projects/cnect/4/257454/080/deliverables/001-WiserBANWP3D31Final20111007.pdf
    The skin conductivity and permittivity varies dramatically from person to person and even for a single person but in different physical state.
    This is directly about 2.4 ghz and human skin.

    but in the spirit of genuine scientific enquiry, oiaohm, which part or parts of the human body would you claim have the ability to resonate at 2.4GHz, “variably” or otherwise?
    There are many papers on the subject DrLoser. Fairly much everything bar your bone and it variable based on emotional state and other factors.

    They also exploited human body ability to reflect 2.4Ghz in those experiments to boost signal range.

    So Ivan counter is bullshit. That 2011 paper note that human body conductivity/resistance/reflectivity to 2.4ghz changes with activity it also changes with emotion.

    DrLoser I totally can bet that you will not say sorry I was wrong for all the time I attack me for that. I don’t thing Ivan will be man enough to admit he as been totally wrong either.

    Anyone who has worked around 2.4 ghz enough has seen the human blocking effects mostly don’t understand that it is linked to many factors include human emotion.

  2. DrLoser wrote, “which part or parts of the human body would you claim have the ability to resonate at 2.4GHz, “variably” or otherwise?”

    I’m no expert on 2.4gHz, but when I set WiFi up in schools, it was obvious that people along with walls, desks, filing cabinets etc. could reflect or attenuate RF. It is possible that spacing of such surfaces could form a resonant chamber. Mostly, we worked around that using multiple sources/access points. To get better coverage outside the school, we placed them in the centres of windows to minimize the mass through which the radiation had to pass. We had pretty good coverage until one was stolen.

  3. DrLoser says:

    Most humans have variably interfering 2.4 Ghz wifi most are not aware what makes them more or less interfering and DNA is also a factor on how strong the interfering will be.

    I hate myself for asking this question — but in the spirit of genuine scientific enquiry, oiaohm, which part or parts of the human body would you claim have the ability to resonate at 2.4GHz, “variably” or otherwise?

  4. Ivan says:

    Sounds like a load of crap your spouting to justify your batshit insanity, Mr. Dolding.

  5. oiaohm says:

    There has been a over presume of how unique finger prints look as well.
    http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/researchers-fool-fingerprint-sensor/
    Notice here that the Iphone finger print scanner is a 1 in 50000 rate of error per scan.

    This is something that is not getting to court is size data set scanned and the probability of error of the method used. Brandon Mayfield case more finger prints were compared than the probability of error of the method used so error was almost absolutely assured to happen at some point.

  6. oiaohm says:

    Emotions due to altering conductivity also alters how strong your body will block wifi signals. So you are yelling at your computer and you are between the AP for wifi and device and signal drops out you could have directly caused that if you conductivity increased because you were angry so becoming a better radio shield. Other people being absolutely relaxed is their highest conductivity point. The wifi interference is normally blamed on humans having water yes that is a factor but is not the only factor.

    What you mind does have lot of effects over your complete body. Power of Mind comes from Power of Mind to control body when it comes to radio interference and blocking. So what I claimed was absolutely true problem was most people had not bother checking the papers on it. Most humans have variably interfering 2.4 Ghz wifi most are not aware what makes them more or less interfering and DNA is also a factor on how strong the interfering will be.

    So how long before idiots will stop attempting to call me out on a claim that is scientific fact.

  7. oiaohm says:

    Ivan there is in fact Forensics to what I claimed with wifi blocking.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodermal_activity
    Emotional state alters conductivity of many parts of you body this also alters what radio freqs human flesh interferes with. Due to DNA variation it cannot be used to scan though wall and determine a random person mood.

    In fact you fighting that point proves you don’t know the basics of Forensics.

    So every time someone attacked me over the wifi claim all it shows is total lack of knowledge on their part. The claim is older than what you have found. Its one of my idiot tests and you have fallen straight into it Ivan.

  8. Ivan says:

    Wrong crap? Pete you announced to the world that you disrupt wireless networks with the power of your mind: http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/irc-log-31072010.html

  9. oiaohm says:

    http://www.forensicdnacenter.com/resources/dna-fingerprint.html
    Forensics evolve. So to detect cases where superglue has been used and the person is not guilty by 2007 a method of abstracting dna from the prints had been developed.

    This does make you question use death as a punishment. Forensics evolve as errors are found. Now here is the problem do police Forensics systems and labs evolve with the new methods.

  10. oiaohm says:

    I see DrLoser has nothing to say so has to do what he did on TMR for a long time rewriting my stuff modified leading to him believing a stack of wrong crap about me. And Grese has nothing to say on the topic either. Apparently you are sick of being proven wrong so you are back to old TMR troll methods of using stuff out of context or rewriting it.

    It’s modern Phrenology, you dumb shit.
    Ivan Phrenology is absolutely dis-proven. The bases to Forensics are not dis-proven just methods need to be made more exact. Some of the presumes allowed under science method have turned out to be wrong.

    Brandon Mayfield finger print match was because the finger print has been abstracted by using superglue instead old school finger print dust or something with the same resolution as finger print dust. So far we have never found two people with identical finger prints even in that case. If the finger print had been abstracted from a bit of paper using old finger print dust the two would not have matched. So was the core idea of the uniqueness of finger prints dis-proven by Brandon Mayfield case the answer is no. Was a method for confirming a match dis-proven in fact no. Was method for abstracting finger print off a surface disproved yes due to a particular method being too low of resolution to get a valid compare.

    Even if finger prints turn out not to be absolutely unique the existing data from the use of finger prints says the odds of a incorrect finger print match is low particularly if you restrict you testing to only those with means to commit the crime.

    Its even like bite marks. Bite marks data got by modern scanning and compared that don’t depend on human operator to guess as much are way more exact then where human judgement is used. The core problem with Forensics is we are still using 1800 century methods and cost cutting. Not that the basic principles of Forensics is wrong.

    What is wrong is some of the methods used in Forensics even so when those methods say you are not the guilty party they are not wrong. The bad part is Forensic methods false positive not false negative. Courts have been presuming that Forensics never false positives then not checking like basic thing did person in fact have opportunity to perform the crime and that everyone with opportunity was checked. Most Forensic errors are located by checking the basics. Defence lawyers are meant to make sure that the basics have been checked. Even in the Brandon Mayfield case and he lawyer they did not check the basics or present the basics to the court. Instead attempted to get expert to state that the Forensics results is wrong. Forensics does include checking the basics of opportunity/means all the test of Forensics is testing if a person has the means to committed the crime.

    The Brandon Mayfield is not just a failure of a Forensics method is a failure of defence lawyers to-do there job. Then you look at every case of a Forensic fail and you find the same story. Defence Lawyers not doing their job for the client.

    If anything is Phrenology is the presume Defence Lawyers will do the basics. Maybe there need to be a counter investigator by the state on the Defence side.

  11. Grece says:

    You know, this is a super big maybe. I have mentioned it before but the process is a pain in ass.

    Badly packages applications exist. Depending how built Yes it would be better at long last has agreed to sit down and work Ok it would be nicer

    Interesting point. There is something interesting here.

  12. DrLoser says:

    Ivan proper Phrenology is not a joke. Problem is here Phrenology prove possibility of being the criminal even badly done ones. Phrenology more absolutely proves that you are not a criminal.

    Key word is Phrenology proves possibility that you are the criminal not that you are the criminal. Counts have end up Phrenology match without the quality consideration as absolute when its only a possibility.

    So Phrenology have prevents a lot of truly not guilty from end up in jail. Problem is without quality consideration Phrenology in courts has made some major errors. Its really simple to forget the number of people who are ruled out of investigations due to Phrenology test.

    Also we have technology that can do Phrenology better but how many police forces have deployed that technology.

    There is a old saying “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.” Just because Phrenology has few false positives its not ground to get rid of Phrenology completely with how absolute Phrenology been on proving the negative that a person could not have been able to-do a particular crime.

    So Phrenology need to be used for what it proves.

  13. Ivan says:

    It’s modern Phrenology, you dumb shit.

  14. oiaohm says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FFRhZS2ytc

    Ivan proper Forensics is not a joke. Problem is here Forensics prove possibility of being the criminal even badly done ones. Forensics more absolutely proves that you are not a criminal.

    Key word is Forensics proves possibility that you are the criminal not that you are the criminal. Counts have end up Forensics match without the quality consideration as absolute when its only a possibility.

    So forensics have prevents a lot of truly not guilty from end up in jail. Problem is without quality consideration forensics in courts has made some major errors. Its really simple to forget the number of people who are ruled out of investigations due to forensics test.

    Also we have technology that can do forensics better but how many police forces have deployed that technology.

    There is a old saying “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.” Just because forensics has few false positives its not ground to get rid of forensics completely with how absolute forensics been on proving the negative that a person could not have been able to-do a particular crime.

    So forensics need to be used for what it proves.

  15. Ivan says:

    Forensics is joke, though, ask Brandon Mayfield.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *