Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Shadowrider" data-source="post: 3054076" data-attributes="member: 3099">Yea I knew she was state level, I should have been more clear.&nbsp; It may not have even been the Gilchrist deal but I still think it might have been, but anyway the point I was making was that I read quite a few years ago that microscopic hair analysis is basically a crock.&nbsp; There&#039;s really no science involved as I recall.&nbsp; Maybe some statistical feature comparison, but no real chemical or biological testing to it.&nbsp; What boils down to is they were actually presenting circumstantial evidence &quot;cloaked&quot; as physical evidence.&nbsp; The article you posted makes mention that there&#039;s a manufactured or faked field of forensic science.&nbsp; Seems that there may some hyperbole going on with the article as it was years ago I was reading about it.&nbsp; Slate is good at that.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shadowrider, post: 3054076, member: 3099"] Yea I knew she was state level, I should have been more clear. It may not have even been the Gilchrist deal but I still think it might have been, but anyway the point I was making was that I read quite a few years ago that microscopic hair analysis is basically a crock. There's really no science involved as I recall. Maybe some statistical feature comparison, but no real chemical or biological testing to it. What boils down to is they were actually presenting circumstantial evidence "cloaked" as physical evidence. The article you posted makes mention that there's a manufactured or faked field of forensic science. Seems that there may some hyperbole going on with the article as it was years ago I was reading about it. Slate is good at that. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk [/QUOTE]

Verification