Traditional bullets are lacking to verify the health of foundational sciences

The claim that lead can be uniquely matched with specific firearms that have not been conclusively proven. National reports (NAS 2009, PCAST 2016) found that discipline lacks the validity of the founding sciences.

The reported error rates (about one percent) artificially low because the “non -decisive” results are incorrectly calculated as correct. When classified properly, error rates jump to 93 percent, which exposes severe reliability problems.

The examiners often contradict (the same bullets, the same examiner: 66 percent of consistency). Different examiners agree to less than a third of the time, which undermines objectivity.

The courts are now restricting the examiners of the use of terms such as “matching” or claiming “scientific certainty”. Historical cases (for example, the Supreme Court’s Supreme Court) announces the unreliable methodology, risk in previous condemnations.

Emerging technology (3D microscopy, statistical databases) provides more objective but expensive analysis and after years of adoption. Meanwhile, jury bodies are still confident in a defective testimony, leaving the defendants vulnerable to illegal convictions.

In the revelation that threatens the foundations of the American criminal justice system, the long-awaited belief that the ballistic evidence can link the bullet to one fiery weapon conclusively as an unimportantly installed assumption-it is possible that thousands of previous convictions and current governorates will slow down.

The central lawsuit for criminal firearms has not been proven – that each gun leaves a unique sign on bullets and cartridge covers – categorically. This confidence crisis stems from an increasing group of legal research and analysis.

National reports from National Academy of Sciences In 2009 and the Council of Advisors in Science and Technology in 2016 He was among the first alert soundFinding discipline lacks the constituent authority and adequate studies to understand its reliability. Despite these criticisms, the examiners continue to testify in court, and often cite health verification studies that have been stunningly low error rates of about one percent.

However, these rates are deeply misleading as they are artificially deviated by practicing “non -decisive” results as correct answers instead of errors. When these non -decisive results are correctly classified, error rates in studies can rise to 93 percent – reveal a field in a state of crisis.

In response, scientific institutions such as the National Institute for Standards and Technology are a pioneer in new and most objective methods Using a high -resolution 3D microscope To create default models of tools. This technology allows more repetitive comparisons that depend on data and develop statistical databases. However, this transition is far from being routine, costly to implement and does not address the legacy of cases based on old methods.

Matching the bullet: the jury trust, but the flag breaks it

More undermining the domain credibility is repetition studies. Ames II’s study found that When the same examiner was offered with the same bullets for the second time, they reached the same conclusion only two thirds of the time. Even more than that, the different examiners who look at the same evidence agreed to less than a third of the time.

Moreover, BrightonEnoch notes that “the matching of the bullets is inaccurate because the signs that left the bullets are inconsistent and unreliable to determine a specific pistol barrel, and often fail in light of the criminal scrutiny. In addition, the slight differences in aligning the horizon can significantly change the lead path – which makes the exact matches impossible.” (Related to: Questions raised on the FBI’s evidence in the Charlie Kerk case; Cash Patel criticizes the investigation))

This lack of consistency and objectivity stands in a flagrant contradiction with the certainty that is transferred to jury bodies. “It is a fatal guide,” said Jeff Gelran, chief lawyer in the forensic department of the General Defender Office, noting that the jury bodies rarely doubt the testimony of firearms.

The situation has pushed a slow judicial account. Some courts now put strict restrictions on what the examiners can say, except for the use of terms such as “matching” or clarifying opinions “to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.

Moreover, a central Airlines summary of the Maryland Supreme Court concluded that The basic methodology for examining criminal firearms lacks strict scientific verification Required to be considered reliable evidence. The effects of the deep of the defendants such as Kobina Ebo Abruquah, who is serving a life imprisonment in condemning the 2012 that depends on this certificate to a large extent, and for the legal testimony that has long dealt with this evidence as infallible.

for now, The legal system depends on the appearance of the courtroom for “anti -experience experts” Research scientists such as the biologist Michael Rosenbin who can dismantle defective studies presented as evidence of authority.

Read more stories like this in Fakescience.News.

Watch this edition of “BRIGHTEON BRADCAST News” where Healger Mike Adams is displayed by Federal Forensic Medicine paid by the FBI paid.

This video from Health goalkeeper report on Brighton.com.