Tuesday, July 5, 2016

The URL has changed!

The URL for Forensic Science, Statistics, and the Law has changed, from http://for-sci-law-now.blogspot.com/ to http://for-sci-law.blogspot.com/ .

Take me to the FSSL blog. ☆

In case you are not familiar with the blog, here is a list of the postings from July 28, 2014, to July 10, 2016:
  • If the Glass Fits, Declare It: The Justice Department's ULTR for Glass that "Physically Fits Together"
  • Conference to Explode DNA Forensic Analysis Through Alchemy
  • State Supreme Court Approves of Variable-Prior-Odds Presentation of the Bayesian Probability of Paternity
  • District of Columbia Court of Appeals Delivers Coup de GrĂ¢ce to "Unqualified" Pattern-matching Testimony
  • Traditional forensic pattern-matching testimony in Williams v. United States
  • Proposed Uniform Language for Forensic Serology
  • More NCFS Draft Documents Released for Public Comment
  • Proposed Uniform Language for Forensic Toxicology
  • The Department of Justice's "Proposed Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports"
  • SWGFAST on "a decision to reach a conclusion" of individualization for latent fingerprints
  • BIT Global Group's Next Flaky Forensics Conference
  • False Justice and Prosecutors' Fallacies
  • The Department of Justice's Plan for a Forensic Science Discipline Review
  • Sample Evidence: What’s Wrong with ASTM E2548-11 Standard Guide for Sampling Seized Drugs?
  • NIST Distances Itself from the First OSAC-approved Forensic Science Standard
  • Hot Paint: Another ASTM Standard (E2937-13) that Needs More Work
  • What Is a "Conservative" Method in Forensic Statistics?
  • "Reasonable Scientific Certainty," the NCFS, the Law of the Courtroom," and that Pesky Passive Voice
  • Is "Reasonable Scientific Certainty" Unreasonable?
  • "Stress Tests" by the Department of Justice and the FBI's "Approved Scientific Standards for Testimony and Reports"
  • Is OSAC Painting Itself Out of the Picture? Time to Comment on ASTM E1640-14
  • Approximating Individualization: The ASTM's Standard Terminology for Digital Evidence
  • Broken Glass: What Do the Data Show?
  • Broken Glass, Mangled Statistics
  • The First OSAC-approved Standard for Forensic Science
  • Beyond the Higgs Boson: The “Prosecutor’s Fallacy” Does Not Explain Why Experimenters Are Cautious About Announcing New Discoveries
  • “Statistical Lawyer’s Tricks” with DNA Mixtures in the Trial of Tommy Whack
  • Alaska Court of Appeals Deems Polygraph Evidence Admissible (or Not?)
  • Massachusetts Supreme Court Demands a Witness from the Same DNA Laboratory -- But Not Because of the Confrontation Clause
  • Higher math in a Kansas case
  • Flaky Academic Conferences
  • Flaky Academic Journals
  • "Remarkably Accurate": The Miami-Dade Police Study of Latent Fingerprint Identification (Pt. 3)
  • More on Task Relevance in Forensic Tests
  • Blinding Forensic Analysts to Task-irrelevant Information: A National Commission (NCFS) Speaks Out
  • Hair Evidence in the “Clearly Not Exonerated” Exoneration of Mark Reid
  • Cell Phones, Brain Cancer, and Scientific Outliers Are Not the Best Reasons to Abandon Frye v. United States
  • Public Comment Period for Seven National Commission on Forensic Science Work Products To Close on 12/22
  • Latent Fingerprint Identification in Flux?
  • Marching Toward Improved Latent Fingerprint Testimony at the Army's Defense Forensic Science Center
  • Can Forensic Pattern Matching Be Validated?
  • SWGDAM Guidelines on "Probabilistic Genotyping Systems" (Part 2)
  • SWGDAM Guidelines on "Probabilistic Genotyping Systems" (Part 1)
  • Disentangling Two Issues in the Hair Evidence Debacle
  • First NIST OSAC Forensic Science Standards Up for Public Comment
  • What proves that "the expert and his methods couldn’t possibly be reliable"?
  • What the FBI Hair Examiner Said About Race in State v. Manning
  • Validity, Overclaiming, and Error: More on Willie Manning's Exoneration
  • Justice Breyer in Glossip v. Gross on "flawed testimony from an FBI hair examiner"
  • In His Own Words: Justice Scalia's Poetry Slam
  • Two Scientific Issues in Glossip v. Gross
  • DNA Evidence Causes Wrongful Convictions 15% of the Time!?
  • Peering into Peer Review
  • Frontline's Expose of DNA Testing: Yes and No
  • 48 Hours for DNA
  • Maryland v. King and Fourth Amendment Doctrine
  • Spitting in Syracuse: Another Disgusting DNA Case
  • No Relief for Jeffrey MacDonald After FBI Declares It “Exceeded the Limits of Science” with Hair Analysis
  • The Junk DNA Wars
  • The (Lack of) Meaning of the Supreme Court's Disposition of Raynor v. State
  • Genetic Determinism and Essentialism on the Electronic Frontier
  • Buza Reloaded: California Supreme Court Grants Review
  • "Remarkably Accurate": The Miami-Dade Police Study of Latent Fingerprint Identification (Pt. 2)
  • "Remarkably Accurate": The Miami-Dade Police Study of Latent Fingerprint Identification (Pt. 1)
  • Justice Department Reverses Decision on the Mandate of the National Commission on Forensic Science
  • "A Bump in the Road" for the National Commission on Forensic Science
  • A Probability for Dog DNA
  • Buza Reloaded: California Balancing
  • Buza Reloaded: Fourth Amendment Balancing
  • Buza Reloaded: The Fourth Amendment Framework
  • Buza Reloaded: Court Shifts Ground But Again Invalidates California’s DNA-on-arrest Law
  • Another Disgusting DNA Case: Please Flush!
  • The Supreme Sound of Silence: Same-Sex Marriage and DNA Databases
  • Bayes in Our Times
  • Hazard Ratios and Heart Failure
  • The FBI's Worst Hair Days
  • A Long Shot Pays Off in Long Island
  • Looking Backwards: How Safe Are Fingerprint Identifications?

1 comment: