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 Grâce 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?