"With the notable exception of DNA evidence, the report says that many forensic methods have never been shown to consistently and reliably connect crime scene evidence to specific people or sources.
"The simple reality is that the interpretation of forensic evidence is not always based on scientific studies to determine its validity," the report says"
From my own experience, I can tell you that all American hand-writing looks the same. Elsewhere we were taught to write neat cursive penmanship, while Americans prefer big, clear handwriting.
Thanks for beating me to make the same point. There is an astonishing lack of careful validation studies of many kinds of "scientific" evidence often referred to in criminal trials. Basically, the "expert" gets on the witness stand, says what the prosecutor wants said, and it's a rare defense attorney who has the resources to offer rebuttal evidence on the same issue.
The common-law rule of handwriting identification is that it doesn't require special expertise, but only familiarity with someone's handwriting. In other words, even though I don't purport to have any specialized training in handwriting identification, I could (if the case required such evidence) be called to testify, "Yeah, that looks like my wife's handwriting; I've seen hundreds of examples of things she has written, and this looks just her usual handwriting." You could do the same for anyone whose handwriting is familiar to you.
While reading this it occurred to me that I couldn't identify the handwriting of even those closest to me, with the possible exception of my parents, since our written communication is almost always online.
And even DNA evidence is not infallible. Recently there was a series of crimes all over Germany where DNA evidence pointed to a single woman involved in all of them.
It turned out she was just an employee at the plant where the q-tips were made. The q-tips get sterilized before being used, but this process only destroys proteins, most DNA survives.
I read this story too over the weekend, I thought it was hilarious (and sad) in a way. They spent fifteen years in Germany, Austria and France searching for a serial murderer that had female DNA, looked like a man, and was to be found in gipsy circles.
I borrowed a "handwriting analysis for dummies" book from a friend, on a whim after skimming through it. It was just after reading a couple of Feynmann books, which is why I can so eloquently classify handwriting analysis as a "cargo cult science."
It's a lot about "energy" and "flow" and other subjective nonsense. It's along the lines of reading body language... which I would call more of a skill, or talent, rather than a science.
I too could've sworn that handwriting analysis was some wishy-washy pseudo-science. I remember watching a TV program on the subject here in Switzerland; they had the head of the Swiss psychology assocation on, with him basically stating that it's a feel-good construct for PHBs wanting to sound important (this was in the context of whether you should apply for a job with a hand-written letter, or a typed letter; it was the early 90s...) :)
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-na-crime-science19-2009...
"With the notable exception of DNA evidence, the report says that many forensic methods have never been shown to consistently and reliably connect crime scene evidence to specific people or sources.
"The simple reality is that the interpretation of forensic evidence is not always based on scientific studies to determine its validity," the report says"
From my own experience, I can tell you that all American hand-writing looks the same. Elsewhere we were taught to write neat cursive penmanship, while Americans prefer big, clear handwriting.