Hi <<Goes By Name>>,
Not all evidence is as reliable as it seems. Over the last two decades, wrongful conviction cases have revealed a troubling truth: some forensic techniques used in court have little to no scientific foundation.
This type of flawed or exaggerated testimony is often called junk science — and it can have life-altering consequences.
What Counts as Junk Science?
Certain methods once accepted in court have been discredited, including:
Hair microscopy comparisons
Bite mark analysis
Shoeprint and tire tread comparisons
“Match language” in tool mark or firearm analysis
Shaken baby syndrome diagnoses based solely on triad symptoms
Even when used with good intentions, these techniques can mislead juries and judges — especially when presented as certainty.
