pbray

Earlier this year the National Academy of Sciences issued a scathing report on the state of forensic science in this country. It looks like they're firing the next salvo, with an in-depth hearing on the investigative science used in the probe of the 2001 anthrax attacks, specifically those that led the FBI to declare Dr. Bruce Ivins as their sole suspect.

"I think this review is a really good first step," said biological policy expert Cheryl Vos of the Federation of American Scientists. "What I would really like to know is how much did the scientific conclusions drive the investigation, and vice versa. There is a clear intersection between the two." From the USA Today article.

In the vein of seeing what you want to see and finding what you want to find, two recent news stories focused on false evidence linked to scent tracking dogs, including the case of Bill Dillon, sentenced to life in prison based largely on evidence provided by a dog handler.. The article refers to a fake scent tracking dog, but the dog isn't the one who gets on the stand, it's the handler who testifies. Money quote:

Tim McGuire, a dog-tracking expert with Florida’s Volusia County Sheriff’s Department, said it was implausible that a dog could have picked up Dillon’s scent back in 1981 eight days after the murder, and just after a massive hurricane had blown through the area.

The recent issue of Time Magazine also has a story on scent evidence this one focused on a handler in Texas.