[aimkey]

>Algorithms are just laundering bad opinions like blood splatter analysis

You have way too much faith in the legal system. So many pseudo-scientific classes of evidence exist:

- Field sobriety tests

- Ballistic forensics

- Blood spatter analysis, as you mentioned

- Bite pattern analysis

- Burn / arson forensics

- Polygraph

- Biometrics under less-than-perfect conditions (your fingerprint reader on your phone works well because it's near perfect conditions. Crime scene partial finger prints are usually insufficient. Same for facial recognition -- works with your iPhone FaceID sensor, doesn't work with the gas station 480x320 camera)

- Most DNA and hair analysis

Pretty much all hocus pocus. Courts don't care. Anything for the conviction. Anyone hoping for fair scientific analysis in a court of law today is in for a rude awakening.

[Clubber]

To be fair, polygraph tests aren't admissible as evidence in court, but I completely agree with your larger point. You also left out drug sniffing dogs, which are just a prop for the justification of an otherwise illegal search, and apparently drug sniffing cops too. There was recently a case where a cop claimed in court to have smelled unburned pot from several cars away while driving on the interstate. This was fortunately thrown out but it's not guaranteed.

[jkestner]

I agree with you completely, except for the idea that I have too much faith in the legal system.