[michael1999]

That just isn’t how it works.

Police science is a parallel world of non-science. Over and over, fake science like hair id, bite mark analysis, fire, shaken baby, excited delirium, and others are debunked. But the courts have been terribly uninterested in hearing science contradict police-science.

[michael1999]

To be clear: courts have their own way of deciding disputes, and that process has distinct differences from the scientific model. E.g. stare decisis is actively hostile to new evidence; appeals may not reference new evidence; police practices are given deference as experts in their own magisterium, and may not be held to normal scientific practice; and others.