View Single Post
  #42  
Old 15 November 2017, 08:31 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,366
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
Yes. Indeed if you read the legal literature nad court cases the ability to prove non-parent hood is generally considered to be scientifically irrefutable. It can only be refuted on procedural grounds but EVERYTHING in a legal case is refutable on those grounds.

The reliability to prove parenthood is almost as strong and I would argue that even that is stronger than virtually anything else in a trial. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Confessions are notorious unreliable. Even finger prints are no longer considered to be foolproof, like they once were, because there is a fair amount of subjectivity in fingerprint matching.
Fingerprint failure rate roughly 0.1% in this study http://www.pnas.org/content/108/19/7733

Also, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/a...so-scientific/
Teeth marks, hair, even fingerprints are considered less reliable than DNA.
I tried clicking on the underlined "scientifically irrefutable," but you seem to have forgotten to link your cite there.
Reply With Quote