Which statement is not true about forensic science?
912973
3 is the statement which is not representative of the true operation of forensic science.\n\nWhile most police departments do indeed have forensic investigation laboratories, forensic science is not used only by the prosecution.  A defense attorney that completely ignored forensic evidence or ignored forensics that cleared their client would not be a very effective defense attorney.\n\nThe defense can, and does, hire forensic scientists as expert witnesses to refute the testimony of the prosecution.
1077954
In every murder case lawyers argue with the Post mortem report given by doctors.\n\nIn what way the post-mortem repot helps or does not help? Same will be with the law of Einstein.
26506
Hi, thats quite a difficult one. \n\nI will tryto give you what i can.\n\nyou can start with wikipedia. Thats because it gives things in the right sequence and then there are a lot of links.\n\nIn general, it describes a term Forensic Chemistry. Forensic chemistry applies the principles of chemistry to law enforcement. Some forensic chemists may deal with explosives or poisons. The bulk of most forensic chemists work is on the analyses of controlled substances. According to federal and state laws an accurate net weight and positive identification of a substance must be obtained before a person can be tried for its possession, distribution or manufacturing. State and local regulations can vary, but in general an analysis must be accomplished based on certain weight criteria. After the weight is obtained the chemist may perform presumptive testing using chemical reagents that cause a color or odor change. The result of the presumptive tests give the chemist clues that guide what type of further testing is required.\n\n\nSee more at :\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_chemistry\n\nYou will find a lot of links here, eg to Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry etc.\n\nSometihng to read here:\nhttp://www.keele.ac.uk/undergraduate/prospectus/2006/forensic.htm\n\nhttp://www.aafs.org/yfsf/newsletter/Sept2001/Goodpaster.html\n\nhttp://www.forensic-science-society.org.uk\n(The official web site of The Forensic Science Society.)\n\nMore useful links at:\nhttp://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/forensic/resources.htm\n\nYou will find links to a few people who you can write to. \nhttp://www.enfsi.org/search?SearchableText=chemistry&Title=&Description=&created%3Adate=1970%2F02%2F01+00%3A00%3A00+GMT&created_usage=range%3Amin&pt_toggle=%23&portal_type%3Alist=Collector&portal_type%3Alist=Collector+Catalog&portal_type%3Alist=Collector+Issue&portal_type%3Alist=Collector+Issue+Transcript&portal_type%3Alist=Collector+Subset&portal_type%3Alist=ContactFolder&portal_type%3Alist=ContentPanels&portal_type%3Alist=ControlTool&portal_type%3Alist=DataGridDemoType&portal_type%3Alist=Discussion+Item&portal_type%3Alist=Document&portal_type%3Alist=DynamicPage&portal_type%3Alist=EUFolder&portal_type%3Alist=Event&portal_type%3Alist=ExFile&portal_type%3Alist=ExtendedEvent&portal_type%3Alist=ExtendedLink&portal_type%3Alist=ExtendedNews&portal_type%3Alist=FAQ&portal_type%3Alist=FAQTheme&portal_type%3Alist=Favorite&portal_type%3Alist=File&portal_type%3Alist=Folder&portal_type%3Alist=GroupSpace&portal_type%3Alist=Image&portal_type%3Alist=Job&portal_type%3Alist=Large+Plone+Folder&portal_type%3Alist=Link&portal_type%3Alist=Member&portal_type%3Alist=MemberDataContainer&portal_type%3Alist=Message&portal_type%3Alist=News+Item&portal_type%3Alist=Newsletter&portal_type%3Alist=NewsletterBTree&portal_type%3Alist=NewsletterReference&portal_type%3Alist=NewsletterTheme&portal_type%3Alist=NewsletterTopic&portal_type%3Alist=Plone+Site&portal_type%3Alist=PloneArticle&portal_type%3Alist=PloneArticleMultiPage&portal_type%3Alist=PloneContactsView&portal_type%3Alist=PressRelease&portal_type%3Alist=PressReview&portal_type%3Alist=SCAuditorium&portal_type%3Alist=SCAuditoriumItem&portal_type%3Alist=Section&portal_type%3Alist=Subscriber&portal_type%3Alist=TempFolder&portal_type%3Alist=Topic&Creator=&submit=Search
511077
I've said this before here: the lack of one kind of proof (a positive drug test) does not mean all other proofs (in this case, hundreds of pages of documents and sworn grand jury testimony) are irrelevant.
327654
Don't take the info here as given. Only believe it if you find real nonpartison evidence. I'm not saying it is true or not, I'm just saying before you believe it, know what you are talking about.
602478
Sort of. Science only disproves. So if we can disprove everything that would say that the body doesn't have a soul, then you've got proof.
497560
do you maybe mean forensic science?
115489
B.\n\nAll of the rest are false.
71490
I think that you will find that if you want to do forensic science that you will have to have at least some chemistry. Much of what you do as a forensic scientist is chemical analysis, so that is important. It involves a great deal of biology, as well.\n\nMy sense is that you should major in biology, or at least minor in it. Do you have access to a biological anthropology (or medical anthropology) degree program? That will give you some more biology, as well as understanding bones, bodies and things like that.
463151
Your question basically says, "because one type of evidence is missing, we should ignore all other evidence of wrongdoing."  The answer is obvious.
1108387
Actually you are on to something.  Forensics as an academic field of study is actually relatively new.  In many of the sub-disciplines one starts with a general major (IT) and then gradually becomes more specialized.  What frustrates many of us in academia is that (1) the original model of forensics appears to have been one of specialists - PhD/Professional degree required.  Now kids are under the impression thanks to TV shows that you can get in with an undergraduate degree!  (2) Because of this misconception, quite a few places are trying to accomodate it!  This drives some faculty crazy, but I come from an interdisciplinary perspective and think it's a great opportunity for students to view things more holistic perspective.\n\nThe grad school issue won't be going away, however.  In fact, with so many students brainwashed by the tube into thinking there must be detective jobs all over the place, you now have LOTS of competition and in the academic marketplace (outside of troubling state regulations) that means two things: increasing GPA requirements and higher degree levels to attain to get the job.  Be prepared to work hard to beat the competition to the best spots!
862225
Not in the least! It's pseudoscience which has failed every test put to it. The fact that so many people believe in it doesn't mean it's true; what it does indicate is the miserable failure of science education around the world.
856336
no it is not true, as far as i know
880857
Not only does ID lack any sort of evidence, it lacks any sort of testable hypothesis.\nThe fact is; ID is mythology trying to enter the classroom in disguise as science. Thankfully, the disguise is so flimsy and so easily seen through that no one with more than an ounce of brain matter is fooled.\n\nJohn, you're an outright liar.\nEinstein would NEVER have said anything that inane. I realize that pious fraud is something you idiots have to resort to on a daily basis, but it's still fraud...
730309
The Scientific Method\nby Anthony Carpi, Ph.D.\n\nA common misperception of science is that science defines "truth." Science does not define truth; rather, it defines a way of thought. It is a process in which experiments are used to answer questions. This process is called the scientific method and involves several steps:\n\n   1. Observation: The first step of the scientific method takes place when an observation is made regarding some event or characteristic of the world. This observation might lead to a question regarding the event or characteristic. For example, you might drop a glass of water one day and observe it crashing to the floor near your feet. This observation might lead you to ask a question, "Why did the glass fall?"\n   2. Hypothesis:In attempting to answer the question, a scientist will form a hypothesis (or some would say a guess) regarding the question's answer. In our example there are many possible hypotheses, but one hypothesis might be that an invisible force (gravity) pulled the glass to the floor.\n   3. Experimentation: Of all the steps in the scientific method, the one that truly separates science from other disciplines is the process of experimentation. In order to prove, or disprove, a hypothesis, a scientist will design an experiment to test the hypothesis. Over the centuries, many experiments have been designed to study the nature of gravity.\nhttp://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?c3=&mid=45&l=\n\nLegal methodology is basicly the bare facts.  The facts that do not have to be scientificly analysed.  Fingerprints, although have to be collected scientificly, are bare facts for instance.  The blood on the knife that killed the victim would be classed as legal methodology due to it being a fact that it was there at the scene of the crime and didn't need to be collected using scientific methods.\nI hope this helps
782609
No, it is not true.\n\nWhat a pathetically lame question.
461003
Polygraphy is Quackery\n\nScientists overwhelmingly agree that polygraph "testing" is junk science. The only "raging debate" pits people who don't yet understand that it's flimflam against the growing number who do. \n\nOur government's stubborn reliance on this pseudoscience poses a clear and present danger: make-believe science yields make-believe security. \n\nThis non-profit, public interest website is dedicated to telling the truth about lie detectors that those with vested interests in perpetuating the polygraph don't want you to know. \n  \nThe lie detector is itself based on lies...\n\nDid you know it takes less training to give lie detector "tests" than it does to give haircuts? The longest polygraph school (run by the U.S. Government; perhaps its students are slow learners) produces newly minted polygraphers in just 14 weeks -- less than half the time it takes to graduate from a typical barber college. But while barber college graduates can cut hair, polygraph school graduates cannot detect lies. \n \nThe dirty little secret behind the polygraph is that the "test" depends on trickery, not science. The person being "tested" is not supposed to know that while the polygraph operator declares that all questions must be answered truthfully, warning that the slightest hint of deception will be detected, he secretly assumes that denials in response to certain questions -- called "control" questions -- will be less than truthful. An example of a commonly used control question is, "Did you ever lie to get out of trouble?" The polygrapher steers the examinee into a denial by warning, for example, that anyone who would do so is the same kind of person who would commit the kind of behavior that is under investigation and then lie about it. But secretly, it is assumed that everyone has lied to get out of trouble. \n\nThe polygraph pens don't do a special dance when a person lies. The polygrapher scores the test by comparing physiological responses (breathing, blood pressure, heart, and perspiration rates) to these probable-lie control questions with reactions to relevant questions such as, "Did you ever commit an act of espionage against the United States?" (commonly asked in security screening). If the former reactions are greater, the examinee passes; if the latter are greater, he fails. If responses to both "control" and relevant questions are about the same, the result is deemed inconclusive. \n\nThe test also includes irrelevant questions such as, "Are the lights on in this room?" The polygrapher falsely explains that such questions provide a "baseline for truth," because the true answer is obvious. But in reality, they are not scored at all! They merely serve as buffers between pairs of relevant and "control" questions. \n\nThe simplistic methodology used in polygraph testing has no grounding in the scientific method: it is no more scientific than astrology or tarot cards. Government agencies value it because people who don't realize it's a fraud sometimes make damaging admissions. But as a result of reliance on this voodoo science, the truthful are often falsely branded as liars while the deceptive pass through. \n\nPerversely, the "test" is inherently biased against the truthful, because the more honestly one answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence feels less stress when answering them, the more likely one is to fail. Conversely, liars can beat the test by covertly augmenting their physiological reactions to the "control" questions. This can be done, for example, by doing mental arithmetic, thinking exciting thoughts, altering one's breathing pattern, or simply biting the side of the tongue. Truthful persons can also use these techniques to protect themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome. Although polygraphers fre