Blood spatter analysis isn’t quite as nonsense as the rest.
If blood is found underneath an object, you know that the blood got there first, and the object second. If you find a drop of blood among a bunch of fine mist, you may be able to predict that the fine mist is blood from a victim after a gunshot, while the drop might be from someone else, possibly the perpetrator.
Of course there are other observations which are misinterpreted, but the fact remains that blood spatter follows the laws of physics; therefore, it is possible to discover factual information from observing it.
Sure, but that’s not what police refer to when they talk about blood spatter analysis. I’m not saying it’s impossible to get good evidence from the location of blood; I’m saying that the bullshit they do around drop size and splatter patterns does not have any evidence to support it.
Edit: in other words, they want the credibility of science without doing the hard work of peer-review or falsification.
If blood is found underneath an object, you know that the blood got there first, and the object second. If you find a drop of blood among a bunch of fine mist, you may be able to predict that the fine mist is blood from a victim after a gunshot, while the drop might be from someone else, possibly the perpetrator.
Of course there are other observations which are misinterpreted, but the fact remains that blood spatter follows the laws of physics; therefore, it is possible to discover factual information from observing it.
Sure, but that’s not what police refer to when they talk about blood spatter analysis. I’m not saying it’s impossible to get good evidence from the location of blood; I’m saying that the bullshit they do around drop size and splatter patterns does not have any evidence to support it.
Edit: in other words, they want the credibility of science without doing the hard work of peer-review or falsification.