Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:forensic 'science' (Score 1) 135

by reub2000 (#47848629) Attached to: New DNA Analysis On Old Blood Pegs Aaron Kosminski As Jack the Ripper

A bit too late to convict anyone at this point don't you say?

There are problems with many of the forensic methods used. However, eyewitness testimony is even less reliable. The way humans recall events from episodic memory is seriously flawed. Forensic evidence is always circumstantial evidence, and should always be treated as such. That's in addition to any flaws on a particular method.

As pointed out here, this man was suspected of being the ripper before there was any DNA evidence. DNA evidence just makes the case stronger.

A committee is a group that keeps the minutes and loses hours. -- Milton Berle