<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: GSR Analysis: Junk Science?</title>
	<link>http://defensology.com/2005/11/25/gsr-analysis-junk-science/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:07:03 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2</generator>

	<item>
 		<title>Comment on GSR Analysis: Junk Science? by: &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Utah Crime Lab abandons GSR</title>
		<link>http://defensology.com/2005/11/25/gsr-analysis-junk-science/#comment-24</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:35:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://defensology.com/2005/11/25/gsr-analysis-junk-science/#comment-24</guid>
					<description>[...] I&amp;#8217;ve written about some of the problems associated with GSR (Gunshot Residue) analysis, and how its theoretical foundation is being challenged by courts and commentators alike. It&amp;#8217;s a hell of a story because GSR has been one of the fundamental, bread and butter disciplines in most state crime labs for some time. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>[&#8230;] I&#8217;ve written about some of the problems associated with GSR (Gunshot Residue) analysis, and how its theoretical foundation is being challenged by courts and commentators alike. It&#8217;s a hell of a story because GSR has been one of the fundamental, bread and butter disciplines in most state crime labs for some time. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
 		<title>Comment on GSR Analysis: Junk Science? by: &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Junk Science Awareness on the Rise</title>
		<link>http://defensology.com/2005/11/25/gsr-analysis-junk-science/#comment-15</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2006 18:56:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://defensology.com/2005/11/25/gsr-analysis-junk-science/#comment-15</guid>
					<description>[...] I continue to see examples of a growing national trend toward institutional skepticism of the forensic sciences, including ones we&amp;#8217;ve all come to rely on. For example, troubling new questions are being raised about common practices surrounding fingerprint analysis and gunshot residue (GSR) analysis. And now a Federal District court in Boston has taken this a step further, severely criticizing experts on both sides of a gunshot case coming out of the recently discredited Boston Police Ballistics unit. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>[&#8230;] I continue to see examples of a growing national trend toward institutional skepticism of the forensic sciences, including ones we&#8217;ve all come to rely on. For example, troubling new questions are being raised about common practices surrounding fingerprint analysis and gunshot residue (GSR) analysis. And now a Federal District court in Boston has taken this a step further, severely criticizing experts on both sides of a gunshot case coming out of the recently discredited Boston Police Ballistics unit. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
