I haven’t heard or read much hullabaloo about last week’s news (or was it two weeks ago) about comparative bullet analysis, which has basically been revealed as pseudo-science, at best. Of note:

The government has fought releasing the list of the estimated 2,500 cases over three decades in which it performed the analysis…

Still, [one retired bullet examiner] said it was reasonable for jurors to conclude that matching bullets could have come from the same box [despite evidence that “matches” occurred for bullets manufactured as much as 15 months apart.] “I don’t think it’s misleading as long as it’s fully explained.”

As long as the possibility exists that matching bullets did not come from the same box, it is definitively not reasonable to conclude that two matching bullets did come from the same box. Concluding that they “could have” come from the same box is not the same as concluding that they did come from the same box. Concluding that they “could have” come from the same box is nearly synonymous with concluding that they “could have” come from different boxes.

A great many of the people convicted on this sort of evidence very well might be guilty. They might’ve been convicted without it. But they also might be innocent. We don’t really know, and I guess that’s the problem. Beyond a reasonable doubt requires a stricter degree of scrutiny than that.