In one of my favorite TV multi-series, CSI, lab-coated technicians match all sorts of crime-scene trace evidence to suspects – who, confronted with such powerful proof of guilt – confess before the commercial. At a forum on criminal justice issues sponsored not long ago by the Drum Major Institute (my post is here , the DMIBlog's is here) featured speaker Dallas DA Craig Watkins and panelist Barry Scheck spoke forcefully about flawed police and prosecution tactics which produce wrongful convictions. One of the more difficult tricks to defend against is the use of prosecution "experts" who testify about "forensic" procedures which have no scientific basis whatsoever. (Does it go without saying that opposing these forensic science fictions is time-consuming and very expensive, so that those whose defense purse is empty get less?) One of creative but false inventions, "comparative bullet lead analysis", totally discredited by the National Academy of Sciences, was used for decades by the FBI lab "experts" at trials to assert a chemical connection between lead in a crime scene bullet fragment and that in a bullet in a defendant's possession. For one defendant, whose appeal is now pending before the North Carolina Supreme Court, the only evidence linking him to the crime is this fictional "analysis" (An article on his story is here.) Although dubious for decades and definitively dismissed in 2004, hundreds of prisoners, whose convictions were based on that false and misleading testimony, are still in prison as I hunt and peck. The Washington Post's John Solomon has written an excellent series recounting this scandalous use of "science" here . Links to the full coverage by the Post and "60 Minutes" of this decades-old, still poisonous trail of false statements is here and a Post Edit here . Want to know even more? Check out Jeralyn's Talk Left post with more links and background.