Read the enclosed report,

"Wrongful Convictions: Determining Culpability when the Sands Keeps shifting" by Bruce A. Macfarlane.

Answer following questions.

1. What does the document suggest with respect to Forensic Sciences?

1. Identify the specific concerns of the 2009 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on Forensic Sciences.
2. Provide examples to support the view that Forensic Science has led the criminal justice system astray.
3. What issues does the report identify with respect to fingerprint identification?
4. What issues were identified with respect to Forensic pathology generally and Dr. Charles Smith specifically?
5. The document discusses the James Driskell case who was imprisoned for 14 years for a crime he did not commit. It states the evidence of Mr. Christianson was not "peer reviewed"
6. What is a peer review?
7. What is the importance of "peer review" in forensic science?
8. What were the conclusions of the NAS report with respect to "hair comparison" evidence and its ability to link an accused to a hair.?
9. a page assessment of your view on forensic sciences after reading this document?

Link of PDF Bruce-MacFarlane-Sand-Shifting.pdf (innocencecanada.com)