Daniel Murrie of the University of Virginia and Marcus Boccaccini at Sam Houston State University presented new research in the Aug. 28, 2013, issue of the journal Psychological Science that indicates that forensic psychologists and psychiatrists provide the group that is paying them for their testimony with the evidence that group, prosecution or defense, expects to be best for their case. Full Article
Related posts
-
Senators call for audit of TSA’s facial recognition tech as use expands in airports | The Record from Recorded Future News
Source: therecord.media 11/22/24 A bipartisan group of 12 senators on Wednesday sent the Department of Homeland... -
SORNA Case Advances in Federal Court; PLF Files Motion for Summary Judgment
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a motion for summary judgment on November 18 in its...
This is not new news. Every few years this fact is pointed out by and individual or group and nothing is ever done about it. Then it is forgotten about for a few years until someone else comes up with the same conclusion. It’s common sense that this would be the case with “experts” hired by groups or the courts. If a group that favors something (such as the ever popular and seemingly endless laws affecting people on the registry) and hires an “expert” you can bet the study will be biased in favor of the person or group paying for the study and will not have considered all of the facts. These so called “experts do much harm. Just ask any cop or citizen about people on the registry and you will hear an endless stream of misinformation,misconceptions and outright lies based on these biased studies by some “expert.” It’s sickening.