FBI overstated forensic hair matches in nearly all trials before 2000

Ransom · Apr 19, 2015

I have no idea where to put this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html

The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.

more at link above

margarita25 · Apr 19, 2015

Yikes!

Arnie M · Apr 19, 2015

.

Is this coming to light because of DNA testing?

It is a serious situation if police are biased when looking at evidence.

.

Ransom · Apr 19, 2015

Arnie M said:
.

Is this coming to light because of DNA testing?

It is a serious situation if police are biased when looking at evidence.

.

Not DNA from above link.

Serious situation? Yes, IMO.

I'm heart sick over this. I hope the link is wrong or something. I'm grasping

Mrs G Norris · Apr 19, 2015

Not at all surprised .. this is going to create appeal chaos.

Ransom · Apr 19, 2015

http://www.ibtimes.com/fbi-justice-...rensic-hair-analysis-evidence-decades-1887720

Backwoods · Apr 19, 2015

Arnie M said:
.

Is this coming to light because of DNA testing?

It is a serious situation if police are biased when looking at evidence.

.

It does sound like DNA analysis is playing at least a small role:

...Warnings about the problem have been mounting. In 2002, the FBI reported that its own DNA testing found that examiners reported false hair matches more than 11 percent of the time. ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html

Ransom · Apr 19, 2015

Backwoods said:
It does sound like DNA analysis is playing at least a small role:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html

NO ... it's HAIR ... DNA testing found that examiners reported false hair matches more than 11 percent of the time. ...
IMO.

EllieBee · Apr 19, 2015

Good God. Can you imagine the appeals?

Heads are going to roll, and rightfully so.

jjenny · Apr 19, 2015

Ransom said:
NO ... it's HAIR ... DNA testing found that examiners reported false hair matches more than 11 percent of the time. ...
IMO.

They found out false matches were reported by subsequent DNA testing. So DNA testing is at the center of it.

jjenny · Apr 19, 2015

Backwoods said:
It does sound like DNA analysis is playing at least a small role:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html

Not a small role, main role. That's how they figured out that what they claim was a match wasn't in at least 11 % of cases.

jjenny · Apr 19, 2015

If hair has a root, nuclear DNA testing (most accurate) can be done on it. If hair doesn't have a root, mitochondrial DNA testing can be done on it.
Or you can visually compare the hair under the microscope (least accurate).
So obviously if they just visually compared the hair, it wasn't very accurate and resulted in false positive. Sounds like they testified in many cases that there was a match, but in a large number of these cases, subsequent DNA testing proved that there wasn't.

joe jones · Apr 19, 2015

I think over time the veracity of many forensic scientific claims made in court may be challenged,

Arnie M · Apr 19, 2015

.

Prominent Toronto pathologist exposed because of his many errors

...................................

(From the article) ..... For 24 years, Smith worked at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children. In the hospital's pediatric forensic pathology unit, he conducted more than 1,000 child autopsies.

But Smith no longer practices pathology. An Ontario coroner's inquiry reviewed 45 child autopsies in which Smith had concluded the cause of death was either homicide or criminally suspicious.

The coroner's review found that Smith made questionable conclusions of foul play in 20 of the cases 13 of which had resulted in criminal convictions. After the review's findings were made public in April 2007, Ontario's government ordered a public inquiry into the doctor's practices.

That inquiry, led by Justice Stephen Goudge and concluding in October 2008, found that Smith "actively misled" his superiors, "made false and misleading statements" in court and exaggerated his expertise in trials.
.....................................

(News Article) http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/dr-charles-smith-the-man-behind-the-public-inquiry-1.864004

(Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Randal_Smith

Elley Mae · Apr 20, 2015

Elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-hair-analysis-errors-led-to-convictions-new-report-finds/

I wonder how the results came to favor the prosecution all the time? And I love the use of the words, flawed and overstated. real cute.

jmo

wanttohelp · Apr 26, 2015

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/04/fbi_s_flawed_forensics_expert_testimony_hair_analysis_bite_marks_fingerprints.html

The Washington Post published a story so horrifying this weekend that it would stop your breath: The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.

favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far

the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of these defendants, 14 have already been executed or died in prison

Mrs G Norris · Apr 26, 2015

joe jones said:
I think over time the veracity of many forensic scientific claims made in court may be challenged,

I think so too.

FBI overstated forensic hair matches in nearly all trials before 2000

New Posts

Ransom

Former Member

margarita25

Well-Known Member

Arnie M

Well-Known Member

Ransom

Former Member

Mrs G Norris

Well-Known Member

Ransom

Former Member

Backwoods

New Member

Ransom

Former Member

EllieBee

Former Member

jjenny

Well-Known Member

jjenny

Well-Known Member

jjenny

Well-Known Member

joe jones

Well-Known Member

Arnie M

Well-Known Member

Elley Mae

Well-Known Member

wanttohelp

http://thewaronwomen.org

Mrs G Norris

Well-Known Member

DNASolves

Members online

Online statistics

Forum statistics