Thankfully not as severe as this, but a few years police came to my door and arrested me on suspicion of robbery. I was told they had a forensic evidence that I was involved in it.<p>As part of UK Visa procedures, I had to provide my biometric details. They had found my finger prints on a phone book and concluded that I must have done the robbery. They had no other evidence, they hadn't done any background checks or found a motive. The phone book was one of the ones my mom was distributing in her small van. I had helped her loading them up the van. I explained this, they checked with the distribution company and I was freed. But the thought that I had been incredibly lucky to have an explanation never left me. Just imagine a situation like this, maybe you go into a shop, pick up an item and put it back. Someone somewhere gets killed and your forensic information is left on an item in the murder scene.<p>What happened to this guy is terrifying. And I'm sure there are thousands of innocent people in jails because since the introduction of forensics, law enforcements and the courts have become too lazy to analyse the situation. "Evidence is there, must be guilty" mentality.
The National Academy of Sciences report mentioned in the article is pretty damning about the whole field of "forensic science." <a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf</a>.<p>Pretty much only DNA analysis rises above shamanism,[1] and juries and judges have incorrect perceptions about the accuracy of those tests. While the often-quoted false random match probability is astronomically low, that error rate is dominated by lab error, which can rise to 1-2%.<p>As an aside, the Innocence Project has a better description of the details of what happened: <a href="http://www.innocenceproject.org/cases-false-imprisonment/kirk-odom" rel="nofollow">http://www.innocenceproject.org/cases-false-imprisonment/kir...</a><p>[1] See also: <a href="http://lst.law.asu.edu/FS09/pdfs/Koehler4_3.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://lst.law.asu.edu/FS09/pdfs/Koehler4_3.pdf</a>.
A lot of stories like this are coming out, and it really leads me to wonder: Why do the FBI, the courts, and prosecutors have such strong incentives to convict someone?<p>This story elucidates a lot of problems: Poor standards on the part of the FBI for determining what kind of test produces accurate results, poor scientific literacy and critical thinking skills on the part of the jury, a belief in forensic technology that treats it as basically voodoo magic.<p>But what strikes me as most problematic is that it seems like people in this story, prosecutors, the investigator, etc., simply need to convict someone more than they need to find the truth, and face no consequences for getting it wrong, even though it ruins lives in a really serious way.<p>Whether it's a systemic career incentive or simply confirmation bias for the first suspect they get combined a desire to see "justice served", something about the way crimes are prosecuted is horribly broken, and bad science being used to justify locking people up is just a symptom.
I have never been on a list for consideration to sit in a jury, but my impression of the process is not very high: I am led to believe that successful, intelligent people more likely to be excused by virtue of having something to do (my family/business depends on me being productive and not in court) but also that anyone with relevant experience related to the matters at issue will be excused on the basis that they are not 'impartial.' With the recent popularity of stories about false convictions and bad evidence, I wonder how it would be different if we could make sure that a jury included a scientist, medical doctor or lab technician in cases where someone from those professions was to be asked for his conclusions in court. I would be surprised if my view that winning a jury trial is all about showmanship is in the minority.
"Having performed thousands of similar hair examinations over the previous 10 years, the FBI agent told the court, there had been only eight or 10 times when hairs from two different people were so similar that he could not tell them apart"<p>At worst this is a 1% error rate, at best 0.1%. Scientific validity aside, I find it unbelievable this was not considered reasonable doubt.
Could be more ridiculous. Keith Brown (a UK citizen) was arrested in Dubai on allegations that the authorities had found <i>0.003 grams of marijuana on the sole of his shoe</i>, and threatened with four years of jail. (Eventually they just shipped him back, though.)
People make jokes about the Libertarian practice of repeating "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" when questioned by a police officer but it would have done this man a lot of good.<p>I see this as being just as much about the power of police officers to steer an investigation, regardless of where the evidence points as it is about the reliance on pseudoscience and the CSI effect.
In the American south - bite marks are becoming discredited now.<p><a href="http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/8b3bd7ebee8c4ae6ac0191a53e2cd903/MS--Bite-Marks-Slayings-Appeal" rel="nofollow">http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/8b3bd7ebee8c4ae...</a><p>Hopefully now all other forensic techniques are going to be heavily scrutinized as it should be. It can be a great tool but it should be carefully used.
Wow the FBI really do act like they still call their headquarters the J. Edgar Hoover building. Celebrating one of the worst american criminals of the 20th century. Is the FBI beyond reform? Should it just be shut down entirely and a wholly new agency set up. The more you find out about what they actually do the worse it gets. It's dumbfounding.
Hair comparison seems questionable on the surface. I can pull two hairs out of my head that look very different. I have some sections of hair that are very fine and lighter and some sections that are thick and darker. My hair has also changed texture over the years which seems common for my family.<p>Here is another sad story of a man put to death based on pseudoscience<p><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire" rel="nofollow">http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire</a><p>There is also the partial print of the Madrid bomber fiasco... <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield</a>
<p><pre><code> Did he heck.
</code></pre>
I know we are in a different age of journalism. But about two-thirds through the article, a paragraph starts with the above sentence. How does The Guardian let something like this slip by?