"Hair analysis and serology experts, as well as an authority on the ongoing audit of problematic FBI hair testimony are set to testify Sept. 25 in the final day of hearings for Massachusetts inmate George D. Perrot’s most recent motion for a new trial. Perrot, 47, was 17 when he was charged with raping an elderly woman in Springfield — a charge he has always denied — and 19 when he was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1987. The rape victim testified in two separate trials that Perrot was not her attacker, and the description she gave to police shortly after the attack did not match Perrot’s appearance. Perrot’s is believed to be the first hearing resulting from an ongoing national review of suspect FBI hair analysts’ testimony involving thousands of cases. In Perrot’s case, the Hampden County prosecutor’s office is unable to find the hair in question for DNA testing. Perrot’s conviction has been overturned twice before, the last time on Sept. 11, 2001. Many of the almost 30 years he has served in prison have been in maximum confinement.......Trial lawyer David E. Koropp, who was invited to take part in the national review of cases involving flawed forensic work performed by the FBI Crime Lab, is expected to testify for the defense Sept. 25. Also scheduled is Karen Kafadar, board member of the National Institute of Statistical Science and chair of statistics at the University of Virginia. The Commonwealth did not return phone messages seeking names of witnesses prosecutors will call Sept. 25. The Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism’s Justice Brandeis Law Project at Brandeis University has been investigating Perrot’s claim of innocence since October 2011..........One year ago Perrot received a letter from the FBI admitting significant factual and interpretive errors in FBI agent Wayne Oakes's 1992 testimony in Perrot's second trial about a microscopic analysis he performed on a single strand of hair police said they found at the crime scene. A national review of thousands of cases in which FBI agents testified is evaluating whether their testimony on hair microscopy violated agreed upon scientific standards. In Perrot’s case, Oakes failed to meet all three standards under review. According to the FBI letter, Oakes’s errors were that he implied that an evidentiary hair could be used for positive identification, he stated a probability that the hair came from a certain source (Perrot), and he touted his experience and track record as proof of his likely accuracy. As of press time, if Judge Kane overturns Perrot's conviction, his would be the first new trial ordered in the three-year history of the historic nationwide review. (Thanks to The Wrongful Convictions Blog for drawing this important case to our attention HL);http://us5.campaign-archive1.com/?u=2836e556b97a103fd207b7bf6&id=b76979aa53&e=8af217c93a
CSI DDS | Forensic Science Testimony. CSI bad science issues and their contribution to wrongful convictions.