FBI overstated hair match crisis: (The Emperor's clothes); (6): Great criminal justice blogger Joe Gamso looks the truth in the face (As he tends to do) - and tells us that it wasn't just the scientists who knew for years " that nearly all of what's called "forensic science" is actually forensic bullshit." The lawyers have known it too. "Really, anyone who's been paying attention's known it. Lander points to a number of cases where the forensic guys told juries they were damn sure and it later turned out that they were just spinning old wives tales. Those stories, they were in all the papers. The NAS report? Been out for five years now. We've all got copies. No, the surprise is that the FBI's admitting in broad strokes what it's quietly been acknowledging for a decade or more. They didn't know what they were talking about - and if they did, they lied. Because it's not science. When the so-called expert would get on the witness stand and announce that he's looked at this hair and that hair and by god they came from the same person? Well, maybe. Or maybe not. Because you can't tell. I mean, it could be true. Sure. Unless you actually do something like TEST THE FUCKING HAIR Because you can't tell from the way hairs look. Shall I go on?' (Must, Must Read. HL);

POST: "Birds of a feather: Sheriff Joe and the FBI," by Jeff Gamso," published by "Gamso for the defence" on April 22, 2015.

GIST: "Stunned the legal community"?  Really? Well, yeah.  I suppose. Maybe the mergers and acquisitions guys.  Beyond that?  Only for the saying of it. Oh, sorry.  You have no idea what I'm talking about.  I was musing over the first sentence of Eric Lander's op-ed in Tuesday's Times. THE F.B.I. stunned the legal community on Monday with its acknowledgment that testimony by its forensic scientists about hair identification was scientifically indefensible in nearly every one of more than 250 cases reviewed. Lander says it was no surprise to actual scientists who've known for years that nearly all of what's called "forensic science" is actually forensic bullshit.  But the lawyers have known that, too.  Really, anyone who's been paying attention's known it. Lander points to a number of cases where the forensic guys told juries they were damn sure and it later turned out that they were just spinning old wives tales.  Those stories, they were in all the papers.  The NAS report?  Been out for five years now.  We've all got copies. No, the surprise is that the FBI's admitting in broad strokes what it's quietly been acknowledging for a decade or more.  They didn't know what they were talking about - and if they did, they lied. Because it's not science.  When the so-called expert would get on the witness stand and announce that he's looked at this hair and that hair and by god they came from the same person?  Well, maybe.  Or maybe not.  Because you can't tell.  I mean, it could be true.  Sure.  Unless you actually do something like TEST THE FUCKING HAIR Because you can't tell from the way hairs look. Shall I go on? We don't really know about fingerprints, either.  Or shoe prints or tire tracks or ballistics.  One study of the work of forensic bite mark experts showed that they were wrong more than 50% of the time. Get that?  If they said the defendant was guilty because those were his bite marks, that was really evidence that he was probably innocent.* But the good news is that the FBI is now reviewing a couple of thousand cases where their experts said the hair matched and the person got convicted.  And in some cases executed.   And the FBI is telling the defendants.  And it's making DNA tests available if the cops or the prosecutor wants them done.  (If the defendant wants them?  Gee, that didn't make it into the announcement.) Hey, it's a start.  Here's the next step:  Let the state crime lab guys who were trained to be incompetent but pretend otherwise by the FBI own up to the fact that their hair comparison testimony was bull too.  And then start undoing convictions obtained through all the other false science.  All those things based on the crack work of trained lookers who say,  Gee, those look the same to me.  And since I'm never wrong. Meanwhile, in federal court in Arizona........."*You could ask Ray Krone who was sentenced to death based on bite mark comparisons - twice.  Finally, the DNA showed what he'd said all along.  Wasn't him."

 The entire post can be found at:

http://gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.ca/2015/04/birds-of-feather-sheriff-joe-and-fbi.html

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 

Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
 
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.

The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
 
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
 
I look forward to hearing from readers at:

hlevy15@gmail.com.
 
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;