STORY: "Faulty Forensics: Explained," by reporter Jessica Brand, Legal Director of the Fair Punishment Project, published by Injustice Today on November 1, 2017. (In Justice Today is a national criminal justice news outlet, which produces compelling, original journalism and commentary that educates and inspires journalists, advocates, academics, officials, and others interested in criminal justice reform.)
GIST: "In 1994, bite mark “expert” Michael West testified that the bite mark pattern found on an 84-year-old victim’s body matched Eddie Lee Howard’s teeth. Based largely on West’s testimony, the jury convicted Howard and sentenced him to death. Expert’s have since called bite mark testimony “scientifically unreliable.” And sure enough, 14 years later, DNA testing on the knife believed to be the murder weapon excluded Howard as a contributor. Yet the state continues to argue that Howard’s conviction should be upheld on the basis of West’s testimony. [Radley Balko / Washington Post]
- In 1978, a jury found Santae Tribble guilty of murdering a Washington, D.C., taxi driver. The verdict was based largely on testimony that his hair matched strands found in a stocking recovered near the crime scene, which was significant because the culprit wore a stocking mask. The prosecutor told the jury that there was “one chance, perhaps for all we know, in 10 million that it could [be] someone else’s hair.”
- But it was someone else’s hair. Twenty-eight years later, after Tribble had served his entire sentence, DNA evidence excluded him as the source of the hair. Incredibly, DNA analysis established that one of the crime scene hairs, initially identified by an examiner as a human hair, belonged to a dog. [Spencer S. Hsu / Washington Post;
- In 1985, in Springfield, Massachusetts, testimony from a hair matching “expert” put George Perrot in prison — where he stayed for 30 years — for a rape he did not commit. The 78-year-old victim said Perrot was not the assailant, because, unlike the rapist, he had a beard. Nonetheless, the prosecution moved forward on the basis of a single hair found at the scene that the examiner claimed could only match Perrot. Three decades later, a court reversed the conviction after finding no scientific basis for a claim that a specific person is the only possible source of a hair. Prosecutors have dropped the charges. [Danny McDonald / Boston Globe]
The examples above represent only three of literally hundreds of cases where faulty forensic testimony
has led to a wrongful conviction. And yet as scientists have questioned
the reliability and validity of “pattern-matching” evidence — evidence
like fingerprints, bitemarks, and hair — prosecutors are digging in
their heels and continuing to rely on it. In this explainer, we explore
the state of pattern-matching evidence in criminal trials. Read on at the link below:"
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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/c
