PUBLISHER'S NOTE: This powerful New York Times editorial centers on Joe Bryan who has spent the past three decades in prison for the murder of his wife, a crime he claims he didn’t commit - and whose conviction rested largely on “bloodstain-pattern analysis” — a technique still in use throughout the criminal-justice system, despite concerns about its reliability. The editorial has been sparked by one of the most extraordinary criminal justice journalism projects which I have ever seen - a year-long project between ProPublica and The New York Times Magazine, (Senior reporter Pamela Colloff) investigating the forensic science of bloodstain pattern analysis. In edition to the two part series - obviously the result of a huge, costly labour-intensive effort - the project will feature related analysis and commentary. This is an extraordinary commitment by the New York Times and ProPublica to help expose an apparent miscarriage of justice - in the hands of Pamela Colloff, a legendary criminal justice reporter. Kudos to all of them. Follow the links to Parts 1 and 2. (For Part to click on 'Read this story' below. PS: Make sure you sign up at the link below for the Project's newsletter. "Blood will tell." HL.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In Part I
| READ THIS STORY |
In Part II of “Blood Will Tell,” Pamela Colloff, senior
reporter at ProPublica and a writer-at-large at The New York Times Magazine,
investigates bloodstain pattern analysis. She traces its history back to its
dubious origins in American courtrooms and even gets trained in the forensic
discipline. What she finds is as startling
as it is unsettling.
|
ICYMI: In Part I, Colloff
told the story of Joe Bryan, a Texas high school principal convicted of
murdering his wife. The prosecution’s case against him was largely
circumstantial, until a small-town police detective trained in reconstructing
crimes—using the blood spatter left behind at crime scenes—lent a sense of
scientific certainty to an equivocal set of facts. But was what he told jurors
accurate?
|
Heads up: The “Blood Will Tell” investigation isn’t
done. Our “Blood Will Tell” newsletter will bring you extra stories from
Colloff that will give you insight into the investigation, her reporting
process and how she pieced together the narrative. Click here to sign up.
|
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In Mickey Bryan’s case, Detective Thorman testified that the apparent blood specks on the flashlight were “back spatter,” and showed that her killer had shot her at close range. Through the 1960s, analyzing bloodstain patterns was the province of forensic scientists with years of training in fluid dynamics and high-level mathematics. The practice came to national attention in 1966, when it helped to exonerate Sam Sheppard, a neurosurgeon who had been convicted of murdering his wife more than a decade earlier. But in the 1970s and 1980s, this kind of analysis became popular among members of law enforcement and others with little or no scientific training. People like Detective Thorman got certified as bloodstain-pattern analysts after taking a weeklong course that now costs as little as a few hundred dollars. Pamela Colloff, who wrote the articles on the Times Magazine/ProPublica investigation of Joe Bryan’s case, enrolled in one of these courses, where the instructor told her, “We’re not really going to focus on the math and physics; it just kind of bogs things down.” Ms. Colloff passed the final exam, as did everyone in the class."
EDITORIAL: "Bad Blood," published by The New York Times on May 31, 2018.
GIST: "Joe
Bryan, a former small-town high school principal from central Texas, is
serving 99 years in prison for the brutal murder of his wife, Mickey,
in 1985 — a crime he probably didn’t commit. Mr. Bryan has been locked
up for about 30 years. He has no clear prospects for release other than
periodic opportunities at parole, which he has been denied despite being
a model prisoner and having a spotless disciplinary record. Many of the
prison guards who know him best are convinced that he’s innocent. So
why is Mr. Bryan still behind bars? Because of some tiny specks of what
may or may not have been blood on a flashlight that may or may not have
been planted in the trunk of his car — a piece of evidence prosecutors
introduced at trial through the testimony of an expert witness who may
or may not have known what he was talking about. As a two-part series published by The New York Times Magazine
and ProPublica lays out in damning detail, there was essentially no
other physical evidence or motive tying Mr. Bryan to the crime. By all
accounts, the Bryans had a happy marriage. On the night of his wife’s
murder, Mr. Bryan was attending a principals’ conference 120 miles away.
Prosecutors dismissed or ignored many pieces of potentially exculpatory
evidence, like an unidentified palm print in the bedroom where Mrs.
Bryan was shot to death, a cigarette butt on the kitchen floor (neither
of the Bryans smoked) and the absence of any bloodstains in Mr. Bryan’s
car. Despite all this, Joe Bryan was
convicted on the word of a detective named Robert Thorman, who testified
before the jury as an expert in what is known as bloodstain-pattern
analysis. Drips, spatters, smears and sprays — the distribution of blood
at a crime scene — can provide possibly useful information about what
weapon was used, where a victim was positioned and whether he or she was
moved before or after being killed. In Mickey Bryan’s case, Detective
Thorman testified that the apparent blood specks on the flashlight were
“back spatter,” and showed that her killer had shot her at close range. Through
the 1960s, analyzing bloodstain patterns was the province of forensic
scientists with years of training in fluid dynamics and high-level
mathematics. The practice came to national attention in 1966, when it helped to exonerate Sam Sheppard, a neurosurgeon who had been convicted of murdering his wife more than a decade earlier. But
in the 1970s and 1980s, this kind of analysis became popular among
members of law enforcement and others with little or no scientific
training. People like Detective Thorman got certified as
bloodstain-pattern analysts after taking a weeklong course that now
costs as little as a few hundred dollars. Pamela Colloff, who wrote the
articles on the Times Magazine/ProPublica investigation of Joe Bryan’s
case, enrolled in one of these courses, where the instructor told her,
“We’re not really going to focus on the math and physics; it just kind
of bogs things down.” Ms. Colloff passed the final exam, as did everyone
in the class. Thanks in part to such
dubious standards, the interpretation of bloodstain evidence has become
notoriously ambiguous. The same patterns can, like a Rorschach test, be
read in very different ways; some trials feature two bloodstain
“experts,” one on each side, who testify to opposite conclusions. A 2009 report
by the National Academy of Sciences found that “the opinions of
bloodstain-pattern analysts are more subjective than scientific,” and,
“The uncertainties associated with bloodstain pattern analysis are
enormous.” And yet judges in many
states have accepted these experts’ testimony as scientifically valid —
not because of any concrete evidence that it is, but because other
courts have accepted it before. In other words, it’s a good bet that
there are other Joe Bryans sitting in prisons around the country because
of highly unreliable forensic testimony. That
unreliability is not unique to bloodstain-pattern analysis. As DNA
testing has revolutionized forensic science and helped to exonerate
hundreds of wrongfully convicted people, it has also shined a light on
the inadequacy of earlier methods. The National Academy of Sciences
report found significant problems with the analysis of bite marks, tire
treads, arson and hair samples. In 2015, the F.B.I. released an initial
review of hundreds of convictions it had won and found that over two
decades, the bureau’s “elite” forensic hair-sample analysts testified
wrongly in favor of the prosecution 96 percent of the time. Thirty-two of the defendants in those cases were sentenced to death, and 14 of those were executed or died in prison. The
scientific analysis of forensic evidence can be essential to solving
crimes, but as long as the process is controlled by the police and
prosecutors, and not scientists, there will never be adequate oversight.
Changing this was the goal of a national commission
established in the wake of the 2009 report. Unfortunately, Attorney
General Jeff Sessions, who has long sided with prosecutors and rejected
efforts to look more critically at forensic sciences, let the commission expire last year.
For now, any hope for greater scrutiny of bloodstain-pattern analysis lies with the influential Texas Forensic Science Commission,
which agreed to examine Mr. Bryan’s case, along with another involving
the use of bloodstain-pattern evidence. The commission, whose
recommendations are watched nationally,
in February imposed on Texas a requirement that bloodstain-pattern
analysis be performed by an accredited organization, which should make
it harder for prosecutors to introduce testimony by analysts with
minimal training and qualifications. Meanwhile,
time is running out for Mr. Bryan. He’s 77 and suffers from congestive
heart failure. He is currently being considered for parole again, with a
decision expected within weeks. He should be released, and his
conviction should be re-examined in light of the shortcomings of the
evidence used to convict him. Because so much time has passed since
Mickey Bryan’s murder, and many people connected to the investigation
have since died, the identity of her killer may never be definitively
known. That uncertainty should be the state’s burden to carry, not Joe
Bryan’s."
The entire editorial can be found at:
Read Part (1) at the link below:
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=120008354894645705#editor/target=post;postID=4688775222381599626;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=35;src=link
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
