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.Thanks in part to such dubious standards, the interpretation of bloodstain evidence has become notoriously ambiguous."
EDITORIAL: "Bad Blood," published by the New York Times on May 31, 2018, in reference to Pamela Colloff's outstanding investigation of the role played by unreliable blood-splatter analysis in the Joe Brian (Texas) case.
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 read at:
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
