
Man Convicted Based on Erroneous Evidence Exonerated After 25 Years - salmonet
http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-exonerations/north-carolina-man-convicted-based-on-erroneous-microscopic-hair-evidence-exonerated-after-wrongly-serving-25-years
======
bonniemuffin
"[Out] of 268 cases where agents used microscopic hair analysis to link a
defendant to a crime, the agents’ testimony was scientifically invalid in 257
or 96% of the cases."

That seems impossibly, mind-bogglingly incompetent.

~~~
cm2187
What I would be curious to know is how many of these 268 samples do not have a
matching DNA. "Scientifically invalid" is a bit vague. Does that mean that the
samples were not a match or does that mean that the method used didn't provide
a sufficient degree of confidence of a match?

~~~
Someone
This isn't about DNA analysis, it is about staring through a microscope,
comparing hairs. Quote:

 _" At trial, the prosecution relied on the testimony of the three informants
as well as the testimony of Elinos Whitlock III, an employee of the Charlotte
Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Lab who had been trained by the FBI in how
to conduct microscopic hair analysis. He claimed that he could make a “strong
identification” that a hair recovered the crime scene was Bridges’s hair. He
further stated that there was only a 1 in 1000 chance that two Caucasian
people (Bridges is white) would have indistinguishable head hair."_

~~~
cm2187
I know the analysis isn't about DNA, but DNA gives us a way to validate the
analysis. When a defense lawyer uses words like scientifically invalid, it is
designed to make it look like the analysis is just bullocks, but most likely
it is something much more subtile, like a different confidence interval, or
something like that.

------
rayiner
The state of forensic "science" today is similar to the state of medicine in
the 18th century. Bloodletting wasn't an effective treatment, and but it's not
like doctors--much less ordinary people--of the time knew any better.

Obviously those participating in hiding evidence should be prosecuted, but
it's hard to blame everyone else who is going along with what forensic
"scientists" tell them. The legitimate scientific establishment has done
little to nothing to expose this field as the domain of charlatans. How are
lay people supposed to understand the difference?

~~~
the_ancient
>How are lay people supposed to understand the difference?

Well first off lay people not to stop placing government agents on a God like
pedestal where by everything a "forensic scientist" from the state utters in
court is assumed to be truthful and beyond questioning.

This is how we get terrible science and convictions, the public watches a
episode of CSI or NCIS where you have infinite zoom and enhance, where you can
do facial recognition on a person in a ATM video from 25 miles away, where 2
people can hack all encryption by typing on the same keyboard really fast....

They see this shit, so then when a person from the FBI gets on the stands,
says a bunch of big words, and points to the scary man or women at the table
saying they did it... the case is over....

~~~
nroets
I mostly agree with you. It is however a serious flaw of the jury system.
Forensic science is NOT in the terrible state that the OP makes it out to be.

~~~
the_ancient
I think the OP is being kind....

I question even the validity of fingerprint matching one of the oldest
"Forensic science" fields.

Almost nothing in "Forensic science" follows the actual scientific method.
There is far far far far far too many assumptions, "intuitive leaps", and
formation of a preconceived narrative round "science"

They make the evidence fit their story, vs allowing the evidence to tell a
story.

------
nicolas_t
And this goes to show that if you want a fair trial in any country (even
relatively evolved western countries), you need to be rich enough to have a
decent legal team. When you read some of the cases from the innocence project,
the incompetence is mind boggling.

And don't get me started on countries like Japan with 99.7% conviction rate
and antiquated laws regarding police arrest.

I think that until you have a significant sum of money that can be used to pay
for a legal defense team, you are at risk of prison even if you're innocent
(of course in most cases the risk is negligible but if you're part of a
minority it might not be)...

~~~
the_ancient
The cases from the innocence project are bad, but they only see the cases in
which the person pleaded innocent and was convicted by a jury...

Most cases end in a Plea, which innocent people with out proper legal
representation, and many with proper legal representation take for a whole
host of reason.

------
badsock
This is one of the big reasons why there shouldn't be a death penalty.

~~~
_yosefk
I'd think that it matters how many innocent people are executed vs how many
lives are saved by deterring potential murderers, and my trouble is I don't
know how to get those numbers.

Regarding just the second number - deterrence - here's a claim that the death
penalty deters, saving between 3 and 18 lives per execution depending on the
study you choose (quite the spread, BTW...):

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/06...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100406.html)

...But here's a claim that the death penalty doesn't deter (though they cite,
not direct statistical evidence, but the opinion of criminologists and the
fact that some places without a death penalty have lower murder rates than
places with it; but maybe if I dug deeper I'd find something more direct):

[http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-
and-d...](http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-
penalty)

Perhaps someone who've looked into it more deeply can weigh in; all I'm saying
is that it matters what the answer is.

(My own intuition would be that people aren't deterred by the death penalty
very much, because they count on not getting caught, instead of multiplying
the penalty by the probability or some such. But I could be wrong. Also I'm
open to the opinion that you shouldn't do some things to people regardless of
potential benefits to society, for instance I'm pretty sure torture would
deter more than the death penalty because it's a very vivid picture a
potential criminal would have in their mind, but it's great that nobody thinks
we should go there. I just don't think that the capital punishment is "cruel
and unusual" that way.)

~~~
weaksauce
I think the real reason that the death penalty is not effective as a deterrent
is that the people that murder in general don't think things through. Very
reactionary. Obviously there are plenty of cold blooded killers out there too
but I doubt penalties have a ton of bearing on things. Most people just don't
murder other people. I could be completely off base though and would love to
see some evidence either way.

~~~
ljf
Also, I believe many people don't consider the punishment just the chance of
being caught. If you are going to commit a planned murder then you are likely
to plan on getting away with it. If it is spur of the moment then again you
won't be thinking about being caught or about the punishment...

------
SeanDav
One gets the ridiculous situation where an innocent person in prison, keeps on
maintaining that they are innocent and end up serving far longer sentences
than guilty people, convicted of very similar crimes, that don't deny their
guilt.

I am not sure if this applied in this case, but it may well have done.

------
atemerev
Can he sue for compensation? Or, better yet, for putting prosecutors into jail
for that?

~~~
tzs
Probably yes on the first.

No on the second, for good reason. There wasn't anything in the article that
indicated that the prosecutors did anything wrong. They took the evidence they
were given by the police, by informants, and by the crime lab employee and
presented it at trial. That the police did not give the prosecutors all the
evidence the police had, and that a forensic technique that was widely
accepted at the time by the FBI and the state turned out to not be accurate is
beyond the scope of the prosecutor's role.

~~~
mannykannot
I don't know about this case, but about a month ago I heard another
wrongfully-convicted person discussing his case, including the fact that in
the agreement that freed him, he waived the option to sue. His stated reason
was that his alternative was to stay in jail for the process to work its way
through, and in jail, 'accidental' death was just too easy. Paranoid? Given
his circumstances, l don't think so.

~~~
onion2k
If a prosecutor knows someone is innocent and doesnt let them out immediately
they should be disbarred.

~~~
nommm-nommm
I am pretty sure prosecutors don't have the power to let people out of jail.

------
vijayr
The very fact that something like innocence project _needs to exist_ is
depressing :(

------
flippyhead
One of the best, most eye-opening books on this subject I've read is Just
Mercy by Bryan Stevenson.

------
reddytowns
Another reason why it's best just to close the blinds, turn on the computer,
and lay low for the rest of your life, using video games and pornography to
entertain and escape.

You'll be more likely to duck things like this if no one knows your name.

------
ps4fanboy
Listen and believe

