
A man who was jailed on the fantasy evidence of a single hair - ghosh
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/fbi-evidence-single-hair-kirk-odom
======
mavdi
Thankfully not as severe as this, but a few years police came to my door and
arrested me on suspicion of robbery. I was told they had a forensic evidence
that I was involved in it.

As part of UK Visa procedures, I had to provide my biometric details. They had
found my finger prints on a phone book and concluded that I must have done the
robbery. They had no other evidence, they hadn't done any background checks or
found a motive. The phone book was one of the ones my mom was distributing in
her small van. I had helped her loading them up the van. I explained this,
they checked with the distribution company and I was freed. But the thought
that I had been incredibly lucky to have an explanation never left me. Just
imagine a situation like this, maybe you go into a shop, pick up an item and
put it back. Someone somewhere gets killed and your forensic information is
left on an item in the murder scene.

What happened to this guy is terrifying. And I'm sure there are thousands of
innocent people in jails because since the introduction of forensics, law
enforcements and the courts have become too lazy to analyse the situation.
"Evidence is there, must be guilty" mentality.

~~~
kw71
It sounds like you would have been saved a lot of stress, indignation and
hassle if they had simply asked you, and spent five minutes checking up on
your answer, before arresting you.

Considering the number of fingers that may have touched a telephone book
during its manufacture and distribution (surely the cops have phone books and
knew they weren't sent in the post, or if they had found a post worker's
fingerprints on a piece of mail they wouldn't have arrested the postal worker)
it seems to me that they may have been reckless in their conclusion.

~~~
NoMoreNicksLeft
This happens because the police aren't intelligent people.

In a Sherlock Holmes story, the protagonist uses forensic evidence but he
_thinks_ about what the evidence means.

The police, on the other hand, want a magic oracle device that spits out names
and current addresses, and they treat forensics like it was such.

In the United States, having a valid explanation for why your fingerprints
were on some object wouldn't necessarily get you freed, it wouldn't
necessarily prevent prosecution. Some asshole DAs here would take that to
trial (or extort you into a plea bargain, at least).

~~~
ISL
Every law enforcement officer I've talked with at length has been an
intelligent person.

I think we all want tools that help us do our jobs quickly and more reliably.
Forensic science is, in aggregate, a tool for discovering what's true.
Improvements in forensic science are, on balance, a net positive.

In the United States, nothing prevents prosecution. The state can bring
whatever charges it wants. The bulwarks of our freedom are in the courts, the
ballot box, and in the enumerated Bill of Rights.

It's the jury of our peers and a speedy trial that check the ability of
prosecutors to do us individual harm. As a society, it's our power at the
ballot box that determines who we admit into the job of prosecution.

~~~
rahimnathwani
"Every law enforcement officer I've talked with at length has been an
intelligent person."

This could be selection bias at work. Perhaps you terminate conversations with
less intelligent officers earlier, without realising the reason you do so. So,
these less intelligent ones are forgotten, or removed from your sample because
the conversation was not long enough to find strong evidence about
intelligence.

~~~
NoMoreNicksLeft
> Every law enforcement officer I've talked with at length has been an
> intelligent person.

No. He's just poor at judging intelligence, like everyone else.

If they are polite and don't raise their voice and there are no obvious
deficiencies in their vocabulary or pronunciation, and they seem to be
minimally informed on current events and trends, you couldn't tell an idiot
from a genius. You have no ability to see their thought processes, and you've
never really bothered to try to infer them.

Studies even suggest you don't know what's going on in your own brain either.
This despite the fact that you are actually privy to at least some of your own
thought process.

~~~
wfunction
> Studies even suggest

[citation needed]

~~~
pessimizer
Eric Schwitzgebel specializes in papers about studies about this:
[http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/](http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/)

The citations will probably be helpful for you to find the studies and similar
ones.

My favorites:

 _Why did we think we dreamed in black and white?_

[http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/DreamB&W.htm](http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/DreamB&W.htm)

 _How well do we know our own conscious experience? The case of human
echolocation._

[http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/Echo.htm](http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/Echo.htm)

edit: here's an interview - [http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/the-splintered-
skeptic/](http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/the-splintered-skeptic/)

------
rayiner
The National Academy of Sciences report mentioned in the article is pretty
damning about the whole field of "forensic science."
[https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf](https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf).

Pretty much only DNA analysis rises above shamanism,[1] and juries and judges
have incorrect perceptions about the accuracy of those tests. While the often-
quoted false random match probability is astronomically low, that error rate
is dominated by lab error, which can rise to 1-2%.

As an aside, the Innocence Project has a better description of the details of
what happened: [http://www.innocenceproject.org/cases-false-
imprisonment/kir...](http://www.innocenceproject.org/cases-false-
imprisonment/kirk-odom)

[1] See also:
[http://lst.law.asu.edu/FS09/pdfs/Koehler4_3.pdf](http://lst.law.asu.edu/FS09/pdfs/Koehler4_3.pdf).

~~~
s_kilk
Forensic Science is basically a fiction, one which unfortunately has great
power to ruin the lives of the people it touches.

~~~
jackreichert
The glorification and exaggeration of the CSI television franchise doesn't
help the matter either.

~~~
thechao
Anything that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle glorified (Sherlock) is guaranteed to be
soft-headed thinking—the man was infamous for it. Houdini had a long-standing
"feud" with his good friend Doyle, because Doyle would popularize all of these
crank theories & practices.

------
advael
A lot of stories like this are coming out, and it really leads me to wonder:
Why do the FBI, the courts, and prosecutors have such strong incentives to
convict someone?

This story elucidates a lot of problems: Poor standards on the part of the FBI
for determining what kind of test produces accurate results, poor scientific
literacy and critical thinking skills on the part of the jury, a belief in
forensic technology that treats it as basically voodoo magic.

But what strikes me as most problematic is that it seems like people in this
story, prosecutors, the investigator, etc., simply need to convict someone
more than they need to find the truth, and face no consequences for getting it
wrong, even though it ruins lives in a really serious way.

Whether it's a systemic career incentive or simply confirmation bias for the
first suspect they get combined a desire to see "justice served", something
about the way crimes are prosecuted is horribly broken, and bad science being
used to justify locking people up is just a symptom.

~~~
dmitrygr
Because the number of convictions is a simple metric and superiors love simple
metrics to evaluate their inferiors on.

It is much simpler than admitting that performance in a job is a multi-faceted
thing and cannot be dumbed down to a single number...

------
kw71
I have never been on a list for consideration to sit in a jury, but my
impression of the process is not very high: I am led to believe that
successful, intelligent people more likely to be excused by virtue of having
something to do (my family/business depends on me being productive and not in
court) but also that anyone with relevant experience related to the matters at
issue will be excused on the basis that they are not 'impartial.' With the
recent popularity of stories about false convictions and bad evidence, I
wonder how it would be different if we could make sure that a jury included a
scientist, medical doctor or lab technician in cases where someone from those
professions was to be asked for his conclusions in court. I would be surprised
if my view that winning a jury trial is all about showmanship is in the
minority.

~~~
venomsnake
You have the power of jury nullification. That alone is a good reason to
attend if given the opportunity.

~~~
BJBBB
Juror nullification not permitted in many states. In California, you will be
found in contempt of court for doing so, or at best be removed from the jury
for misconduct. Also, essentially zero federal judges will permit any open
discussion of law nullification.

~~~
hippich
While I see how discussion can be prevented, but how actually juror can be
stopped from nullifying the law? From my understanding this is catch-22 - you
should follow law but juror can not be prosecuted for not following it.

~~~
Crito
I don't know if this is actually what happens, but I think in theory it could
work like this:

1) They ask you during selection, while under oath, questions which amount do
_" are you aware of jury nullification, and/or, are you willing to apply the
law"_

2) You lie, and answer those questions with the answers they want, and get
selected.

3) You refuse to convict, despite overwhelming evidence, because you're into
the idea of nullification.

4) They somehow prove that you lied during step 2, while under oath.

How that 4th one works, I don't know. Does anybody have any examples of it
happening?

~~~
hippich
From my understanding, judges/prosecutors are trying to make no mention
whatsoever about nullification. Probably because then juror might actually
consider it.

But I am not citizen and never been juror or witnessed one :) just read some
wiki pages.

~~~
Crito
My understanding is that they absolutely will not mention it by name, or even
elude to it, but will instead ask questions which would cover it.

For instance something like, _" Are you willing to carry out the law as it is
written?"_ or _" Are you willing to decide this case based on the facts
presented to you."_ or something else to that effect. If you know of and
believe in jury nullification, the honest answer to those questions is _"
No."_ That might not be exactly what they ask, but I think it's something like
that at least.

~~~
FishMan2
I can retroactively justify an answer of "yes" to those questions. Also
presumably I wouldn't explicitly state I was using jury nullification, as I am
only required to return a verdict.

>Are you willing to carry out the law as it is written?

Yes. As written, I can deliver whatever verdict I want and the law says I
cannot be prosecuted for it.

>Are you willing to decide this case based on the facts presented to you

Yes. With the facts given to me, I choose not to convict this person.

------
natejenkins
"Having performed thousands of similar hair examinations over the previous 10
years, the FBI agent told the court, there had been only eight or 10 times
when hairs from two different people were so similar that he could not tell
them apart"

At worst this is a 1% error rate, at best 0.1%. Scientific validity aside, I
find it unbelievable this was not considered reasonable doubt.

~~~
notahacker
The comments section adds an interesting counterpoint to the Guardian's spin:
he was also jailed on the evidence of the victim identifying his photograph,
picking him out of an identity parade based on appearance and voice and
testifying against him in court.

Whilst DNA evidence has subsequently exonerated him, there were pretty good
reasons for the jury at the time to consider the case proven beyond reasonable
doubt that didn't involve placing too much faith in dubious "expert witness"
testimony about hairs.

~~~
saint_fiasco
Isn't eye witness testimony even more dubious?

It's possible the jury wouldn't have convicted him on eye witness testimony
alone, but the fact that the physical "scientific" evidence agreed made it
seem more legitimate.

~~~
rayiner
Eye witness testimony, especially for cross-racial identification, is very
dubious: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_effect#Cross-
race_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_effect#Cross-
race_identification_bias)

------
BlackFly
I do like how they double down on the pseudoscience and had Odom performing
regular lie detector tests.

~~~
RVuRnvbM2e
The US is a world leader in bureaucratic use of pseudoscience.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Usage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Usage)

I was astounded to learn how widely the Polygraph is used in the US, despite
it being described as only about "90% reliable" by its _proponents_!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Validity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Validity)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Tests are never perfect. And false positives are not critical in many
applications. For instance, filtering folks for a job - you can reject extra
candidates if you have plenty of candidates or a strict criterion that must
not be violated.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
When I interview candidates, I take half of the resumes we receive and throw
them in the trash. I don't want to hire unlucky people. /s

I have a sneaking suspicion that the polygraph is often just cover for
implementing an arbitrary hiring process based upon the feelings of the
interviewer. For example, let's say you're hiring police officers, let's also
say that you're also a bit of a racist, now you can reject women and
minorities and still have an "objectively fair" hiring process, since every
candidate had to undergo the same process.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Sure you do - by not ever collecting them to begin with. Probably more like
99%.

We can make up things about racist police hiring, but that's not the same as
facts.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
It was an allegory, and a well worn joke. I even marked it "/s". Do you also
get confused by Onion headlines?

>We can make up things about racist police hiring, but that's not the same as
facts.

Yeah, I was just kidding, there are probably no racists running police
departments. I mean, what are the odds?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Sorry, it must be humorless Wednesday for me.

If a polygraph is misused, that's sad and wrong. But it can also be used as an
interview technique, to put folks under pressure and get more authentic
answers to important questions. Maybe its all psychological, but that's fine.
As long as it helps screen, and does more good than harm.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Fair enough. Humor isn't always easy in text anyway.

The polygraph is a confidence game. It is 100% psychological. If you're honest
and you try hard, you'll still harm some people arbitrarily. It has immense
potential for abuse though, and I would reject its use for that reason; even
if it didn't suffer from the other problem.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I guess I'd repeat the point: some hiring isn't about being fair to the
candidates. Any harm to them (unfairly excluding a good candidate) is
mitigated if the process keeps out disastrously inappropriate candidates.

And if the polygraph operator is independent, then abuse would have to be
systematic somehow. Which may not be a lot different from any other interview
technique.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
I don't agree that employers, especially government employers, are entitled to
treat job candidates unfairly.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
In an ideal world. But on the other hand, who would agree that we should make
NO attempt to exclude certain personalities from being police officers?
Sometimes the cost of wrong hiring is much, much larger than the cost of
unfairness.

~~~
fineman
The bigger problem is that it just doesn't work Even if we posit that we can
be extra-rough in screening because we need the best for $GOOD_ENOUGH_REASON.

The "bad guys" know that the polygraph is nearly worthless. They know what's
theatre and what's not. So you don't apply _any_ pressure to them. They know
that placating you with your pat questions is the solution and they calmly
work toward that. So your chance of success against anyone "worth worrying
about" is nearly zero.

But the people who will crack, and probably have a nearly unending closet of
real and semi-real stories, are the innocent people. This isn't just
collateral damage, but now you're wasting time investigating people who are
almost certainly _not_ the bad guys. And reducing your labor pool...

------
avodonosov
Do you think this "expert" should get 22 years in prison? And maybe his boss
too

~~~
mfoy_
I'd rather see his expression if he ever found himself face to face with
someone his false testimony put away for a couple decades... the majority of
the prime of someone's life gone in a flash because of such incompetence...
it's hard to fathom.

~~~
visarga
The FBI expert doesn't want to accept the truth, preferring to see himself as
the victim of false scientific claims. He says:

> about the nationwide inquiry that is under way into the FBI’s use of hair
> analysis: “It’s all a bunch of baloney,” he said. “It’s all a bunch of
> poppycock.

His bosses too.

> A senior manager from the FBI laboratory, Harold Deadman, told his global
> partners: “We are believers in hair comparisons.”

They are BELIEVERS. You can't challenge men of faith.

------
fennecfoxen
Could be more ridiculous. Keith Brown (a UK citizen) was arrested in Dubai on
allegations that the authorities had found _0.003 grams of marijuana on the
sole of his shoe_ , and threatened with four years of jail. (Eventually they
just shipped him back, though.)

~~~
rwmj
And the Swiss guy who according to the story served 4 years for _poppy seeds_
on his clothes. My conclusion from this is that I never wish to go to Dubai.

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7234786.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7234786.stm)

~~~
spacemanmatt
Eating the wrong bagel can put a probationer in the states back in jail. Their
drug tests are ridiculous, sometimes.

------
junto
That's so sad. He missed his child growing up on the whim of a police officer
and a prosecutor.

------
LordKano
People make jokes about the Libertarian practice of repeating "Am I being
detained? Am I free to go?" when questioned by a police officer but it would
have done this man a lot of good.

I see this as being just as much about the power of police officers to steer
an investigation, regardless of where the evidence points as it is about the
reliance on pseudoscience and the CSI effect.

~~~
Someone1234
> People make jokes about the Libertarian practice of repeating "Am I being
> detained? Am I free to go?" when questioned by a police officer but it would
> have done this man a lot of good.

People should very much remember their rights and the distinction between
being detained and "voluntarily" cooperating.

The reason why libertarians get made fun of is because they just keep shouting
the same thing over and over, even after an answer in the affirmative has been
given ("Am I being detained?" "Yes" "Am I being detained?"). They sound like a
toddler who thinks they have a get out of jail/trouble free card if they just
keep shouting the same phase over and over.

But, sure, teach people their rights and their right to remain silent (and to
have a lawyer). But also remind them that shouting some phase over and over
again doesn't provide them legal cover or help situations de-escalate. And,
yes, they will be made fun of for acting like an idiot.

~~~
Crito
> _" The reason why libertarians get made fun of is because they just keep
> shouting the same thing over and over, even after an answer in the
> affirmative has been given ("Am I being detained?" "Yes" "Am I being
> detained?"). They sound like a toddler who thinks they have a get out of
> jail/trouble free card if they just keep shouting the same phase over and
> over."_

From what I've seen, that is more a sovereign citizen thing.

People make fun of libertarians for things that sovereigns and anarchists say,
because hey, why not? Politics is dirty; if the shit sticks, throw it.

~~~
spacemanmatt
We also make fun of them for being ideologues. Don't forget that part.

~~~
Crito
By no means was I trying to provide a comprehensive list of reasons that
people make fun of libertarians. That would take far too long.

------
vermontdevil
In the American south - bite marks are becoming discredited now.

[http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/8b3bd7ebee8c4ae...](http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/8b3bd7ebee8c4ae6ac0191a53e2cd903/MS
--Bite-Marks-Slayings-Appeal)

Hopefully now all other forensic techniques are going to be heavily
scrutinized as it should be. It can be a great tool but it should be carefully
used.

------
JupiterMoon
I wonder if DNA evidence will prove to be subject to the same kind of over-
interpretation?

~~~
SixSigma
I like how they say "the chances of a match with a random chosen person and
not the defendant is X"

But people who are genetically related are not randomly distributed.

~~~
jessaustin
Also if DNA is the _only_ thing linking the suspect to the crime, it's
possible that something like a national DNA database just becomes a way to
convict people for having been in places where crimes later occurred. If you
have DNA, it's going to "match" _some_ set of people.

------
harry8
Wow the FBI really do act like they still call their headquarters the J. Edgar
Hoover building. Celebrating one of the worst american criminals of the 20th
century. Is the FBI beyond reform? Should it just be shut down entirely and a
wholly new agency set up. The more you find out about what they actually do
the worse it gets. It's dumbfounding.

~~~
theandrewbailey
> Wow the FBI really do act like they still call their headquarters the J.
> Edgar Hoover building.

Don't all of us?

[https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/hq](https://www.fbi.gov/about-
us/history/hq)

~~~
harry8
No I don't think all of us celebrate that kind of criminal or want the FBI to
be a criminal organisation. At the point you're faking evidence to get
convictions on an institutional basis, yeah, it's more than one person
agreeing to commit a crime. When it's their policy to repeatedly do so and to
abuse whistleblowers, it really is organised crime.

Beyond salvation? Clearly a large number of people at the FBI need to be in
jail for breaking very serious laws.

Falsifying evidence "to get convinctions" of the innocent. Yeah. Anyone doing
that need to defending their actions in court as the accused.

------
gurtwo
So what are the real success/failure figures of the technique?

~~~
RobAley
Well that's the problem, no body has studied it so no body knows. And with DNA
matching now available, there's little point wasting time and money studying
it now. Future cases can use DNA matching, as can historical cases (and if the
hair samples are no longer available, even if the technique were studied and
found to be valid there is no way to verify that it was applied properly in
the first place).

------
__z
Hair comparison seems questionable on the surface. I can pull two hairs out of
my head that look very different. I have some sections of hair that are very
fine and lighter and some sections that are thick and darker. My hair has also
changed texture over the years which seems common for my family.

Here is another sad story of a man put to death based on pseudoscience

[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-
fire](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire)

There is also the partial print of the Madrid bomber fiasco...
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield)

------
danschumann
Rand Paul is the strongest candidate regarding the much needed criminal
justice reforms. He's also the one best at his current job, senator.

------
frogpelt

        Did he heck.
    

I know we are in a different age of journalism. But about two-thirds through
the article, a paragraph starts with the above sentence. How does The Guardian
let something like this slip by?

------
avodonosov
A happy-end story to dilute the sore:
[http://goo.gl/raZTTm](http://goo.gl/raZTTm)

------
limeyx
Absolutely repulsive. The people giving this "evidence" should be put in jail
and the key thrown away.

