Once again, we see a “journalist” use the old tired technique of damning forensic science, based on testimony by experts, who are not forensic scientists. On top of that, they then go on to try and prove their point, by an overly emotional argument, based on errors in a “match” made with bitemark evidence.
According to a nationally respected fire engineer, the so-called scientific evidence used to convict Cameron Todd Willingham of setting a blaze that killed his three daughters in 1995 was not scientific at all. In his scathing report to the Texas Forensic Science Commission, Craig Beyler found that the arson investigators on the case had a poor understanding of fire dynamics and based their conclusions on erroneous assumptions, sloppy research and a dash of mysticism. For example, one investigator determined that, because the house fire burned “hot and fast,” an accelerant such as gasoline had been used to set it. But that theory — still given credence in some investigatory circles — is not factual. Gasoline fires are not significantly hotter than those started with wood, Beyler reported.
Willingham’s case is heartbreaking: He lost his children to fire and his wife to divorce, spent 12 years in prison and died still protesting his innocence. But his is not an isolated case. There are thousands of Willinghams in prisons across the country. If not on death row, they are nonetheless serving decades-long or even life sentences after having been convicted on the basis of erroneous scientific conclusions made by poorly trained “experts.”
In 2006, Congress charged the National Academy of Sciences with studying the application of forensic science in the U.S. judicial system. Its findings, released last year, are grim. Almost every branch of forensics but DNA testing — hair and fiber analysis, arson investigations, comparisons of bite marks — lacks the extensive scientific research and established standards to be used in court conclusively.
Consider: Last year, the Innocence Project, a New York-based public policy and litigation organization, helped exonerate Kennedy Brewer, a Mississippi man who had been convicted in 1992 of raping and killing a 3-year-old girl. DNA testing was not available at the time, and the primary evidence against him was that bite marks on the child’s body matched his teeth. Examination of the marks by national forensics experts determined that they were not even made by a human mouth: Her body had been dumped in a pond and insects had attacked it. Subsequent DNA testing also excluded Brewer as the rapist.
An interesting comment by a LA-Times reader point out some other interesting facts:
The author stated: “Almost every branch of forensics but DNA testing… lacks the extensive scientific research and established standards to be used in court conclusively.”
This statement is not factual. The National Academy of Science Report was critical of one group of forensic science disciplines, those which attempt to determine the source of a piece of evidence — included were some of the disciplines noted in the statement above, and among this group, only DNA was found to be fully validated scientifically. However, the report also noted that other branches of forensic science, particularly those which identify unknown substances but do not attempt to determine their source (and specifically mentioning drug analysis and toxicology), were, like DNA analysis, also well validated and proven reliable. What is more, the “arson investigation” techniques criticized were those techniques used by non-scientist fire marshalls and field fire investigators to characterize the behavior of the fire. The NAS report did NOT criticize analysis of fire debris by lab scientists; this is another field recognized as valid. So to characterize “almost every branch of forensic science” as lacking is a completely false and misleading statement not at all supported by the NAS report. The author is guilty of gross exaggeration and owes his readers, and all forensic scientists, an apology
Jiyusan (10/01/2009, 4:36 PM )
It’s well past time “journalists” should start actually interviewing REAL forensic scientists, before spouting out this dribble.
For another example of this type of op-ed hit piece based on no relevant information related to REAL forensic science, read our blog article on the Popular Mechanics article, if you haven’t already.
To read all the LA Times dribble, click on this link.
