Bad hair day

[Lord Jim]

Really - where did you write that?

I didn't write that...

I took that from Big RR, while he was belittling me, and mocking my position, but not providing an example:

OK, but you do realize that's a silly and pointless assertion? Even with definitive evidence (like a video tape clearly showing the crime and whop perpetrated it), other corroborating evidence is always presented. So no one is ever convicted of a serious crime at trial based on any single pieced of evidence. And that undercuts the report because why?

Face it, there are cases where the hair evidence is a major part of the evidence used to convict (like the 3 cases where the evidence erroneously placed the convicted at the scene). Was it the only evidence? I sincerely doubt it, just as I sincerely doubt that the conviction would have been obtained if the crappy evidence didn't show them at the scene. And based on the OP, I think the FBI reached the same conclusion. I don't know why this so hard for you to grasp.

I'll tell you what's fairly easy for me "to grasp":

All the trials in which false hair evidence was presented are tainted and must be reversed

Really?

So if there are 20 eye witnesses, and 3 videotapes from different angles showing the guy committing the murder, and a confession, the guy should get a walk because of one piece of dodgey evidence that should be thrown out? Even if that "tainted evidence" was in no way dispositive for his conviction ?

That's nuts....

ETA:

I know our criminal justice system isn't perfect, but I can't believe it's become that batshit insane...

[Joe Guy]

BigRR also took a swipe at Italians when he wrote, "like a video tape clearly showing the crime and whop perpetrated it".

This thread has become an ugly slugfest of epic proportion...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yeah, don't blow your wig LJ. I adjusted that to reversed or retried and now I'm thinking "reviewed" is the third, and better, choice for me too.

[MajGenl.Meade]

But I liked that you blamed Big RR for it....

wesw

[BoSoxGal]

no one is ever convicted of a serious crime at trial based on any single pieced of evidence.

Ahh, my point precisely

So it's OKAY if some of the evidence is falsified by agents of the State??????????????????????????

[BoSoxGal]

I know our criminal justice system isn't perfect, but I can't believe it's become that batshit insane...

You are wrong on that point too, LJ.

Look at the overwhelming evidence in the news in recent decades about massive numbers of wrongful convictions and exonerations - massive because for the hundreds that have already been exonerated, many, many more are wrongfully imprisoned and there aren't sufficient resources in the innocence projects to clear them, so they languish in jail.

Look at the po-po murdering suspects. Suspects who enjoy the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by true and honest evidence.

Our criminal INjustice system is indeed batshit insane! It sickens me; it should sicken us all.

[Lord Jim]

I'm going to have to get in touch with Daisy and ask her to take a look at what's going on technically with the board...

There appears to be some glitch in the system causing things I never posted, (and I don't see on my screen when I go back and re-read my posts) that are appearing on the screens of other posters...

(This has always been an occasional problem, but in the past few days it seems to have become somewhat pandemic, in multiple threads....)

So it's OKAY if some of the evidence is falsified by agents of the State??????????????????????????

When I look on my computer screen, I don't see where I ever posted that, or anything remotely like it, or anything where even the most imaginative and creative mind could conceivably conclude that I posted anything vaguely approximating that view...

But clearly that must be showing up on your computer screen...

(I really wish Daze would get this fixed; I'm having the same problem in the "Muslim Attitudes" thread...)

The distance between saying "it's OKAY if some of the evidence is falsified by agents of the State" and saying that you shouldn't throw out every single conviction without regard to what other evidence there was, is so vast, it would take you hundreds of years to traverse, even if you were traveling at Warp 9....

Lord Jim wrote:
I know our criminal justice system isn't perfect, but I can't believe it's become that batshit insane...

You are wrong on that point too, LJ.

No, actually I'm right on that point as well...

If you look at the context of what I wrote, (which I thought was obvious, but again perhaps you are not seeing on your computer screen what appears on mine...)

My point was that it would be "batshit insane" if every single conviction were thrown out based on this alone...

And based on what I have read, that is not the case...

The laws vary from state-to-state, but there is not going to be any wholesale vacating of guilty verdicts based on this...

That would make me "right" not "wrong"...

[MajGenl.Meade]

I don't like to split hairs (oh come on!) but Daisy first needs to fix the "I'm wrong" button on LJ's keyboard.

ORIGINAL:

The FBI has admitted "errors" in evidence provided by its forensics laboratory to US courts to help secure convictions, including in death penalty cases, over more than 20 years. A report by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) noted "irregularities" in the hair analysis unit. More detail on the cases affected is expected later from campaign groups. Flawed forensics were used in at least 60 capital punishment cases, the OIG report found. Fourteen defendants were either executed or died in prison, says the Washington Post, which first reported the story at the weekend. The review of cases was prompted by the Post's 2012 story that three men were wrongly placed at the scene of violent crimes by the unit's hair analysts, raising the possibility of hundreds of unsafe convictions

This is a gross misstatement of the facts[no it isn't],because it implies [it does no such thing] that people were convicted, (and even more hysterically)[now this is hysterical] executed solely [huh?] on the basis of "hair evidence"[it does no such thing] ... Nothing could be further from the truth [you should know, that's where you are on this].
If anyone here has got an an [free the pandas!] example of where a person was convicted of a capital crime and executed based solely on "hair evidence" I'd be delighted to have them present it...[Red Hairing; Stalking Hairs; Straw Blonde Man]

Now where is that Daisy when she's needed?

[Lord Jim]

I don't like to split hairs (oh come on!) but Daisy first needs to fix the "I'm wrong" button on LJ's keyboard.

That "analysis" of yours further proves my point...

I didn't say or imply any of the "clever" things you put in red in that supposed quote...

Never said anything like that, never implied anything of the sort...

That's entirely on you...

Frankly Gen'l, I think it rather unworthy of you to attempt to resort to such cheap and obvious word games...

[BoSoxGal]

You didn't say those exact words, LJ, but you posted arguments that basically were dismissive of just how truly abhorrent it is that agents of the State would fabricate evidence in any trial, much less a death penalty trial. I didn't go back and reread every word of yours posts, but I don't recall you expressing any negativity whatsoever regarding the actions of the FBI forensic analysts who lied on the stand under oath in death penalty cases. I find it very sad that you don't seem to think it's a big deal if some of the evidence was fabricated as long as there was other evidence too.

People hate lawyers until they need a good one. People never think wrongful accusation or conviction could happen to them or someone they love. It's happening all the time, and sometimes it happens to perfectly decent law abiding people without any criminal history - I've posted many of those stories on this very forum over the years.

There but for the grace of God, LJ. I hope it's never you or one of your kids . . . would it bother you then that the State presented falsified evidence at trial? Rights and rules don't mean anything unless they are adhered to and fought for every time, regardless of who the defendant is.

[MajGenl.Meade]

He did say those exact words.

You know, I simply copied LJ's method of quoting an original piece exactly as written and adding MY responses in red. That's why they are in red - so everyone knows it was me writing that.

Every black typed word is exactly what LJ wrote - and they are all wrong. Incorrect, Unfactual. Misrepresentations. False statements regarding the original post. Go back and look at the original post and then see LJ's first response.

I quoted him. He's wrong but damned if he'll admit it. Instead we get deliberate misdirection, pretending that I'm saying HE said the things in RED. Utter bullshit to deflect the issue.

Your first post in this thread was totally off-base. Man up

(I've already admitted not thinking clearly - saying that all verdicts should be thrown out and then finally realizing you were right about that - they are to be reviewed. OMG! That's what the article said!)

[Lord Jim]

He did say those exact words.

No, here are my exact words again, (sans your commentary) and I stand by every word of them:

This is a gross misstatement of the facts, because it implies that people were convicted, (and even more hysterically) executed solely on the basis of "hair evidence" ...

Nothing could be further from the truth.

If anyone here has got an an example of where a person was convicted of a capital crime and executed based solely on "hair evidence" I'd be delighted to have them present it...

In the OP you will find:

A report by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) noted "irregularities" in the hair analysis unit. More detail on the cases affected is expected later from campaign groups. Flawed forensics were used in at least 60 capital punishment cases, the OIG report found.

So, to dispute that anyone was executed based on this "evidence" is entirely appropriate, since it was, well, you know, "used in at least 60 capital punishment cases"...

Every black typed word is exactly what LJ wrote - and they are all wrong. Incorrect, Unfactual.

Well, aside from the fact that those words are all right, correct, and factual, that's a spot-on assessment...

And I will repeat what I said in my previous post:

Frankly Gen'l, I think it rather unworthy of you to attempt to resort to such cheap and obvious word games...

You are engaging in sophistic, rhetorical léger de main, but damned if you'll admit it...


ETA:

BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to post an example of where any person was convicted of a capital offense based on FBI provided exaggerated "hair evidence"...

In fact, I'll make that challenge even easier...

Can anyone here provide a single example of where FBI provided exaggerated "hair evidence" resulted in a single conviction for any "serious" crime? Forcible rape? Criminal assault? Manslaughter?

Any example at all?

Just one...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Try and provide one honest answer - it's possible

Flawed forensics were used in at least 60 capital punishment cases, the OIG report found.

Show us all how that sentence

implies that people were convicted, (and even more hysterically) executed solely on the basis of "hair evidence"

You cannot and you will not

OK you might argue that it's not just that sentence - it's the entire paragraph. That's reasonable. So why not show which of the words that were actually used were "gross misstatements".

Let me help you with a hypothetical example:

Gross Misstatement: "The review of cases was prompted by the Post's 2012 story that three men were wrongly placed at the scene of violent crimes by the unit's hair analysts, raising the possibility of hundreds of unsafe convictions"

Reason it is a gross misstatement: Because this sentence is hysterical and suggests that people have been convicted on the basis of one hair.

Let me make this clear - I am not putting words in your mouth. The above is just a pattern for how to demonstrate an assertion. Please use their words and yours


BTW
The only person here who raised the idea that there was a claim of convictions based solely on incorrect hair evidence ---- oh sorry, the word "solely" has vanished --- is you. The original article made no such claim nor did it imply that. It reports accurately, soberly and fairly that false evidence about hair was used in some cases and those cases are subject to review. In such reviews, it will be determined IF anyone's conviction was tainted by the false evidence. Once they've done that, your question may be answered - some may have been unfairly convicted; none may have been unfairly convicted.

[Lord Jim]

Oh for the love of...

The ghost of Rod Serling must be hanging around here somewhere...

Okay, here's the article from the OP in its entirety:

The FBI has admitted "errors" in evidence provided by its forensics laboratory to US courts to help secure convictions, including in death penalty cases, over more than 20 years.


A report by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) noted "irregularities" in the hair analysis unit. More detail on the cases affected is expected later from campaign groups. Flawed forensics were used in at least 60 capital punishment cases, the OIG report found.

Fourteen defendants were either executed or died in prison, says the Washington Post, which first reported the story at the weekend. The review of cases was prompted by the Post's 2012 story that three men were wrongly placed at the scene of violent crimes by the unit's hair analysts, raising the possibility of hundreds of unsafe convictions.

You honestly don't see how the use of that kind of language "implies" and conveys "the gross mischaracterization" that people were executed as a result of this flawed evidence?

Really? Is the obvious sensationalist (and misleading) intent of how that article was written completely lost on you?

If so, then I have to say that for a fella who prides himself on having an obsessive fixation with the proper use of the English language, you could stand to learn a thing or two about the misleading ways it can be used....

[Scooter]

You'll have to add me to the list of those who think you are reading something that isn't there into those words. The way you have enlarged those sections actually emphasizes that the writer has avoided drawing the implications you claim him/her to have made.

[Guinevere]

LJ, you might want to loosen your grip on that hair trigger just a bit . . . .


I don't know where Gob got his clip, and I hate that he never presents the full article or the source, but I didn't think it terribly sensationalized, or anything other than factual.

The original piece from the Post is here (also pretty factual):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/cri ... story.html

The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.

Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.

The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.

The FBI errors alone do not mean there was not other evidence of a convict’s guilt. Defendants and federal and state prosecutors in 46 states and the District are being notified to determine whether there are grounds for appeals. Four defendants were previously exonerated.

FWIW, we are already struggling with this issue in Massachusetts, where a forensic lab tech has admitted to falsifying drug evidence in what could be as many as thousands of cases. I've read that over 200 convictions have already been vacated-- although no systemic legal approach to how to handle her cases has been set -- our Supreme Judicial Court is considering how to handle the breadth of these cases right now. A "wholesale" vacation of guilty verdicts may just be the end result -- 200 already is a pretty big number. And yes, we already know you probably think Massachusetts is "batshit insane."

[MajGenl.Meade]

[Guinevere]

[I'll tell you what's fairly easy for me "to grasp":

All the trials in which false hair evidence was presented are tainted and must be reversed

Really?

So if there are 20 eye witnesses, and 3 videotapes from different angles showing the guy committing the murder, and a confession, the guy should get a walk because of one piece of dodgey evidence that should be thrown out? Even if that "tainted evidence" was in no way dispositive for his conviction ?

That's nuts....

You know as well as everyone else on this board that those cases rarely if ever exist. And if they do exist, they almost always settle. If they don't settle, its because someone, prosecution or defense/defendant, wants to make a point (that's exactly what's going on in Tsarnaev where that kind of evidence did exist). Please also note that these are all cases before 2000, when there weren't video cameras on every corner, cell-phones with video capability in every hand, before youTube, Facebook, and social media.

Think about the Hernandez case. Even though it was a long and complicated trial, there were no eyewitnesses, no murder weapon, no gunshot residue. The only physical evidence to tie him to the crime was that his footprint was found at the crime scene. What if it wasn't his footprint, but was really a size off, and maybe the wear patterns weren't as statistically close as the investigator reported? As a juror I couldn't tell you the difference between a Nike and a Reebok, or a size 12 and a size 13. I rely on the government's expert witness to present that evidence. Sure, I get to decide how important it is in to the case in full, and how much weight to assign to it, but if its the only physical thing linking a defendant to a scene, its going to be pretty persuasive.

[BoSoxGal]

D.C. Man Exonerated After Hair Analysis Review
Posted: July 22, 2014 4:41 PM

Four months after a Washington, D.C. man was cleared by DNA when the hair analysis used to convict him was found to be wrong, his conviction was vacated Monday. Kevin Martin’s exoneration comes nearly one year after the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) announced its partnership with the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the U.S. Department of Justice to review microscopic hair analysis cases.

Martin was convicted of the 1982 rape and murder of Ursula Brown based largely on the claim that his hair was found at the scene of the crime. He spent more than 26 years behind bars before he was paroled in 2009 and settled in San Francisco.

The Washington Post reported that after DNA testing pointed to Martin’s innocence earlier this year, U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr. joined defense calls to overturn his conviction. Martin was joined in court by family when a Superior Court judge finally said the words he had been waiting to hear for nearly three decades.

“I am free at last. I am humbled. I never gave up,” Martin said, hugging and high-fiving his attorneys. Martin’s younger sister, his fiancee, his 6-year-old niece and other family members gathered around.
“I just want to live,” said Martin, 50.

Brown’s partially clothed body was discovered between a school yard and an apartment building in southwest D.C. She had been shot in the head, slashed and raped. Some of her belongings were found near the scene. A pair of sneakers, which the prosecutor said belonged to the victim, was also found. Those sneakers became key to the case; at trial, the prosecution said that the FBI found one of Martin’s pubic hairs on one of the shoes. Facing multiple life sentences if the case went to trial, Martin entered an Alford plea to manslaughter acknowledging that the prosecution had sufficient evidence to convict him, but he did not admit guilt.

Martin first sought DNA testing in 2001 but was told the evidence from his case had been lost. More than a decade later, boxes from the investigation turned up at a new facility and although the hair was not located, other genetic evidence was recovered for testing. According to prosecutors, the DNA matched William D. Davidson, who is serving a sentence of 65 years to life for multiple offenses including being the lookout during Brown’s attack.

Martin’s is the fifth case since 2009 in which FBI hair analysis has been found to be wrong. Donald Gates, Kirk Odom, Santae Tribble and Cleveland Wright were also wrongly convicted based on false FBI hair analysis.

The Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project assisted in Martin’s case.

Read the full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/cri ... story.html

eta: Satisfied? Or is that crickets I hear?

[Big RR]

Big RR wrote:
All the trials in which false hair evidence was presented are tainted and must be reversed

To be fair Guin (and Jim) while I don't necessarily disagree with that conclusion, I never wrote that statement (I think Meade did, and he later qualified it). But I do think the convictions must be closely reviewed and most will probably be reversed.