Bad hair day

[Gob]

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.

[BoSoxGal]

I was going to post this in the United Police States of America thread, where we are chronicling the disintegration of the public trust in policing as it becomes clearer and clearer every day that our law enforcement ranks are rife with liars, torturers and murderers.

So at you for beating me to it! (Must be that pesky job I have.)



eta: Very clever title, as per usual.

[Lord Jim]

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...

[Crackpot]

Well hair evidence and a whole lot of circumstantial evidence can make for a conviction.

[Big RR]

BS presented as science by persons looking the part of a scientist can often sway the jury. If persons were wrongly placed at the scene or shown to have been in contact with the victim by such bogus evidence, it is a hard thing to get beyond for a defendant, especially one without resources to bring his or her won "experts" in.

So no. Most likely no one was ever convicted of a capital crime based solely on that evidence, but such evidence could go a long way to tipping the circumstantial evidence scale toward guilty.

[BoSoxGal]

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...

How in the world could you possibly assert such a position having no idea what evidence weighed most heavily on the juries involved in the convictions in these cases???

I can tell you as a former prosecutor and past/present defense attorney that juries are generally VERY MUCH INFLUENCED by LEO testimony, and forensic testimony in particular. For the FBI to falsify forensic evidence - and yes, it's falsification when a witness misrepresents the evidence - is simply disgusting. I find this revelation shocking and abhorrent in the extreme.

Liberty is so precious to most Republicans, they trumpet about it endlessly. But so often when it comes to violations of the constitutional rights of defendants in criminal actions, it doesn't seem to matter and minimization is the norm from such corners.

Innocent until PROVEN guilty - with real, honest evidence. If the State can't prove its case honestly, then better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man spend his fucking life in prison - or be executed!

[Lord Jim]

I can tell you as a former prosecutor and past/present defense attorney that juries are generally VERY MUCH INFLUENCED by LEO testimony,

Which doesn't contradict my assertion in any way shape or form...

[BoSoxGal]

LJ, I realize you are so wrapped up in your certainty about yourself and all your world views that this is a waste of my time, but really, you are NOT right about everything!

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has issued a report acknowledging that faulty hair evidence led to wrongful convictions.

Law enforcement agencies don't come forward with admissions like this lightly. I think folks can be confident that wrongful convictions occurred and that false forensic evidence was a huge factor in those wrongful convictions, or they wouldn't be admitting it.

But hey folks, don't worry about it - Lord Jim has pronounced from behind his screen that all is well and nobody was convicted on bad hair evidence.

[Joe Guy]

LJ, I realize you are so wrapped up in your certainty about yourself and all your world views that this is a waste of my time, but really, you are NOT right about everything!

Do you have any evidence to support that statement?...

[Lord Jim]

Lord Jim has pronounced from behind his screen that all is well and nobody was convicted on bad hair evidence.

I'm sorry...

I may have missed it because I'm so wrapped up in my certainty, but did I actually say that?

[Big RR]

Jim--you tell me; according to the OP, the FBI report stated "three men were wrongly placed at the scene of violent crimes by the unit's hair analysts" . So since they were placed at the scene by this scientific (and presumably accurate) evidence, their alibis were likely disregarded by the jury as self serving lies. I think it's quite likely that they would have been cleared had not the "hair evidence" been admitted and it would have been seen by the jury that they could not have committed the crime if they were not there. That leans pretty heavily in the direction that at least those three were convicted based on the BS evidence.

[Lord Jim]

What I said, (and perhaps I'll change this a bit to make it more categorical) is that I don't believe that there is a single example that can be pointed to of an individual being convicted of a serious crime based on "hair evidence" alone...

But even as wrapped up in my certainty as I am, I'm prepared to be proven wrong...

One example will do...

Just provide one case, one link, proving my wrapped up in certainty wrong, and I will fall to my knees and proclaim, "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa"...

[Big RR]

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.

[MajGenl.Meade]

LJ - you are correct. But all of them have been convicted in a trial in which false testimony was offered by the prosecution as professional, reliable, scientific police evidence. That makes all the convictions null and void.

ETA Big RR's first sentence. It is pointless. Not one trial ever took place in which the only piece of evidence was a hair.

You created a red hairing

[Big RR]

You created a red hairing

[Joe Guy]

You created a red hairing

Did that cause you to bristle?

[Lord Jim]

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

Ahh, my point precisely

[Crackpot]

The pojnt you seem to be missing is absent any piece of evidence the case may fall apart.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Of all the gingers in all the towns in all the world...

[MajGenl.Meade]

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

Ahh, my point precisely

No, your point was that the original post was hysterical and wrong. It wasn't. It was correct. All the trials in which false hair evidence was presented are tainted and must be reversed - or perhaps I mean retried

Shame about the dead ones

No one can say how much or whether such hair evidence swayed a verdict.