This week I’ve been talking a lot about what’s wrong with the system and how to fix it. In maintaining this theme, it’s time to talk forensics.
Flawed forensic science, also known as “Junk Science,” has contributed to numerous wrongful convictions and its undermining the integrity of the criminal justice system. Techniques like bite mark analysis, microscopic hair comparison, and bullet analysis have been discredited due to their lack of scientific validity.
Because I’m on a John Oliver kick, here’s an excellent segment from Last Week Tonight:
As even Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor recognizes the problems, it’s time we unpack it. Understanding and reforming these practices is essential to prevent future miscarriages of justice.
The Problem with Bite Mark Analysis
Bite mark analysis assumes that each person’s dental pattern is unique and that human skin can reliably record these patterns. However, studies have shown that these assumptions lack scientific support. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found no data to support the uniqueness of dental patterns or the reliability of skin as a recording medium. Sadly, bite mark evidence has led to wrongful convictions and is now widely regarded as unreliable.
Did you know that Ted Bundy was convicted on bite mark analysis? True Story. That’s the case that made bite mark analysis “mainstream.” They got incredibly lucky.
The Flaws in Microscopic Hair Analysis
Microscopic hair comparison involves visually matching hair samples, a method prone to subjectivity and error.
The FBI itself acknowledged that in over 90% of cases reviewed, examiners provided flawed testimony regarding hair evidence. This technique has contributed to numerous wrongful convictions, highlighting the need for more reliable forensic methods.
Questioning Bullet and Firearms Analysis
Firearms analysis attempts to match bullets or cartridge cases to specific weapons based on toolmarks. However, the scientific validity of this practice is questionable. Studies have shown high rates of inconclusive results and significant error rates among examiners. Moreover, the assumption that each firearm leaves unique marks lacks sufficient empirical support.
Soil Evidence and When Geologist Testimony Falls Apart
Soil can seem like the perfect silent witness. It can be unique to specific locations, it’s easy to collect, and when properly analyzed, can reveal chemical and mineral compositions that suggest where a person or object has been. Law enforcement has long used this kind of evidence to try to place suspects at or near a crime scene.
However, like many the science isn’t as exact as courtroom narratives often portray, hurting people with complete bunk to secure convictions and funding.
The Case of Dennis Salerno
Dennis Salerno is one of them. In his case, Michigan State University Professor Thomas Vogel, a geologist, claimed dirt on Dennis’ shoes was unique to the alleged crime scene location. Years later, an investigative journalist found the dirt was not special at all; it was exactly the same as generic hobby dirt purchased at a big box retailer.
This isn’t the only ethical issue around this “expert.” Vogel was striped of his emeritus title in 2018 after being found guilty of violating sexual misconduct policies.
Lack of Universal Standards
Unlike DNA or fingerprint analysis, there is no universally accepted standard for how soil comparisons should be conducted. This has been highlighted in scientific reviews such as the 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences, which criticized forensic disciplines that lacked rigorous testing and standardization. One expert might emphasize particle size and composition, while another may focus on color or organic material. This outright subjectivity opens the door to confirmation bias and overstatement of the evidence’s reliability.
Some geologist testimony has relied on outdated techniques that are no longer accepted in the scientific community. Without peer-reviewed protocols or validation studies, this kind of evidence can quickly become pseudo-scientific.
Pathways to Reform
What’s terrible is there are real cases still fighting for justice based on bunk forensic science. And to address these issues, several reforms are necessary:
- Scientific Validation: Forensic methods must undergo rigorous scientific testing to establish their validity and reliability.
- Standardization and Oversight: Implementing standardized protocols and independent oversight can ensure consistency and accountability in forensic practices.
- Legal Safeguards: Courts should require that forensic evidence presented meets established scientific standards, and mechanisms should be in place to review and rectify past convictions based on flawed evidence.
- Education and Training: Continuous education for forensic practitioners and legal professionals can help prevent the misuse of forensic evidence.
Addressing the flaws in forensic science is crucial for the integrity of the criminal justice system. By implementing meaningful reforms, we can move towards a more reliable and just system that upholds the rights of all individuals moving away from
Additional Reading
- Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System, M. Chris Fabricant
- You Might Go to Prison Even Though You’re Innocent, Justin Brooks
