Hair Analysis Usefulness was consistently overstated by F. B. I. analysts and those they trained for state and local agencies.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/04/fbis-flawed-forensics-expert-testimony-hair-analysis-bite-marks-fingerprints-arson.html?fbclid=IwAR2R1ato9fmthQ-Ga-C03Rp4gW21L6njSVJ0-qp7C9Iywth6JgAyiwRoivc

The above link is the re-post of a Washington Post article regarding an audit of the Department of Justice and the F. B. I. that shows that hair analysis results were constantly overstated in favor of the prosecution.
“What went wrong? The Post continues“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.”
This audit now calls into question bite mark analysis and other forensic evidence.  The article  cites examples in which a dog hair was falsely represented at trial as a hair from the defendant to achieve a conviction and another in which a bite mark expert used the plaster mold taken of the accused’s  teeth to plant a bite on a corpse.
In the Leila Fowler case, the F. B. I. sought to condemn the 12 year old defendant based on the their analysis of the 911 call.  This was done without an prior outside review of the method and despite the fact that none of the phone calls reviewed to develop the method involved anyone younger than 19.
Stay tuned for more revelations in this area.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s