Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Any conviction based on hair analysis is likely wrong, as their is ZERO scientific basis behind it, and NO ONE can match hairs based on appearances alone.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... conviction" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Over the past few years, advanced understanding in the science of hair types has left hair analysis, as a forensic tool, in tatters. Today’s consensus by real experts is more straightforward than ever: there is nothing that can credibly be said, by FBI-approved analysts or anyone else, about about the frequency with which particular characteristics of hair are distributed in the human population.

In other words, microscopic analysis of hair – the very analysis that put George Perrot and so many people behind bars – is virtually worthless as a method of identifying someone. It can only safely be used to rule out a suspect as the source of crime-scene materials or in combination with the vastly more accurate technique of DNA testing.

As the scientific basis of hair analysis has crumbled, the scale of the judicial catastrophe caused by the FBI’s enthusiastic use of it for decades until about 2000 has now begun to emerge more fully. On Monday, the FBI and the US Justice Department, together with the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, released the findings of the first stage of a joint investigation into these historic civil rights mistakes.

The results, first reported by the Washington Post, concluded that an astonishing 26 of the 28 FBI agents who had provided testimony as expert witnesses at trial based on microscopic hair analysis had made statements to juries that were known to be false. Their erroneous evidence was found in a full 90% of the trial transcripts the team has studied.

Most shockingly, at least 35 defendants received the death penalty, 33 of which were the subject of false FBI testimony. Nine of the prisoners were executed and five died from other causes on death row.

But a hair analysis can determine race. Just sayin.

CAA Flagship wrote:But a hair analysis can determine race. Just sayin.

Does that include pubic hair?

So I guess the FBI lab dude who writes "BNK" (black n kinky) on the forensic reports is out of a job now

dbackjon wrote:Most shockingly, at least 35 defendants received the death penalty, 33 of which were the subject of false FBI testimony. Nine of the prisoners were executed and five died from other causes on death row.

We won't ever mistakenly execute an innocent person if we just do away with executions altogther. Just sayin. And I'm not advocating some plush life jail sentence, I'm all for hard labor for life. Like I said before, the Consitution just bars cruel AND unusual. If we make those punishments more commonplace we can pass constitutional muster!

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Most shockingly, at least 35 defendants received the death penalty, 33 of which were the subject of false FBI testimony. Nine of the prisoners were executed and five died from other causes on death row.

We won't ever mistakenly execute an innocent person if we just do away with executions altogther. Just sayin. And I'm not advocating some plush life jail sentence, I'm all for hard labor for life. Like I said before, the Consitution just bars cruel AND unusual. If we make those punishments more commonplace we can pass constitutional muster!

+6930006.93

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Most shockingly, at least 35 defendants received the death penalty, 33 of which were the subject of false FBI testimony. Nine of the prisoners were executed and five died from other causes on death row.

We won't ever mistakenly execute an innocent person if we just do away with executions altogther. Just sayin. And I'm not advocating some plush life jail sentence, I'm all for hard labor for life. Like I said before, the Consitution just bars cruel AND unusual. If we make those punishments more commonplace we can pass constitutional muster!

Completely agree.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
We won't ever mistakenly execute an innocent person if we just do away with executions altogther. Just sayin. And I'm not advocating some plush life jail sentence, I'm all for hard labor for life. Like I said before, the Consitution just bars cruel AND unusual. If we make those punishments more commonplace we can pass constitutional muster!

Completely agree.

I am someone inclined to support the death penalty and I nevertheless tend to agree. I am convinced that our system has an unacceptably high false conviction rate.

I don't know exactly what to do about it. Like there are some instances in which we know with 100% certainty that someone did commit the crime. I think the Boston Marathon bomber thing is in that category since the defense did not even attempt to argue that he didn't do it.

But overall the false conviction rate with respect to capital crime is disturbing.

JohnStOnge wrote: I am someone inclined to support the death penalty and I nevertheless tend to agree. I am convinced that our system has an unacceptably high false conviction rate.

I don't know exactly what to do about it. Like there are some instances in which we know with 100% certainty that someone did commit the crime. I think the Boston Marathon bomber thing is in that category since the defense did not even attempt to argue that he didn't do it.

But overall the false conviction rate with respect to capital crime is disturbing.

I think video evidence had more to do with establishing the guilt on the Boston Marathon bomber.

But, you can't say with 100% certainty that someone is guilty of murder because there is no defense presented or because there is a guilty plea. There are a host of cases where someone plead guilty to a crime they were innocent of - convinced by lawyer, accepting plea deal, etc.

FBI analysts "matched" hair follicle with the accused.

Turns out it was a dog's hair.

In one particularly shocking case from 1978, two FBI-trained hair analysts who helped in the prosecution of a murder case couldn’t even tell the difference between human hair and dog hair.

The case involved a murder in Washington D.C. that year. The victim, a cab driver, was robbed and killed in front of his home. Before long, police centered upon Santae Tribble, then a 17-year-old local from the neighborhood, as a suspect.

Tribble maintained his innocence. But no matter what he said and how much his friends vouched, two FBI forensics experts claimed that a single strand of hair recovered near the scene of the crime matched Tribble’s DNA. Thanks to that evidence, which was groundbreaking at the time, Tribble was found guilty and sentenced to 20 years to life in prison after 40 minutes of jury deliberation, reported the Washington Post.

He would go on to serve 28 years until the truth came out: an independent analysis found that the FBI testimony was flawed. Not a single hair that was found on the scene matched his DNA. After attorneys brought the evidence to the courts, Tribble was exonerated of the crime, though he’d already been released from prison. “The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that he did not commit the crimes he was convicted of at trial,” a judge wrote in the certificate of innocence released at the time, in 2012.

It gets worse. Not only did none of the hairs presented as evidence in trial belonged to Tribble, the private lab found that one of the hairs actually came from a dog.

“Such is the true state of hair microscopy,” Sandra K. Levick, Tribble’s lawyer, wrote at the time, in 2012. “Two FBI-trained analysts… could not even distinguish human hairs from canine hairs.”

http://fusion.net/story/123382/fbi-fore ... f263bf6ac2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Skjellyfetti wrote:FBI analysts "matched" hair follicle with the accused.

Turns out it was a dog's hair.

In one particularly shocking case from 1978, two FBI-trained hair analysts who helped in the prosecution of a murder case couldn’t even tell the difference between human hair and dog hair.

The case involved a murder in Washington D.C. that year. The victim, a cab driver, was robbed and killed in front of his home. Before long, police centered upon Santae Tribble, then a 17-year-old local from the neighborhood, as a suspect.

Tribble maintained his innocence. But no matter what he said and how much his friends vouched, two FBI forensics experts claimed that a single strand of hair recovered near the scene of the crime matched Tribble’s DNA. Thanks to that evidence, which was groundbreaking at the time, Tribble was found guilty and sentenced to 20 years to life in prison after 40 minutes of jury deliberation, reported the Washington Post.

He would go on to serve 28 years until the truth came out: an independent analysis found that the FBI testimony was flawed. Not a single hair that was found on the scene matched his DNA. After attorneys brought the evidence to the courts, Tribble was exonerated of the crime, though he’d already been released from prison. “The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that he did not commit the crimes he was convicted of at trial,” a judge wrote in the certificate of innocence released at the time, in 2012.

It gets worse. Not only did none of the hairs presented as evidence in trial belonged to Tribble, the private lab found that one of the hairs actually came from a dog.

“Such is the true state of hair microscopy,” Sandra K. Levick, Tribble’s lawyer, wrote at the time, in 2012. “Two FBI-trained analysts… could not even distinguish human hairs from canine hairs.”

http://fusion.net/story/123382/fbi-fore ... f263bf6ac2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yeah, but dog hair and nappy hair are hard to tell apart

CID1990 wrote: yeah, but dog hair and nappy hair are hard to tell apart

Spoken like a true cop.

I don't know anything about hair analysis, but I can vouch first-hand that polygraph testing is complete horseshit quack science.

93henfan wrote:I don't know anything about hair analysis, but I can vouch first-hand that polygraph testing is complete horseshit quack science.

Why? Did you flunk one?

Ivytalk wrote:

93henfan wrote:I don't know anything about hair analysis, but I can vouch first-hand that polygraph testing is complete horseshit quack science.

Why? Did you flunk one?

Sure did.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CID1990 wrote: yeah, but dog hair and nappy hair are hard to tell apart

Spoken like a guy who must've dated my sister.

Fify