Posted on 04/19/2015 7:57:34 AM PDT by kiryandil
FBI admits that ALL its forensic experts exaggerated hair evidence at every criminal trial for nearly 20 years
The FBI and Justice Department have admitted forensic examiners from a DNA unit gave flawed evidence at nearly all United States criminal trials spanning 20 years.
It has been reported that 26 employees in the agency's microscopic hair comparison laboratory overstated forensic matches so they favored prosecutors in the 1980s and 1990s.
Research involving the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project say that 95 per cent of 268 trials reviewed had been impacted.
The Washington Post reported that of the 200 convictions affected, 32 defendants were sentenced to death - 14 of which have since been executed or died behind bars.
Those who are still alive have been sent letters explaining the errors and how they can used further DNA testing to prove the evidence.
The mistakes do not automatically prove the convict's innocence...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Cops are criminals.
Very good reason to eliminate that alphabet agency.
This is a Lawyers nightmare and dream.
Or is this a back door way to nullify many convictions - especially for blacks?
Don’t forget that Eric Holder is in charge of the FBI.
So the odds are that every action has a hidden political component and is calculated to advance the leftist agenda.
and all the sinners saints
ding ding ding
A systemic lawbreaking by the government. The legal system has nothing to do with law.
The British news media.
Not the American propaganda machine.
This report will never see the light of day in America, and increases the urgency our fascist government feels in the shutdown of any internet news source, except the ones they sanction.
Since when is freeing people who were wrongfully convicted a leftist agenda?
Its a fashionable cliche that “America is just a few laws away from being a Nazi Germany” .... with always the reply of people nodding yes in “mock somber” agreement .... this news story about the once trusted FBI is chilling, especially since it took way too many years to surface ...
It isn’t. Undermining the rule of law is.
“Or is this a back door way to nullify many convictions - especially for blacks?
Don’t forget that Eric Holder is in charge of the FBI.
So the odds are that every action has a hidden political component and is calculated to advance the leftist agendaeath penalty.”
And to get rid of the death penalty except for “hate crimes” which will include non “PC” speech.
“Not the American propaganda machine. .... This report will never see the light of day in America”
You assume that just because some freeper randomly posts something from the British media, that that media outlet originated the article. That’s simply not true. In almost all cases, the British media has simply picked up a U.S.-originated article and republished it.
That is in fact the case here. The Washington Post published this story a day before The Daily Mail:
In fact, looking at the reporting dates shown via googling the many outlets that published this story, it looks to me like the investigative journalist who wrote this story for WaPo is the one who did the original heavy lifting.
Oh, and if you google for this story, you’ll see that dozens of American media outlets have in fact picked it up.
You really should do a little research before spouting off with ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Ahhhhh. Close enough for government work.
If it got so innocents convicted, so what. They get 3 meals and a cot and rec time.
That is normally how it goes...Daily Mail has tried the buzzfeed, the blaze, and other similar sites that go ape with a headline and push it by relying on the heavy lifting from the original source.
“You really should do a little research before spouting off with ridiculous conspiracy theories.”
(addressed to Laz)
So,,,,you ain’t from around here,,, are ya?
Anytime I’ve actually looked, these foreign stories have always been picked up (sometimes verbatim) from popular US sources days or weeks earlier.
Indianapolis news picked it up. But it was a slow morning in Indy. Only 2 shootings by Holders peeps and one of them lived.
Lead story on one news site is about Clinton speaking at Oklahoma City
“...overstated forensic matches so they favored prosecutors...”
Seems to me that this is a misleading statement if they are only reviewing trial testimony.
If the expert’s opinion is that a hair from a crime scene does not match a suspect, then in general the police will not make an arrest...the prosecutor will not bring charges...there will be no trial...and the expert will not testify.
So it’s only natural that in trial testimony the expert would usually favor the prosecution.
I think they might need to look at all analyses rather than just those that went to trial.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.