Posted on 11/18/2007 6:34:19 AM PST by xtinct
Hundreds of defendants sitting in prisons nationwide have been convicted with the help of an FBI forensic tool that was discarded more than two years ago. But the FBI lab has yet to take steps to alert the affected defendants or courts, even as the window for appealing convictions is closing, a joint investigation by The Washington Post and "60 Minutes" has found.
The science, known as comparative bullet-lead analysis, was first used after President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963. The technique used chemistry to link crime-scene bullets to ones possessed by suspects on the theory that each batch of lead had a unique elemental makeup.
In 2004, however, the nation's most prestigious scientific body concluded that variations in the manufacturing process rendered the FBI's testimony about the science "unreliable and potentially misleading." Specifically, the National Academy of Sciences said that decades of FBI statements to jurors linking a particular bullet to those found in a suspect's gun or cartridge box were so overstated that such testimony should be considered "misleading under federal rules of evidence."
Wayne Lee Hunt, 48, convicted of a double murder 22 years ago in a case now being challenged because of faulty bullet lead analysis. (CBS News)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Quite frankly, this isn’t about the victims of the crime, this is about federal prosecutors relying on forensic evidence which is being revealed to be less than reliable.
What this means for the victims in the applicable crimes is that there is a strong possibility that the true perpetrator is running around free while a person who did NOT commit the crime was prosecuted and convicted, which ironically makes THEM victims as well.
This is just more of the bitter fruit we’re going to see from the FitzFongSutton mentality that has run amok in our so-called ‘justice system’.
That ‘bleeding heart alert’ should be removed from the headline because this story ought to be one that conservatives should be just as enraged about as any other part of the political spectrum.
I take it you are a firm believer in the Immaculate Conviction.
I am not, having met some who were wrongfully convicted. Convicting the wrong person creates new victims, however much it satisfies some FReepers' bloodlust.
Wise words, thank you.
If the test doesn’t link the crime scene bullet to the convicted defendant and there is insufficient other evidence, the conviction should be thrown out. I have no sympathy for scumbags but if the evidence against them is false or not scientifically valid, they haven’t had a fair trial. If there is other evidence and this test just provided one more link, that might be a different story.
bkmarking for article read later. Thanks for the post.
One of the organizations on my "giving list" is The Innocence Project. It's not routine that the innocent are convicted, but when it happens, they have no one to help, as a rule.
If you had a lot of other evidence, this might be one more nail in the coffin, but I think that you would need enough evidence to convince me without this test to get me to vote guilty.
Misled them deliberately or through the ignorance of the "scientist." I was impressed by the FBI "scientist" testifying at the OJ trial. He didn't know how to calculate the area inside of a circle. He didn't even know the approximate value of PI. Neither stopped him from repeatedly referring to himself as a scientist. Any other organization would have been embarrassed by someone like this. Not the FBI. That's only one minor indication that something was/is wrong at the FBI.
I wouldn’t call this bleeding heart as much as bad science.
Even Bernard Spilsbury, the father of modern forensic pathology, made errors that resulted in innocent people being convicted and even executed, based on his reputation, not the evidence, *and* his technical mistakes.
In most cases, police forensics are usually two guys in a bathroom-sized office with a microscope and some test tubes, a personal computer and file cabinets, not “C.S.I. Las Vegas”. In fact, only because of that show have many cities discovered to their surprise that they don’t have a setup like on television.
Again, because of that show, there has also been a huge upsurge in interest in students that want to learn forensic science.
And ironically as all get out, this is going to result in huge improvements to the system, and a lot more discoveries of long used flaws in forensic evidence procedures like this one. Mistakes that have sent a LOT of people to prison who maybe shouldn’t have gone there.
Juries, as well, are starting to demand forensic evidence even when it really isn’t needed, and expect CSI levels of technical quality and speed.
Criminals are adjusting as well. It is now common for police to catch criminals with bottles of bleach they intend to use to destroy DNA evidence. But back when fingerprinting became common, some English criminals took to wearing gloves with rubber fingertips, painstakingly engraved with the fingerprints of dead men.
The bottom line is that the entire criminal justice system is based in judgment and common sense, or a lack thereof, with just a small smattering of science and reason. In the same crime, with the same evidence, one prosecutor may be willing to grant probation and time served, a different prosecutor may push for a life sentence.
Expert witnesses are often “hired guns”, who will testify to whatever they are being paid to testify, no matter how outrageous, especially on subjective subjects like psychology.
Worst of all, juries are fickle as hell. It is long been proven that an ugly defendant has a much higher chance of being convicted and sentenced to a harsher sentence than an attractive one, with exactly the same evidence.
I really cringed when, after the conviction of a thoroughly evil child killer, with conclusive, damning evidence against him, one juror remarked: “I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, until he flipped us (the jury) off. Then I knew he was guilty.”
And no, that statement was not enough to set aside the conviction.
Jurors may also decide the outcome of a case with a coin flip, and about any other way they want to.
But they must not consult a bible about the crime. That is forbidden and will result in a mistrial. For some reason, or lack thereof.
The old warning, about research “You can never prove anything, you can only disprove.”, applies here.
A friend of mine is an attorney who donates time to The Innocence Project.
That being said, this bullet evidence wouldn't be the sole thing the prosecutor had against the accused, like say a VOLUNTARY CONFESSION, finger prints and/or his partners in crime flipping on him.
1. It was prepared by SeeBS News and the ComPost -- both highly biased and hence inherently untrustworthy sources.
2. They admit the underlying science is valid -- only the interpretation of the chemical analysis has been called into question.
Even the harshest critics concede that the FBI correctly measured the chemical elements of lead bullets. But the science academy found that the lab used faulty statistical calculations to declare that bullets matched even when the measurements differed slightly. FBI witnesses also overstated the significance of the matches.
3. Nobody knows how many convictions can be called into question. MSM identified about 250, but then admits that many of the individuals in question are undoubtedly still guilty. Nevertheless, the blotched tests can be put to good use (in their minds) for the purpose of creating a "reasonable doubt."
Some had criminal backgrounds and most were convicted with at least some additional circumstantial evidence linking them to gruesome crime scenes. But the common thread is that removing the flawed bullet-lead evidence has created reasonable doubt about guilt in the minds of legal experts, the courts and at least one juror.
4. To date, very few cons have successfully challenged the FBI test results. Their big problem -- there is plenty of other evidence to convict them.
Nevertheless, this mess will probably lead to another "lawyer's full employment act" as hundreds of "innocent" prisoners attempt to gain release whether or not their cases have merit.
5. Not everybody wants the analysis process discredited -- including the world's smartest woman.
In the mid-1990s, Lundy used the science to help prove that Clinton White House lawyer Vincent W. Foster committed suicide
Bottom line: Interesting read. Thanks for posting.
See link... discuss with the source as to why this prisoner's picture has been used in their article... clueless here :o)
Free Wayne Lee Hunt!!!! Anyone can tell just by looking at him that he is gentle and innocent soul. LOL!
Not all “voluntary confessions” are voluntary.
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.