respond to the following discussion posts:
1 – In the PBS/Frontline article, the central idea is that there is a need for more scientific research and reliable experts to use for forensic tools used in convictions in many cases involving DNA, fingerprints, firearm and ballistics and arson. It was surprising that Innocence Project co-founder Peter Neufeld stated 60% of cases of people exonerated by DNA evidence, “…experts who testified for the prosecution produced either invalid evidence or the misapplication of science in their testimony.” This high percentage means that using DNA in exoneration of cases has not been done so in confidence and without error.
It was not only DNA that was in question, Neufeld also stated that bite-mark testimony has wrongly convicted a number of people. He stated that in the case of both Levon Brooks and Kennedy Brewer, “…a whole group of forensic odontologists, forensic dentists said they were absolutely certain that this was the guy and they were absolutely wrong.” I believe that the standards to label a professional as an “expect witness” in their field of profession needs to be under scrutiny rather than the questioning of forensic science.
What was also surprising in this article is that NAS stated, “no peer reviewed scientific studies have ever been done to prove the basic assumption that every person’s fingerprint is unique.” This statement questions the reliability of fingerprint analysis used in forensic science if there are not scientific studies to back up the uniqueness of friction ridge detail. The NAS found that an examiner may offer their expert opinion regarding firearms, however, there “have been no scientific studies to answer questions regarding variability, reliability, repeatability, or the number of correlations needed to achieve a given degree of confidence.” As the common theme of this article, there is need for set standards of forensic science professionals and more scientific studies conducted on the reliability of forensic testing used in court.
The video inside of the PBS/Frontline article of the report completed by Dr. Gerald Hurst on the review of case Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in 2004 after being found guilty of the arson-murder of his three young children, stated that the fire was accidental. Even after this report was released, Willingham was still executed. John Lentini, an arson expert, stated “The fire investigation community largely consists of people who are firemen. They’re not scientists… extinguishing a fire and investigating a fire involve two different skill sets and two different mindsets.” This was a surprising fact the fire investigation community does not consist of trained scientist who can properly analyze the cause of a fire based on scientific evidence present at the scene.
The first video on Question #2 of discussion talked about bone testing in forensic science. It was surprising that bone testing could be done to show lead, mercury, and arsenic inside of the bone. In the second video on Question #2, there were many interesting and surprising facts. Deborah Blum talked about the history and corruption of the New York police department and the evolution of forensic scientist working alongside the police to solve crimes.
In 1918 in Brooklyn, because of the corruption of the police department, you could buy your cause of death. Coroners often did not even show up at the crime scenes. The first Medical Examiner in New York was assigned in 1918 and hired first Forensic Toxicologist in America, Gettler, who re-wrote crime detection. In 1930, Gettler was the first person to be able to tell if a person was drunk at the time of death. It took 6,000 brains from the morgue to get to this result. The police were persuaded that they need to work with scientist to solve crimes – based on the case solved by Gettler, where elevated carbon dioxide in the blood pointed to strangulation of the victim.
2 – The most interesting part of the Smithsonian bone video was the way the forensic anthropologists can investigate the bone chemistry of a person’s bone and see what exact chemicals are in their bones and exactly how much of that amount is in the bones. In the video, some of the charts of the bone chemistry showed how much more some people have ingested lead throughout their entire lifetime compared to the other skeletal bones that were analyzed. The mass spectrometer is an amazing machine and tool to get further insight into the chemistry of the bones, it can also detect deadly chemicals that would show up in the bone chemistry as well. Just revealing the bone chemistry alone of a person, the forensic anthropologist can begin to tell their story since the trace elements that make up the bone reveal the person’s environment, how healthy they were, their diet in their lifetime along with facts about what caused the person’s death.
The other interesting part of the video I found was the scanning electron microscope that is so powerful and can enhance the picture of the microscope where it gives the forensic anthropologists the ability to further examine and analyze teeth and bone in-depth to levels, they have never been able to do so before. Technology is so advanced nowadays making this possible with the machine and extremely efficient microscope. Teeth and bone are some of the leading causes to finding out most of the details about not only the identification of a person but also the additional details about what may have happened to them prior to death. A person’s teeth and bones are also some of the most reliable sources of information when analyzed in the lab by forensic scientists.
In the PBS article, I found it very surprising about the ways that fingerprints can lie, or be misinterpreted, and provide the wrong information which can lead to wrongful convictions. Fingerprints are an extremely complex process in many cases, especially if you only have a partial print or a print that doesn’t have all points matching. The person who analyzes the fingerprints can make mistakes and provide misleading information to a courtroom or provide misinterpretation of a report during an investigative process. Fingerprints can provide or look like it provides overwhelming evidence in either direction on either side of the courtroom. The slightest mistake can render a negative outcome and lead to false information being provided.
The other interesting topic in the article is about the bite mark evidence not being valid. Several cases were handled through the courtroom with positive identification of suspects through the examination of bite mark evidence, but the experts sometimes do not account for the possible changing of bite marks as a person ages. Bite marks that look one way or prove someone guilty at the first examination may not look the same years later. Even though bite marks often refer to dental records, mistakes, and misinterpretations of the bite marks can be made. Even if there is more than one expert verifying the bite mark, there is not always absolute certainty of the mark belonging to who they think it might. Teeth are similar to fingerprints in the way that everyone’s teeth are unique and their own, but even then the evidence can be difficult to analyze and determine whether it truly belongs to the suspect or person of interest.
