1 00:00:01,639 --> 00:00:04,360 Speaker 1: Hey folks, Kate Judson here, I'm a lawyer and the 2 00:00:04,400 --> 00:00:07,960 Speaker 1: executive director of the Center for Integrity and Forensic Sciences. 3 00:00:10,039 --> 00:00:13,200 Speaker 1: We're back with another episode of Junk Science, a series 4 00:00:13,240 --> 00:00:16,640 Speaker 1: we first released in twenty twenty, but these stories are 5 00:00:16,800 --> 00:00:21,320 Speaker 1: just as relevant as ever. This week's episode focuses on 6 00:00:21,560 --> 00:00:25,439 Speaker 1: hair microscopy, a forensic discipline that compares hair found on 7 00:00:25,480 --> 00:00:28,120 Speaker 1: a victim or at a crime scene to the hair 8 00:00:28,120 --> 00:00:32,239 Speaker 1: of a suspect. The problem, and from the title of 9 00:00:32,280 --> 00:00:34,760 Speaker 1: the show, you know what I'm going to say, The 10 00:00:34,880 --> 00:00:38,839 Speaker 1: problem is that hair microscopy is junk science. Even with 11 00:00:38,920 --> 00:00:43,240 Speaker 1: a microscope, it is next to impossible to accurately prove 12 00:00:43,320 --> 00:00:48,080 Speaker 1: that two hairs came from the same person without DNA testing. 13 00:00:49,560 --> 00:00:52,680 Speaker 1: Since this episode aired in twenty twenty, there was another 14 00:00:52,760 --> 00:00:56,480 Speaker 1: exoneration on a hair microscopy case that made big headlines. 15 00:00:59,240 --> 00:01:03,120 Speaker 1: In twenty one one, Anthony Broadwater was exonerated of the 16 00:01:03,200 --> 00:01:07,640 Speaker 1: crime of raping author Alice Sebold, who's best known for 17 00:01:07,800 --> 00:01:12,600 Speaker 1: the novel The Lovely Bones. Anthony Broadwater was convicted of 18 00:01:12,640 --> 00:01:16,280 Speaker 1: the rape in nineteen eighty two with eyewitness testimony and 19 00:01:16,360 --> 00:01:20,360 Speaker 1: hair microscopy, two methods we now know are flawed. At 20 00:01:20,360 --> 00:01:23,840 Speaker 1: his exoneration hearing, the judge said that he was deeply 21 00:01:23,959 --> 00:01:27,840 Speaker 1: sorry that this never should have happened. Anthony Broadwater broke 22 00:01:27,920 --> 00:01:31,520 Speaker 1: down in tears. The wrongful conviction that had ruined his 23 00:01:31,680 --> 00:01:38,440 Speaker 1: life was overturned, and his innocence finally validated. Unfortunately, we 24 00:01:38,560 --> 00:01:41,759 Speaker 1: don't know how many other Anthony Broadwaters are out there. 25 00:01:48,240 --> 00:01:52,400 Speaker 2: Washington, DC, A muggy summer day finally starts to cool 26 00:01:52,440 --> 00:01:58,040 Speaker 2: as night falls. Street lights turn on, Crickets chirp, there's 27 00:01:58,080 --> 00:02:00,400 Speaker 2: the soft jingle of the tags on a dog caller. 28 00:02:01,360 --> 00:02:05,040 Speaker 2: A black poodle walks up someone's porch steps, sniffs around. 29 00:02:05,760 --> 00:02:08,120 Speaker 2: The dog leaps back down the stairs when its owner 30 00:02:08,160 --> 00:02:11,920 Speaker 2: calls its name. A few hours later, on those same 31 00:02:11,960 --> 00:02:15,240 Speaker 2: porch steps, the man who lives there slowly walks up, 32 00:02:15,639 --> 00:02:20,359 Speaker 2: and a masked figure walks up behind him. There's a gunshot. 33 00:02:20,800 --> 00:02:24,639 Speaker 2: Someone screams. The shooter makes a run for it, ripping 34 00:02:24,639 --> 00:02:27,680 Speaker 2: a stocking mask from his face. It lands on a 35 00:02:27,720 --> 00:02:31,040 Speaker 2: porch step as he disappears down the street into the night. 36 00:02:34,400 --> 00:02:36,840 Speaker 2: You live down the street from where the gunshot went off. 37 00:02:37,840 --> 00:02:40,560 Speaker 2: Three days later, you're hanging out with your girlfriend and 38 00:02:40,600 --> 00:02:45,200 Speaker 2: your mom's basement sitting on the couch watching TV. Your 39 00:02:45,200 --> 00:02:49,600 Speaker 2: mom is upstairs cleaning up after dinner, and then there's 40 00:02:49,600 --> 00:02:53,840 Speaker 2: a knock at the door. You hear someone introduce themselves 41 00:02:53,880 --> 00:02:58,000 Speaker 2: as an officer, officers something or other, and damn it, 42 00:02:58,080 --> 00:03:01,480 Speaker 2: you think, and your teenage mind you figure he must 43 00:03:01,520 --> 00:03:03,400 Speaker 2: be there about the parking ticket you got a few 44 00:03:03,440 --> 00:03:05,160 Speaker 2: weeks ago and didn't pay yet. 45 00:03:05,840 --> 00:03:07,160 Speaker 3: Your mom's gonna be pissed. 46 00:03:08,440 --> 00:03:14,040 Speaker 2: You head upstairs, but they cuff you and take you away. 47 00:03:14,160 --> 00:03:16,880 Speaker 2: You're brought down to the station and put in a cell, 48 00:03:17,360 --> 00:03:19,359 Speaker 2: and they tell you that you'll be tried for the 49 00:03:19,480 --> 00:03:23,840 Speaker 2: murder of your neighbor. The next day you're transferred to 50 00:03:23,880 --> 00:03:26,840 Speaker 2: the county jail and you're beginning to absorb the shock 51 00:03:26,919 --> 00:03:29,760 Speaker 2: of it all. The one thing that you can't get 52 00:03:29,800 --> 00:03:33,480 Speaker 2: past is the filth. It's just terrible in there, everything 53 00:03:33,520 --> 00:03:36,600 Speaker 2: from the bugs to the food, to the living conditions 54 00:03:37,520 --> 00:03:41,960 Speaker 2: and the noise. The noise is unbearable. You can hardly sleep. 55 00:03:42,960 --> 00:03:45,960 Speaker 2: You begin to miss out on things. Your family summer 56 00:03:46,040 --> 00:03:50,600 Speaker 2: vacation comes and goes. Six months pass. You would have 57 00:03:50,600 --> 00:03:54,720 Speaker 2: had your ged by now. A year slips by, and 58 00:03:54,760 --> 00:03:56,960 Speaker 2: then a year turns into a year and a half. 59 00:03:57,840 --> 00:04:00,800 Speaker 2: Your nieces and nephews, the ones the you helped raise 60 00:04:00,880 --> 00:04:04,000 Speaker 2: or growing up. You've spoken to them a few times, 61 00:04:04,000 --> 00:04:06,840 Speaker 2: but they haven't come to visit. Are they thinking that 62 00:04:06,880 --> 00:04:10,480 Speaker 2: their uncle may have done this? You miss out on 63 00:04:10,520 --> 00:04:13,560 Speaker 2: the final years of being a care free teen. It 64 00:04:13,600 --> 00:04:18,960 Speaker 2: seems as though everything's moving on without you. Finally, after 65 00:04:19,040 --> 00:04:24,200 Speaker 2: two agonizing years, your case goes to trial. You want 66 00:04:24,240 --> 00:04:28,000 Speaker 2: to get your life back. You didn't kill anyone. You 67 00:04:28,080 --> 00:04:31,839 Speaker 2: were in that same basement all night when someone else 68 00:04:31,880 --> 00:04:34,560 Speaker 2: climbed your neighbors steps and ended his life with a 69 00:04:34,600 --> 00:04:40,839 Speaker 2: single gunshot blast of the head. A few weeks ago, 70 00:04:40,880 --> 00:04:43,280 Speaker 2: an officer came to your cell and cut some of 71 00:04:43,320 --> 00:04:46,280 Speaker 2: your hair. Of course, you willingly let them take it 72 00:04:46,560 --> 00:04:49,160 Speaker 2: because you were sure it would help prove your innocence. 73 00:04:50,600 --> 00:04:52,040 Speaker 3: As you sit in the courtroom at. 74 00:04:51,960 --> 00:04:54,919 Speaker 2: Your trial, the prosecutor says that there was a nylon 75 00:04:55,120 --> 00:04:58,200 Speaker 2: stocking mass found at the scene of the crime. An 76 00:04:58,279 --> 00:05:01,680 Speaker 2: FBI agent takes the stand for the prosecution and tells 77 00:05:01,720 --> 00:05:05,560 Speaker 2: the jury, I compare the defendant's hair to the thirteen 78 00:05:05,640 --> 00:05:09,360 Speaker 2: hairs found on the mask. This agent tells the jury 79 00:05:09,440 --> 00:05:12,960 Speaker 2: that the defendant's hair is indistinguishable from one of those 80 00:05:13,000 --> 00:05:19,279 Speaker 2: thirteen hairs. The prosecutor says, there's one chance, perhaps for 81 00:05:19,360 --> 00:05:22,640 Speaker 2: all we know in ten million, that it could be 82 00:05:22,720 --> 00:05:27,880 Speaker 2: someone else's hair. This single hair proves critical because it's 83 00:05:27,920 --> 00:05:33,560 Speaker 2: the only physical evidence that ties you to the homicide. 84 00:05:33,600 --> 00:05:37,280 Speaker 2: You're told the jury's reached a verdict. They shuffle back 85 00:05:37,320 --> 00:05:39,479 Speaker 2: into the courtroom, and none of them will look at you. 86 00:05:41,080 --> 00:05:44,160 Speaker 2: When you hear the word guilty, there's the sudden eruption 87 00:05:44,680 --> 00:05:49,359 Speaker 2: of uncontrolled sobbing, like the turning on of a spigot. 88 00:05:49,960 --> 00:05:53,640 Speaker 2: There's the unraveling of your mother in whales. Not my baby, 89 00:05:53,839 --> 00:05:57,560 Speaker 2: My baby didn't do it. Your ants are crying, your 90 00:05:57,600 --> 00:06:00,680 Speaker 2: relatives are trying to console each other. There's just a 91 00:06:00,760 --> 00:06:04,800 Speaker 2: medley of weeping and misery. You feel like you're going 92 00:06:04,880 --> 00:06:07,320 Speaker 2: to pass out. The room is sideways, and then it's 93 00:06:07,400 --> 00:06:11,920 Speaker 2: upside down, and then you're all white. All you can hear, 94 00:06:12,320 --> 00:06:16,719 Speaker 2: all you can see. Everything turns white, and you go numb. 95 00:06:18,640 --> 00:06:21,600 Speaker 2: You're sentenced to twenty years to life and stay prison, 96 00:06:22,880 --> 00:06:31,000 Speaker 2: and then there is nothing. Everything goes blank. You do 97 00:06:31,080 --> 00:06:34,760 Speaker 2: everything you can to prove your innocence. You write letters, 98 00:06:35,120 --> 00:06:38,200 Speaker 2: study the law, Your father comes to visit you. Just 99 00:06:38,240 --> 00:06:42,000 Speaker 2: about every single Saturday. But he dies four years after 100 00:06:42,040 --> 00:06:45,640 Speaker 2: your arrest. Your mom dies two years after that, and 101 00:06:45,920 --> 00:06:49,000 Speaker 2: you can't go to either of their funerals. You can't 102 00:06:49,000 --> 00:06:53,360 Speaker 2: help but to think, did this kill them? My wrongful conviction. 103 00:06:54,839 --> 00:06:58,160 Speaker 2: You sit in your cell, numb most days, and you 104 00:06:58,240 --> 00:07:01,359 Speaker 2: try to recall little things that will bring some comfort. 105 00:07:01,720 --> 00:07:06,440 Speaker 2: To smell your mother's cooking, sitting around playing cards with 106 00:07:06,480 --> 00:07:10,600 Speaker 2: your friends, holding hands with your girlfriend, and your mother's 107 00:07:10,640 --> 00:07:15,320 Speaker 2: basement watching TV. You live a lifetime in that prison, 108 00:07:16,280 --> 00:07:20,800 Speaker 2: thirty three long years. It takes all of that time 109 00:07:21,040 --> 00:07:24,200 Speaker 2: for the district attorney to finally agree to test the 110 00:07:24,280 --> 00:07:27,640 Speaker 2: DNA contained in the hair that was found on that 111 00:07:27,760 --> 00:07:30,640 Speaker 2: stalking mask that dropped to the steps of that porch. 112 00:07:31,640 --> 00:07:34,520 Speaker 2: It turns out the way you knew it would. Your 113 00:07:34,600 --> 00:07:38,800 Speaker 2: DNA does not match any of those thirteen hairs. But 114 00:07:38,880 --> 00:07:41,680 Speaker 2: they do figure out who one of the hairs belongs to, 115 00:07:42,080 --> 00:07:46,160 Speaker 2: and it's not a person. Turns out that one of 116 00:07:46,160 --> 00:07:49,280 Speaker 2: the hairs they found on that stalking mask, and argue 117 00:07:49,320 --> 00:07:52,640 Speaker 2: to the jury was a human hair belong to that poodle. 118 00:07:54,040 --> 00:07:56,760 Speaker 2: When you re enter the world, they say you're free, 119 00:07:57,000 --> 00:07:59,920 Speaker 2: but are you really? You went in as an eighteen 120 00:08:00,120 --> 00:08:02,960 Speaker 2: year old boy and came out a fifty one year 121 00:08:02,960 --> 00:08:07,520 Speaker 2: old man, and you've aged beyond your years. Your fighting 122 00:08:07,520 --> 00:08:10,440 Speaker 2: an illness caused by the burden of carrying around your 123 00:08:10,440 --> 00:08:14,760 Speaker 2: innocence for your entire adult life. You die at the 124 00:08:14,760 --> 00:08:18,080 Speaker 2: age of fifty nine, enjoying only eight free years with 125 00:08:18,160 --> 00:08:22,320 Speaker 2: what's left of your family. But your death, your suffering 126 00:08:22,640 --> 00:08:27,080 Speaker 2: is not in vain. After you were found to be innocent, 127 00:08:27,520 --> 00:08:31,640 Speaker 2: the FBI starts to re examine over three thousand cases 128 00:08:31,680 --> 00:08:33,440 Speaker 2: where similar evidence was used. 129 00:08:34,160 --> 00:08:35,319 Speaker 3: They're looking for other. 130 00:08:35,200 --> 00:08:39,199 Speaker 2: People who, like you, were wrongfully convicted of crimes they 131 00:08:39,240 --> 00:08:43,520 Speaker 2: didn't commit, people whose lives were destroyed by the junk 132 00:08:43,640 --> 00:08:52,040 Speaker 2: science of hair comparison analysis. The story you just heard 133 00:08:52,360 --> 00:08:56,400 Speaker 2: is based on true events of Sante Treble's life. He 134 00:08:56,520 --> 00:09:00,400 Speaker 2: was wrongfully convicted in nineteen seventy eight, an exonery in 135 00:09:00,400 --> 00:09:05,720 Speaker 2: twenty twelve. He passed away in July of twenty twenty. 136 00:09:06,559 --> 00:09:15,360 Speaker 2: This episode is dedicated to him. I'm Josh duban civil 137 00:09:15,440 --> 00:09:18,840 Speaker 2: rights and criminal defense attorney and Innocent ambassador to the 138 00:09:18,840 --> 00:09:23,400 Speaker 2: Innocence Project in New York. Even when examined under a microscope, 139 00:09:23,559 --> 00:09:27,000 Speaker 2: the similarities that can be observed between two hairs are 140 00:09:27,040 --> 00:09:30,760 Speaker 2: open to a wide interpretation. In other words, there are 141 00:09:30,760 --> 00:09:35,199 Speaker 2: no definitive traits that can prove with any scientific certainty 142 00:09:35,679 --> 00:09:38,760 Speaker 2: that a suspect's hair matches a hair found at a 143 00:09:38,800 --> 00:09:43,280 Speaker 2: crime scene. Yet hair comparison analysis was still being used 144 00:09:43,280 --> 00:09:47,200 Speaker 2: to falsely identify and convict innocent people up until the 145 00:09:47,280 --> 00:09:51,280 Speaker 2: year two thousand and today there are still people who 146 00:09:51,320 --> 00:09:55,240 Speaker 2: are incarcerated that were convicted based on this false evidence. 147 00:09:56,360 --> 00:09:59,200 Speaker 2: So how did this evidence get admitted into courts in 148 00:09:59,240 --> 00:10:03,920 Speaker 2: the first place. Turns out, hair my crosscubee was born 149 00:10:04,000 --> 00:10:07,239 Speaker 2: in the eighteen hundreds, and the methods used to analyze 150 00:10:07,240 --> 00:10:20,120 Speaker 2: and compare human hairs haven't changed much since. In eighteen 151 00:10:20,200 --> 00:10:23,600 Speaker 2: sixty nine, a man named John Dorsey was accused of 152 00:10:23,679 --> 00:10:25,840 Speaker 2: killing his wife by beating her over the head with 153 00:10:25,840 --> 00:10:30,400 Speaker 2: a club in his own yard in Massachusetts. During the trial, 154 00:10:30,880 --> 00:10:33,480 Speaker 2: two men claimed that they had seen hairs attached to 155 00:10:33,520 --> 00:10:36,880 Speaker 2: the alleged murder weapon, and that the hair appeared to 156 00:10:36,920 --> 00:10:40,560 Speaker 2: be brunette human hair that was the color of mister 157 00:10:40,640 --> 00:10:46,319 Speaker 2: Dorsey's wife's hair. Mister Dorsey was shocked his wife was brunette, 158 00:10:46,320 --> 00:10:50,200 Speaker 2: but so were as horses. According to mister Dorsey, the 159 00:10:50,240 --> 00:10:52,840 Speaker 2: club wasn't a murder weapon. It was just one of 160 00:10:52,920 --> 00:10:55,280 Speaker 2: many pieces of wood that was set out by the 161 00:10:55,320 --> 00:10:58,840 Speaker 2: horse stables. The hair and the clubs didn't belong to 162 00:10:58,880 --> 00:11:01,959 Speaker 2: his wife, but was a hair that had fallen from. 163 00:11:01,760 --> 00:11:02,720 Speaker 3: His horse's tail. 164 00:11:03,920 --> 00:11:06,600 Speaker 2: But the court ruled that mister Dorsey couldn't present this 165 00:11:06,679 --> 00:11:11,200 Speaker 2: account about the horse hair. Meanwhile, the testimony from the 166 00:11:11,240 --> 00:11:15,360 Speaker 2: men claiming that the hair was mister Dorsey's wife's was permitted. 167 00:11:16,679 --> 00:11:21,040 Speaker 2: Mister Dorsey was eventually convicted of killing his wife. This 168 00:11:21,200 --> 00:11:24,480 Speaker 2: was the first time a courd admitted hair comparison analysis 169 00:11:24,480 --> 00:11:28,120 Speaker 2: as evidence in our legal system, and it definitely wouldn't 170 00:11:28,160 --> 00:11:32,200 Speaker 2: be the last. Over a century later, animal hair and 171 00:11:32,280 --> 00:11:35,520 Speaker 2: human hair would again be an issue in the Sante 172 00:11:35,600 --> 00:11:36,280 Speaker 2: Triple case. 173 00:11:41,320 --> 00:11:45,520 Speaker 4: That case was just an example of the overconfidence in 174 00:11:45,679 --> 00:11:49,880 Speaker 4: overreaching and what it could do to different individuals. The 175 00:11:50,040 --> 00:11:53,560 Speaker 4: idea that not only could they be wrong about linking 176 00:11:53,600 --> 00:11:56,320 Speaker 4: a hair to a person, which they can because you 177 00:11:56,320 --> 00:11:58,840 Speaker 4: can't do that at all, but that they can't even 178 00:11:58,920 --> 00:12:02,720 Speaker 4: identify what is human here and what isn't. Not only 179 00:12:02,760 --> 00:12:06,480 Speaker 4: did it occur in that case, but it continued to 180 00:12:06,600 --> 00:12:13,800 Speaker 4: occur unchecked. That was just outrageous, all right. 181 00:12:13,720 --> 00:12:17,040 Speaker 2: So joining us today is Vanessa Antone and Vanessa is 182 00:12:17,040 --> 00:12:20,080 Speaker 2: a member of the National Association. 183 00:12:19,480 --> 00:12:20,840 Speaker 3: Of Criminal Defense Lawyers. 184 00:12:20,840 --> 00:12:23,160 Speaker 2: I think will refer to them as the NACDL, And 185 00:12:23,200 --> 00:12:26,839 Speaker 2: this is just a wonderful, wonderful group. I'm a member 186 00:12:26,880 --> 00:12:33,160 Speaker 2: of the NACDL, and it is a policy and advocacy 187 00:12:33,280 --> 00:12:38,400 Speaker 2: organization that really is on the ground working for reforms 188 00:12:38,400 --> 00:12:41,199 Speaker 2: and improvements in the criminal justice system. You're going to 189 00:12:41,320 --> 00:12:45,839 Speaker 2: learn about a really remarkable project that they have been 190 00:12:45,880 --> 00:12:49,440 Speaker 2: involved in with the FBI, and Vanessa is a key 191 00:12:49,520 --> 00:12:53,200 Speaker 2: member of this project. And what they are doing is 192 00:12:53,280 --> 00:12:58,280 Speaker 2: reading hundreds of transcripts from old cases and cases where 193 00:12:58,880 --> 00:13:03,800 Speaker 2: defendants and the accused were convicted and in many cases 194 00:13:03,840 --> 00:13:09,080 Speaker 2: wrongfully convicted based on hair comparison analysis. So to start, Vanessa, 195 00:13:09,200 --> 00:13:14,120 Speaker 2: hair comparison analysis is also called hair microscopy, and we'll 196 00:13:14,240 --> 00:13:17,560 Speaker 2: use these terms interchangeably, but tell us a little bit 197 00:13:17,600 --> 00:13:22,280 Speaker 2: about what hair microscopy or hair comparison analysis is exactly. 198 00:13:23,440 --> 00:13:27,600 Speaker 4: It's looking at hair under a microscope, as you would 199 00:13:27,640 --> 00:13:32,640 Speaker 4: think from the title. But what a well trained hair 200 00:13:32,960 --> 00:13:36,800 Speaker 4: examiner was supposed to be able to do is look 201 00:13:36,840 --> 00:13:41,440 Speaker 4: at different characteristics and hair and try to make an 202 00:13:41,480 --> 00:13:45,839 Speaker 4: association from those characteristics. They look at characteristics like the 203 00:13:45,880 --> 00:13:50,240 Speaker 4: color and the thickness, whether it looks wavy, if it 204 00:13:50,320 --> 00:13:53,360 Speaker 4: has what they call scales on the cuticle, whether it's 205 00:13:53,400 --> 00:13:56,800 Speaker 4: smooth or ragged. They also look at the part of 206 00:13:56,840 --> 00:14:00,280 Speaker 4: the hair that's the medula, which is the middle of 207 00:14:00,320 --> 00:14:04,080 Speaker 4: the hair, and they look at the shape of that, 208 00:14:04,559 --> 00:14:08,720 Speaker 4: the thickness, the color. They also look at the cortex, 209 00:14:08,960 --> 00:14:11,560 Speaker 4: which is the main part of the hair, and that 210 00:14:11,760 --> 00:14:15,120 Speaker 4: gives the hair characteristics like the pigment. And when they 211 00:14:15,160 --> 00:14:19,200 Speaker 4: do the examination, they make note of all these characteristics 212 00:14:19,200 --> 00:14:21,800 Speaker 4: in like a known sample of hair, and then they 213 00:14:21,800 --> 00:14:24,280 Speaker 4: seek to compare that to the evidentiary hair. 214 00:14:24,760 --> 00:14:28,360 Speaker 2: So it sounds scientific, I guess in a way. The 215 00:14:28,400 --> 00:14:33,760 Speaker 2: examiner takes some hair from the suspect's head, and they 216 00:14:33,800 --> 00:14:36,960 Speaker 2: know where that's coming from because it's the person that's 217 00:14:36,960 --> 00:14:39,280 Speaker 2: accused of the crime, right in front of them, sitting 218 00:14:39,320 --> 00:14:42,200 Speaker 2: in a jail cell. So they take that hair and 219 00:14:42,480 --> 00:14:45,280 Speaker 2: put it in a little bag and label it, and 220 00:14:45,760 --> 00:14:48,640 Speaker 2: they take that hair sample and compare it to what 221 00:14:49,040 --> 00:14:52,000 Speaker 2: you refer to as the evidentiary hair or the unknown 222 00:14:52,120 --> 00:14:54,240 Speaker 2: sample that was found at the scene of a crime. 223 00:14:55,160 --> 00:14:58,760 Speaker 2: And so they're looking at characteristics of the hair found 224 00:14:58,800 --> 00:15:02,080 Speaker 2: at the crime scene and and seeing if the person 225 00:15:02,120 --> 00:15:05,760 Speaker 2: that they claim committed this crime has hair that matches 226 00:15:05,840 --> 00:15:10,760 Speaker 2: these characteristics. But the problem seems to be that there 227 00:15:10,760 --> 00:15:15,520 Speaker 2: are so many different characteristics and variables and hair that 228 00:15:15,720 --> 00:15:20,760 Speaker 2: matching one hair to another, and you know, doing that 229 00:15:20,800 --> 00:15:22,880 Speaker 2: to try to find out whether it came from the 230 00:15:22,920 --> 00:15:25,080 Speaker 2: same person isn't as easy as. 231 00:15:25,000 --> 00:15:25,800 Speaker 3: Some might think. 232 00:15:27,000 --> 00:15:31,400 Speaker 4: In reading all of these transcripts from hair examiners, you know, 233 00:15:31,600 --> 00:15:36,440 Speaker 4: throughout decades until two thousand, they would tell you that 234 00:15:36,680 --> 00:15:39,760 Speaker 4: there's a range even in a person's own head of hair. 235 00:15:40,280 --> 00:15:42,120 Speaker 4: They don't all look identical. 236 00:15:42,560 --> 00:15:45,320 Speaker 2: So where does hair microscop be really run into trouble? 237 00:15:45,440 --> 00:15:47,000 Speaker 2: Why isn't it reliable? 238 00:15:48,080 --> 00:15:54,800 Speaker 4: Microscopic hair comparison doesn't rely on a chemical analysis or 239 00:15:54,920 --> 00:16:00,240 Speaker 4: a set of concrete standards to associate or to make 240 00:16:00,280 --> 00:16:03,280 Speaker 4: a comparison. It's what is known as a pattern and 241 00:16:03,360 --> 00:16:08,880 Speaker 4: matching discipline. So it's basically eyeballing it. It's a subjective 242 00:16:09,120 --> 00:16:12,240 Speaker 4: forensic discipline. In fact, in the words of one of 243 00:16:12,280 --> 00:16:16,200 Speaker 4: the FBI hair examiners, it's the most subjective of the 244 00:16:16,240 --> 00:16:22,440 Speaker 4: forensic disciplines. As another microscopic hair examiner said, you just 245 00:16:22,840 --> 00:16:25,760 Speaker 4: you know, sometimes you get a feeling about a hair 246 00:16:25,840 --> 00:16:27,960 Speaker 4: and you know, it just bowls you over and you 247 00:16:28,000 --> 00:16:30,600 Speaker 4: just look at it. And so that's why there won't 248 00:16:30,600 --> 00:16:33,000 Speaker 4: be a database. You can't make a database of that 249 00:16:33,120 --> 00:16:35,280 Speaker 4: type of subjective feeling about hair. 250 00:16:35,640 --> 00:16:37,320 Speaker 2: Yeah, I get it. I mean, you could make a 251 00:16:37,400 --> 00:16:41,720 Speaker 2: database of people's subjective feelings about hair, but it's not 252 00:16:41,760 --> 00:16:44,760 Speaker 2: going to tell you very much. But it really begs 253 00:16:44,760 --> 00:16:48,920 Speaker 2: the question why were prosecutors using this to try to 254 00:16:48,960 --> 00:16:54,320 Speaker 2: get convictions. If it's so subjective and so speculative, why 255 00:16:54,320 --> 00:16:56,560 Speaker 2: were they using it at all. 256 00:16:56,600 --> 00:16:59,520 Speaker 4: Generally they would start out operating on the you know, 257 00:16:59,560 --> 00:17:03,680 Speaker 4: the trans for principle that if your hair falls out 258 00:17:03,880 --> 00:17:06,760 Speaker 4: and you are in a location or you're near someone, 259 00:17:07,080 --> 00:17:10,760 Speaker 4: hair can transfer to another person or to the place 260 00:17:10,880 --> 00:17:14,080 Speaker 4: that you're in close proximity to. So it could give 261 00:17:14,160 --> 00:17:18,439 Speaker 4: evidence of someone's presence in a certain location or with 262 00:17:18,480 --> 00:17:21,560 Speaker 4: a certain person. When that is one of the few 263 00:17:21,920 --> 00:17:25,640 Speaker 4: pieces of evidence you have, obviously you want to pursue that. 264 00:17:26,680 --> 00:17:30,359 Speaker 4: And a lot of these cases, not all, but a 265 00:17:30,359 --> 00:17:34,480 Speaker 4: lot of them were in pre DNA times, so this 266 00:17:34,600 --> 00:17:38,439 Speaker 4: would be very powerful evidence when you can't just DNA 267 00:17:38,560 --> 00:17:41,200 Speaker 4: test something. So what you had is the hair. 268 00:17:41,680 --> 00:17:45,719 Speaker 2: But DNA testing had come out in the nineties, so 269 00:17:45,840 --> 00:17:49,840 Speaker 2: why wasn't it being used on hair evidence? Why were 270 00:17:50,400 --> 00:17:54,520 Speaker 2: prosecutors still an FBI examiners for that matter, still using 271 00:17:54,560 --> 00:17:56,240 Speaker 2: this hair comparison analysis. 272 00:17:57,200 --> 00:18:01,640 Speaker 4: When we think of DNA testing, that's nuclear DNA testing. 273 00:18:01,840 --> 00:18:05,560 Speaker 4: And the problem with hair and why this happened was 274 00:18:05,640 --> 00:18:09,120 Speaker 4: because unless there was tissue at the root of the hair, 275 00:18:09,520 --> 00:18:11,520 Speaker 4: like if you yank your hair out and it may 276 00:18:11,600 --> 00:18:14,240 Speaker 4: or may not have some tissue at the root. Unless 277 00:18:14,240 --> 00:18:17,879 Speaker 4: there was tissue there that could be tested with nuclear DNA, 278 00:18:18,280 --> 00:18:20,879 Speaker 4: you couldn't do a DNA test on hair. All you 279 00:18:20,920 --> 00:18:26,280 Speaker 4: could do is eyeball it under a microscope. Until mitochondrial DNA, 280 00:18:26,600 --> 00:18:30,040 Speaker 4: you know, a different type of DNA testing allowed testing 281 00:18:30,240 --> 00:18:33,639 Speaker 4: of the hair shaft to give a result. So in 282 00:18:33,760 --> 00:18:39,040 Speaker 4: all those decades that was not there, that technology wasn't 283 00:18:39,080 --> 00:18:42,800 Speaker 4: being used, and it wasn't until around two thousand that 284 00:18:43,000 --> 00:18:46,800 Speaker 4: even you know, the FBI lab started using that in 285 00:18:46,840 --> 00:18:50,280 Speaker 4: all the cases, and that is when they could actually 286 00:18:50,480 --> 00:18:55,320 Speaker 4: look at the hair and say conclusively, no, it wasn't 287 00:18:55,359 --> 00:18:56,400 Speaker 4: from this individual. 288 00:19:06,240 --> 00:19:07,040 Speaker 3: I want to talk. 289 00:19:06,880 --> 00:19:10,639 Speaker 2: About three cases that all occurred around the Washington, DC area. 290 00:19:11,320 --> 00:19:14,480 Speaker 2: One was Sante Tribble, who we mentioned earlier, where a 291 00:19:14,600 --> 00:19:17,760 Speaker 2: dog hare was mistaken for a human air. Now another 292 00:19:17,840 --> 00:19:22,359 Speaker 2: case was the case of Donald Eugene Gates, and Donald 293 00:19:22,400 --> 00:19:24,000 Speaker 2: Gates was accused of raping and. 294 00:19:24,000 --> 00:19:25,240 Speaker 3: Killing a girl in a park. 295 00:19:26,160 --> 00:19:30,840 Speaker 2: Now, during his trial, an FBI special agent testified that 296 00:19:30,920 --> 00:19:37,360 Speaker 2: Donald's hair was quote microscopically indistinguishable end quote from hairs 297 00:19:37,359 --> 00:19:42,080 Speaker 2: found on the victim's body, and based on that that 298 00:19:42,119 --> 00:19:45,639 Speaker 2: the hair from the crime scene probably belonged to Donald Gates. 299 00:19:46,320 --> 00:19:49,800 Speaker 2: And so Donald was convicted and sentenced to twenty years 300 00:19:49,800 --> 00:19:53,439 Speaker 2: to life in prison. And then there's yet a third case, 301 00:19:54,160 --> 00:19:56,760 Speaker 2: and that is the case of an eighteen. 302 00:19:56,480 --> 00:19:57,879 Speaker 3: Year old named Kirk Odom. 303 00:19:58,000 --> 00:20:02,120 Speaker 2: Now this one was, you know, another sort of mind 304 00:20:02,160 --> 00:20:07,040 Speaker 2: bending example of this junk science being applied, because here 305 00:20:07,080 --> 00:20:10,040 Speaker 2: you have mister Odom just walking down the street one day. 306 00:20:10,760 --> 00:20:13,480 Speaker 2: He's on his way to go see his infant daughter 307 00:20:13,560 --> 00:20:16,399 Speaker 2: at his house, and a cop stops him on the 308 00:20:16,440 --> 00:20:18,080 Speaker 2: street and says, you know, you look like. 309 00:20:18,040 --> 00:20:20,440 Speaker 3: The guy in this picture. And the picture was. 310 00:20:20,400 --> 00:20:24,120 Speaker 2: A sketch that had been drawn based on a description 311 00:20:24,280 --> 00:20:28,240 Speaker 2: given by a woman that had been attacked blindfolded and 312 00:20:28,400 --> 00:20:32,200 Speaker 2: raped by a stranger with a gun, and the victim 313 00:20:32,240 --> 00:20:35,240 Speaker 2: only got a brief look at her attacker, but the 314 00:20:35,320 --> 00:20:39,320 Speaker 2: officers drew the sketch based on what she described, which 315 00:20:39,359 --> 00:20:43,240 Speaker 2: was basically a young black man. Based on that, the 316 00:20:43,359 --> 00:20:48,040 Speaker 2: officer arrests Kirk Odem. And you have another example of 317 00:20:48,080 --> 00:20:52,800 Speaker 2: an FBI agent testifying at a trial. And here the 318 00:20:52,840 --> 00:20:57,080 Speaker 2: agent gets on the stand and says kirk Odom's hair 319 00:20:57,640 --> 00:21:01,479 Speaker 2: matches essentially hair found on the victor's nightgown. And they 320 00:21:01,600 --> 00:21:04,800 Speaker 2: used the same sort of language that is indistinguishable from 321 00:21:04,880 --> 00:21:08,679 Speaker 2: Kirk's hair. Kirk spent over twenty two years in prison. 322 00:21:09,760 --> 00:21:15,600 Speaker 2: So what happens next is mitochondrial DNA testing finally becomes available, right, 323 00:21:15,640 --> 00:21:19,959 Speaker 2: that's the DNA testing of hair. And all three of 324 00:21:19,960 --> 00:21:23,560 Speaker 2: these men's hair was tested, and what do you know, 325 00:21:24,480 --> 00:21:27,199 Speaker 2: none of their DNA matched any of the hairs that 326 00:21:27,240 --> 00:21:30,080 Speaker 2: were found at the scenes of these crimes. And at 327 00:21:30,080 --> 00:21:33,200 Speaker 2: this point, the FBI couldn't hide behind this anymore. So 328 00:21:33,600 --> 00:21:35,800 Speaker 2: tell us, Vanessa, what happens next. 329 00:21:36,480 --> 00:21:39,880 Speaker 4: Well, I was lucky enough to be working with an ACDL. 330 00:21:40,240 --> 00:21:47,240 Speaker 4: When NACDL joined in work in a partnership with the FBI, 331 00:21:47,720 --> 00:21:51,640 Speaker 4: the Department of Justice and the Innocence Project to conduct 332 00:21:51,680 --> 00:21:55,600 Speaker 4: a review of the FBI hair examiner's cases from you know, 333 00:21:55,640 --> 00:21:58,560 Speaker 4: whenever they started, when the earliest we could find up 334 00:21:58,600 --> 00:22:02,840 Speaker 4: to about two thousand, and that came about for a 335 00:22:02,920 --> 00:22:06,879 Speaker 4: couple reasons, one of which was the National Academy of 336 00:22:06,960 --> 00:22:11,520 Speaker 4: Sciences Report on Strengthening Forensic Science, which looked at patterned 337 00:22:11,520 --> 00:22:16,320 Speaker 4: and matching disciplines, including specifically hair comparison, and said, you know, 338 00:22:16,359 --> 00:22:19,480 Speaker 4: it just doesn't have a sufficient foundation to be used 339 00:22:19,760 --> 00:22:21,640 Speaker 4: for identifying people. 340 00:22:22,280 --> 00:22:25,400 Speaker 2: So the NACDL is working with the FBI and you 341 00:22:25,600 --> 00:22:28,840 Speaker 2: start going through all of these old cases. You're reading 342 00:22:28,880 --> 00:22:31,879 Speaker 2: the transcripts, and these are trials where hair evidence was 343 00:22:32,040 --> 00:22:33,920 Speaker 2: used to get a conviction. 344 00:22:34,520 --> 00:22:35,440 Speaker 3: So what did you find. 345 00:22:36,520 --> 00:22:40,800 Speaker 4: Part of the frustration that the lawyers had and that 346 00:22:41,280 --> 00:22:44,399 Speaker 4: we all had reading these transcripts back to back was 347 00:22:44,440 --> 00:22:49,160 Speaker 4: the continued nature of the same statements that were unscientific, 348 00:22:49,640 --> 00:22:52,720 Speaker 4: and so we called them error type one, two and three. 349 00:22:53,560 --> 00:22:58,840 Speaker 4: And in Layman's terms, air type one is basically where 350 00:22:58,840 --> 00:23:02,760 Speaker 4: they're making a one to one association between a person 351 00:23:02,920 --> 00:23:06,480 Speaker 4: and a hair, which can never be done with microscopic 352 00:23:06,480 --> 00:23:10,760 Speaker 4: hare comparison. So that's when an examiner either states or 353 00:23:10,840 --> 00:23:15,199 Speaker 4: implies that the evidentiary hair can be associated to a 354 00:23:15,320 --> 00:23:18,879 Speaker 4: specific individual to the exclusion of all others, and that 355 00:23:18,920 --> 00:23:24,080 Speaker 4: would include statements indicating that hair is unique. Sometimes an 356 00:23:24,119 --> 00:23:27,520 Speaker 4: analogy of a fingerprint was used in testimony. Well, it's 357 00:23:27,560 --> 00:23:30,320 Speaker 4: not exactly like a fingerprint, but it kind of is, 358 00:23:30,560 --> 00:23:33,760 Speaker 4: and that's why we can say that this hair came 359 00:23:33,800 --> 00:23:37,040 Speaker 4: from this person. So that's that one to one association, 360 00:23:37,400 --> 00:23:41,760 Speaker 4: and that is absolutely incorrect. You can't say hair is 361 00:23:41,920 --> 00:23:44,720 Speaker 4: unique and use it to associate people. You know, you 362 00:23:44,720 --> 00:23:47,000 Speaker 4: shouldn't have to say it's like this or it's like that. 363 00:23:47,200 --> 00:23:49,600 Speaker 4: You should just say what it is. And if what 364 00:23:49,760 --> 00:23:53,280 Speaker 4: it is isn't enough, then it shouldn't be used to 365 00:23:53,640 --> 00:23:57,920 Speaker 4: connect the hair to a person. That wasn't really the 366 00:23:57,960 --> 00:24:04,280 Speaker 4: most common type of error or scientifically invalid statement we saw. 367 00:24:04,800 --> 00:24:08,399 Speaker 4: It was usually what we call air two and what 368 00:24:08,520 --> 00:24:12,160 Speaker 4: I'm talking about. There are statements like, well, it would 369 00:24:12,200 --> 00:24:16,320 Speaker 4: be rare if two hairs that looked this similar came 370 00:24:16,600 --> 00:24:20,199 Speaker 4: from two different individuals, And those were the things we 371 00:24:20,200 --> 00:24:24,919 Speaker 4: were looking for in the review, and unfortunately found that 372 00:24:25,160 --> 00:24:28,840 Speaker 4: in the majority, the vast majority, over ninety percent of 373 00:24:28,920 --> 00:24:35,440 Speaker 4: cases where FBI examiners gave testimony, the conclusions were exaggerated, 374 00:24:35,480 --> 00:24:38,960 Speaker 4: and there were scientifically unsupported statements in the testimony. 375 00:24:39,440 --> 00:24:43,040 Speaker 2: Look, I always knew this was bad, but ninety percent 376 00:24:43,200 --> 00:24:46,200 Speaker 2: of the cases, I mean, that's just an insane statistic. 377 00:24:46,840 --> 00:24:49,439 Speaker 2: And you know, our listeners really need to remember that 378 00:24:49,560 --> 00:24:53,920 Speaker 2: these weren't just any experts coming in to give testimony. 379 00:24:53,960 --> 00:24:54,920 Speaker 3: This is the FBI. 380 00:24:55,520 --> 00:24:58,520 Speaker 2: This is, you know, an organization that has a reputation 381 00:24:58,760 --> 00:25:02,760 Speaker 2: for having a attained higher knowledge, you know, knowing more 382 00:25:02,840 --> 00:25:04,159 Speaker 2: than just everyday people. 383 00:25:05,240 --> 00:25:10,479 Speaker 4: When an FBI examiner comes in, especially in a state case, 384 00:25:11,119 --> 00:25:14,520 Speaker 4: great weight is given to what they say. It is 385 00:25:15,160 --> 00:25:19,080 Speaker 4: very impressive to have the FBI show up and explain 386 00:25:19,800 --> 00:25:23,880 Speaker 4: a discipline and tell you what something means in their experience. 387 00:25:24,440 --> 00:25:29,000 Speaker 4: And that's what happened. In some cases, an FBI was 388 00:25:29,040 --> 00:25:32,760 Speaker 4: asked to do hair examination when the local examiners couldn't 389 00:25:32,800 --> 00:25:35,840 Speaker 4: make an association, which makes the whole thing even more 390 00:25:36,200 --> 00:25:39,840 Speaker 4: questionable because the inquiry should end there. You shouldn't be 391 00:25:39,880 --> 00:25:42,800 Speaker 4: able to try to find someone else who will give 392 00:25:42,840 --> 00:25:47,840 Speaker 4: you the answer that you want. Also, they found that 393 00:25:47,880 --> 00:25:51,639 Speaker 4: the FBI hair examiners kept their identity as law enforcement 394 00:25:51,680 --> 00:25:55,719 Speaker 4: agents first and foremost, and they found that instead of 395 00:25:55,760 --> 00:26:00,840 Speaker 4: acting like impartial scientists, the FBI lab culture at the 396 00:26:00,960 --> 00:26:05,800 Speaker 4: time embraced the agent examiners acting like more like detectives, 397 00:26:06,359 --> 00:26:10,159 Speaker 4: and that that approach should have been pulled back. And remember, no, 398 00:26:10,640 --> 00:26:14,000 Speaker 4: you're independent. This is scientific. You're not part of the 399 00:26:14,400 --> 00:26:17,399 Speaker 4: law enforcement investigative team. You're a scientist. 400 00:26:18,119 --> 00:26:21,360 Speaker 2: So, Vanessa, you read transcripts from a ton of cases, 401 00:26:21,480 --> 00:26:25,080 Speaker 2: a lot of testimony. Were there any that really stood 402 00:26:25,119 --> 00:26:27,040 Speaker 2: out to you where you sat back and said, Wow, 403 00:26:27,119 --> 00:26:28,520 Speaker 2: this is really bad. 404 00:26:29,640 --> 00:26:31,879 Speaker 4: A couple of things where I thought I could not believe. 405 00:26:31,880 --> 00:26:34,879 Speaker 4: This was the case where the examiner said that he 406 00:26:35,040 --> 00:26:41,040 Speaker 4: had significant experience, you know, examining pubic cares from people 407 00:26:41,520 --> 00:26:46,440 Speaker 4: from Mexico, and therefore he could exclude people from Mexico 408 00:26:46,880 --> 00:26:50,399 Speaker 4: from having contributed the pubic care in the case at hand. 409 00:26:50,960 --> 00:26:55,480 Speaker 4: Obviously that was because the alternate suspects other than the 410 00:26:55,520 --> 00:26:58,640 Speaker 4: defendant were from Mexico. So that was entirely made up. 411 00:26:58,760 --> 00:27:02,080 Speaker 4: I mean, I can't even there's no point trying to 412 00:27:02,080 --> 00:27:05,160 Speaker 4: be nice about it. That's not a thing anybody can 413 00:27:05,200 --> 00:27:08,720 Speaker 4: ever say, and it was just made up. You can't 414 00:27:09,040 --> 00:27:12,600 Speaker 4: say that a hair came from an individual of a 415 00:27:12,720 --> 00:27:15,399 Speaker 4: particular racial group. They can look at the hair and 416 00:27:15,440 --> 00:27:18,600 Speaker 4: talk about some of the ancestral origins and some of 417 00:27:18,640 --> 00:27:23,359 Speaker 4: the classifications into groups at a huge broad level, which 418 00:27:23,520 --> 00:27:27,760 Speaker 4: really wouldn't have value and you know, crime investigation. But 419 00:27:27,920 --> 00:27:31,280 Speaker 4: they absolutely can't say that it did or did not 420 00:27:31,520 --> 00:27:36,400 Speaker 4: come from a person from a certain country. So that's 421 00:27:36,600 --> 00:27:38,560 Speaker 4: you know, that's pretty ridiculous. 422 00:27:48,840 --> 00:27:52,199 Speaker 2: So after you review the transcripts from a case, and 423 00:27:52,320 --> 00:27:56,320 Speaker 2: let's say you determine that you know, an expert or 424 00:27:56,320 --> 00:27:59,520 Speaker 2: a so called expert came in and gave testimony and 425 00:27:59,600 --> 00:28:03,679 Speaker 2: said that were just outside the bounds of science, and 426 00:28:03,760 --> 00:28:07,040 Speaker 2: there was a conviction. What happened next? What were the 427 00:28:07,080 --> 00:28:08,040 Speaker 2: next steps. 428 00:28:07,680 --> 00:28:08,280 Speaker 3: Of the review? 429 00:28:09,560 --> 00:28:15,280 Speaker 4: I seek to assist folks in finding counsel and hooking 430 00:28:15,320 --> 00:28:18,159 Speaker 4: them up with lawyers who could assist them to pursue 431 00:28:18,160 --> 00:28:21,160 Speaker 4: any claims they might have. If that type of evidence 432 00:28:21,280 --> 00:28:24,439 Speaker 4: was used in their case, they would do the DNA 433 00:28:24,560 --> 00:28:27,879 Speaker 4: testing on the hair, or if no hair could be 434 00:28:27,960 --> 00:28:30,880 Speaker 4: found after all these years, because these are old cases, 435 00:28:31,280 --> 00:28:34,800 Speaker 4: they would do testing on other biological evidence as long 436 00:28:34,920 --> 00:28:37,439 Speaker 4: as a chain of custody could be established. 437 00:28:38,040 --> 00:28:41,120 Speaker 2: So look, I just have to say, and if this 438 00:28:41,240 --> 00:28:44,040 Speaker 2: is a shameless plug so be it. The NACDL is 439 00:28:44,120 --> 00:28:49,160 Speaker 2: just it's a remarkable organization because you're not only exposing problems, 440 00:28:49,680 --> 00:28:52,880 Speaker 2: which you certainly did here, but it goes that extra 441 00:28:53,000 --> 00:28:56,840 Speaker 2: step to helping people that you know, have been the 442 00:28:56,960 --> 00:29:00,200 Speaker 2: victim of a wrongful conviction or the victim of of 443 00:29:00,480 --> 00:29:03,600 Speaker 2: you know, testimony that goes outside the bounds of science, 444 00:29:04,080 --> 00:29:06,200 Speaker 2: and getting them help and hooking them. 445 00:29:06,080 --> 00:29:06,880 Speaker 3: Up with lawyers. 446 00:29:07,480 --> 00:29:11,959 Speaker 2: So you must, Vanessa, have had an interesting experience from 447 00:29:12,040 --> 00:29:15,560 Speaker 2: all these cases. What is your biggest takeaway from this work? 448 00:29:16,600 --> 00:29:19,880 Speaker 4: No matter how much you want a conviction or how 449 00:29:19,960 --> 00:29:22,960 Speaker 4: much other evidence you think you have of guilt, it's 450 00:29:23,120 --> 00:29:28,560 Speaker 4: never appropriate to admit unsupported science and the idea that 451 00:29:29,320 --> 00:29:35,200 Speaker 4: using certain techniques are needed as tools to quote unquote 452 00:29:35,240 --> 00:29:39,200 Speaker 4: catch the bad guys, which is still a conversation that's 453 00:29:39,240 --> 00:29:43,959 Speaker 4: going on with forensic science today. That's the fear that 454 00:29:44,560 --> 00:29:48,640 Speaker 4: law enforcement won't have the tools they need to catch 455 00:29:49,000 --> 00:29:54,600 Speaker 4: people or to convict people. And the appropriate response should be, well, 456 00:29:54,680 --> 00:29:59,200 Speaker 4: those tools have to be scientifically valid and they have 457 00:29:59,280 --> 00:30:01,000 Speaker 4: to be science typically sound. 458 00:30:01,600 --> 00:30:04,840 Speaker 2: So can't this model that the NACDL and the FBI 459 00:30:05,120 --> 00:30:10,440 Speaker 2: employed here, which is re reviewing cases and exposing problems 460 00:30:10,520 --> 00:30:14,360 Speaker 2: and helping right these wrongs. Can't this model be applied 461 00:30:14,920 --> 00:30:18,719 Speaker 2: to other disciplines of junk science? It just seems so effective. 462 00:30:18,800 --> 00:30:20,560 Speaker 2: Then you're able to help so many people. 463 00:30:21,680 --> 00:30:26,120 Speaker 4: As a result of the FBI hair Review and other 464 00:30:26,720 --> 00:30:31,160 Speaker 4: movements to make sure forensic science was more reliable for 465 00:30:31,240 --> 00:30:34,840 Speaker 4: the courtroom, there were plans in the Department of Justice 466 00:30:34,960 --> 00:30:39,920 Speaker 4: in the last administration to do similar reviews of other 467 00:30:40,040 --> 00:30:43,560 Speaker 4: pattern and matching disciplines, to take a historical look back 468 00:30:44,000 --> 00:30:47,680 Speaker 4: and see if in some other disciplines in the FBI 469 00:30:47,800 --> 00:30:52,320 Speaker 4: lab that were susceptible to similar errors, if similar errors 470 00:30:52,320 --> 00:30:55,360 Speaker 4: had occurred, and like the hair review, to find those 471 00:30:55,760 --> 00:31:01,080 Speaker 4: and identify them and provide notification and give a means 472 00:31:01,120 --> 00:31:06,120 Speaker 4: for folks to address those potential scientific overstatements. 473 00:31:06,640 --> 00:31:09,400 Speaker 2: All right, So the way you say that evans when 474 00:31:09,400 --> 00:31:11,920 Speaker 2: you say there are were plans in the Department of 475 00:31:12,160 --> 00:31:17,400 Speaker 2: Justice to do this historical look back, makes me have 476 00:31:17,440 --> 00:31:20,000 Speaker 2: the sinking suspicion that maybe it didn't pan out. 477 00:31:20,080 --> 00:31:25,719 Speaker 4: What happened that, along with several other plans, was rolled 478 00:31:25,760 --> 00:31:30,960 Speaker 4: back by then Attorney General Sessions. Under the new administration, 479 00:31:31,800 --> 00:31:34,240 Speaker 4: it has become a little harder. We have to be 480 00:31:34,480 --> 00:31:39,360 Speaker 4: extra vigilant when you're dealing with the situation where plans 481 00:31:39,440 --> 00:31:46,000 Speaker 4: for progress were abandoned. So while a lot of progress 482 00:31:46,080 --> 00:31:48,600 Speaker 4: has been made, there's a lot to be done. You know, 483 00:31:48,760 --> 00:31:52,880 Speaker 4: cases are still litigation. Cases still need to be litigated. 484 00:31:53,360 --> 00:31:57,600 Speaker 4: So yeah, the struggle continues. 485 00:32:01,600 --> 00:32:02,080 Speaker 3: You might be. 486 00:32:02,080 --> 00:32:04,960 Speaker 2: Listening to this wondering what you can do to help. 487 00:32:05,680 --> 00:32:08,560 Speaker 2: Thanks to the work that Vanessa is doing with the NACDL, 488 00:32:09,200 --> 00:32:14,160 Speaker 2: many individuals have been exonerated. But being exonerated means moving 489 00:32:14,160 --> 00:32:17,440 Speaker 2: from a life of injustice and hardship in prison to 490 00:32:17,560 --> 00:32:22,160 Speaker 2: another kind of very difficult life outside of prison. Take 491 00:32:22,200 --> 00:32:25,960 Speaker 2: for example, Drew Whitley. In nineteen eighty nine, the manager 492 00:32:25,960 --> 00:32:30,400 Speaker 2: of McDonald's was murdered in Pennsylvania. Another McDonald's employee was 493 00:32:30,440 --> 00:32:33,560 Speaker 2: there when the crime occurred. The witness could not see 494 00:32:33,560 --> 00:32:36,080 Speaker 2: the face of the perpetrator because he was wearing a 495 00:32:36,080 --> 00:32:39,680 Speaker 2: ski mask, but he claimed nonetheless that the person that 496 00:32:39,720 --> 00:32:44,280 Speaker 2: committed the crime had been Drew Whitley, his neighbor. Investigators 497 00:32:44,280 --> 00:32:46,880 Speaker 2: found a hair on a ski mask which was found 498 00:32:46,880 --> 00:32:50,000 Speaker 2: near the crime scene. They compared it to Drew's hair 499 00:32:50,040 --> 00:32:53,520 Speaker 2: and claimed that it matched Drew. Whitley was convicted and 500 00:32:53,600 --> 00:32:58,000 Speaker 2: sentenced to life in prison. After fighting for years, Drew 501 00:32:58,120 --> 00:33:00,000 Speaker 2: was finally able to get the hairs from the crime 502 00:33:00,000 --> 00:33:03,840 Speaker 2: I'm seeing tested for mitochondrial DNA. The hairs did not 503 00:33:04,080 --> 00:33:07,400 Speaker 2: belong to him, and he was exonerated in two thousand 504 00:33:07,400 --> 00:33:12,360 Speaker 2: and six. The trauma from his wrongful conviction remains. He's 505 00:33:12,400 --> 00:33:15,880 Speaker 2: always looking over his shoulder with the constant and perhaps 506 00:33:16,080 --> 00:33:19,480 Speaker 2: justified worry that a police officer will bring him back 507 00:33:19,520 --> 00:33:23,360 Speaker 2: to prison for no good reason at all. Something that 508 00:33:23,440 --> 00:33:25,440 Speaker 2: strikes me about a lot of these men who have 509 00:33:25,480 --> 00:33:29,360 Speaker 2: been convicted based on hair comparison evidence, like Drew, Whitley, 510 00:33:29,400 --> 00:33:33,320 Speaker 2: and Kirk Odom, is that many of them have shaved 511 00:33:33,320 --> 00:33:36,600 Speaker 2: their heads after their release. I can't help but to 512 00:33:36,640 --> 00:33:39,760 Speaker 2: wonder if it's because of this fear that someone will 513 00:33:39,800 --> 00:33:42,440 Speaker 2: find their hair where it shouldn't be and the nightmare 514 00:33:42,480 --> 00:33:47,520 Speaker 2: will begin all over again. After serving seventeen years for 515 00:33:47,560 --> 00:33:51,200 Speaker 2: a crime he didn't commit, dru was finally released, but 516 00:33:51,320 --> 00:33:55,400 Speaker 2: he didn't receive any compensation from the state. So here's 517 00:33:55,400 --> 00:33:59,560 Speaker 2: someone that lives a literal nightmare, struggling behind bars to 518 00:33:59,600 --> 00:34:02,560 Speaker 2: prove his innocence, and now he has to struggle to 519 00:34:02,600 --> 00:34:07,200 Speaker 2: survive on the outside. Right now, fifteen states in this 520 00:34:07,320 --> 00:34:12,000 Speaker 2: country don't offer any compensation to exonerreies. The thirty five 521 00:34:12,040 --> 00:34:15,640 Speaker 2: states that do differ widely in the amounts that they offer, 522 00:34:15,920 --> 00:34:18,879 Speaker 2: and it's often difficult to satisfy all of the procedural 523 00:34:18,920 --> 00:34:22,800 Speaker 2: requirements to qualify for the money. As you can imagine, 524 00:34:22,840 --> 00:34:27,040 Speaker 2: there are always loopholes, and the states often exploit them. 525 00:34:27,360 --> 00:34:29,759 Speaker 2: Money can't give back the years of someone's life that 526 00:34:29,800 --> 00:34:34,400 Speaker 2: they were robbed of, but compensation does help. It eases 527 00:34:34,440 --> 00:34:37,759 Speaker 2: an exneries path forward and healing and living a more 528 00:34:37,760 --> 00:34:41,680 Speaker 2: comfortable life. The Innocence Project is fighting to hold states 529 00:34:41,680 --> 00:34:47,200 Speaker 2: accountable for compensating wrongfully convicted individuals. Until all states enact 530 00:34:47,320 --> 00:34:52,920 Speaker 2: legislation to compensate the wrongly convicted, that fight will continue. 531 00:34:52,960 --> 00:34:56,160 Speaker 2: The Innocence Project has set up a fund to support exonreies. 532 00:34:56,880 --> 00:35:00,160 Speaker 2: The fund is currently expanding to cover those exoneries who 533 00:35:00,160 --> 00:35:03,920 Speaker 2: are facing job loss or economic hardships due to COVID nineteen. 534 00:35:04,640 --> 00:35:07,880 Speaker 2: You can donate to this fund by going to Innocenceproject 535 00:35:07,920 --> 00:35:14,719 Speaker 2: dot org slash Exonery dash Fund DASH twenty twenty. You 536 00:35:14,760 --> 00:35:18,080 Speaker 2: can also support the amazing work that the NACDL is 537 00:35:18,120 --> 00:35:22,320 Speaker 2: doing by donating to the NACDL Foundation for Criminal Justice. 538 00:35:22,680 --> 00:35:26,920 Speaker 2: You could find out more about that at NACDL dot org. 539 00:35:36,080 --> 00:35:39,160 Speaker 2: Next week, we'll explore the junk science of shoe print 540 00:35:39,239 --> 00:35:44,600 Speaker 2: and tire track evidence. Wrongful Conviction Junk Science is a 541 00:35:44,600 --> 00:35:48,080 Speaker 2: production of Lava for Good Podcasts in association with Signal 542 00:35:48,080 --> 00:35:51,880 Speaker 2: Company Number One. Thanks to our executive producer Jason Flahm 543 00:35:52,040 --> 00:35:55,440 Speaker 2: and the team at Signal Company Number One executive producer 544 00:35:55,520 --> 00:35:59,520 Speaker 2: Kevin Wartis and senior producers Karen Kornhaber and Britz Spangler. 545 00:36:00,280 --> 00:36:02,520 Speaker 3: Our music was composed by Jay Ralph. 546 00:36:02,840 --> 00:36:06,480 Speaker 2: You can follow me on Instagram at dubin Josh. Follow 547 00:36:06,520 --> 00:36:10,279 Speaker 2: the Wrongful Conviction podcast on Facebook and on Instagram at 548 00:36:10,360 --> 00:36:13,560 Speaker 2: wrongful Conviction and on Twitter at wrong Conviction