1 00:00:00,840 --> 00:00:04,240 Speaker 1: It's five pm, and you call your spouse. You say, 2 00:00:04,320 --> 00:00:07,160 Speaker 1: don't wait up, I'm gonna be working late. I love you, 3 00:00:07,480 --> 00:00:10,319 Speaker 1: I'll see when I get home. You've been married for 4 00:00:10,360 --> 00:00:13,720 Speaker 1: seven years and you have a good relationship. You bick 5 00:00:13,760 --> 00:00:16,640 Speaker 1: her from time to time. It's not perfect, but what 6 00:00:16,720 --> 00:00:20,360 Speaker 1: marriage is. You get home around eleven o'clock at night 7 00:00:20,480 --> 00:00:23,960 Speaker 1: and the front door is open, which is strange. It's 8 00:00:24,000 --> 00:00:27,040 Speaker 1: always locked when you come home late from work. You 9 00:00:27,080 --> 00:00:29,560 Speaker 1: walk in, toss your keys on the kitchen table, and 10 00:00:29,640 --> 00:00:34,879 Speaker 1: call out for your spouse. No response. You walk through 11 00:00:34,880 --> 00:00:37,800 Speaker 1: the living room towards your bedroom and you notice that 12 00:00:37,840 --> 00:00:41,839 Speaker 1: the lamp has been knocked over, the power cord has 13 00:00:41,880 --> 00:00:46,479 Speaker 1: been pulled from its socket. You walk down the hall 14 00:00:47,159 --> 00:00:50,000 Speaker 1: and shove your bedroom door open, and you're greeted by 15 00:00:50,040 --> 00:00:54,520 Speaker 1: a scene that is so horrific your mind can barely 16 00:00:54,600 --> 00:01:00,960 Speaker 1: comprehend what your eyes are taking in. There's blood everywhere. 17 00:01:02,560 --> 00:01:06,040 Speaker 1: It's on the carpet, the bed, on the wall, above 18 00:01:06,080 --> 00:01:12,199 Speaker 1: the dresser. Your spouse is on the floor, mouth open. 19 00:01:14,000 --> 00:01:16,440 Speaker 1: There's a large pool of blood coming from their head. 20 00:01:16,520 --> 00:01:20,560 Speaker 1: It's dark and thick, and as you move closer you 21 00:01:20,600 --> 00:01:24,360 Speaker 1: see that it's still pooling. The blood is still flowing 22 00:01:24,400 --> 00:01:29,440 Speaker 1: from somewhere. At this point, your body has gone into 23 00:01:29,480 --> 00:01:34,640 Speaker 1: some state of shock. You're drifting between consciousness and some paralyzing, 24 00:01:34,800 --> 00:01:40,480 Speaker 1: dreamlike state. You manage to call nine one one. You plead, 25 00:01:40,640 --> 00:01:43,839 Speaker 1: you scream, you cry for them to come right away. 26 00:01:45,040 --> 00:01:48,320 Speaker 1: You reach down and touch your spouse. You feel for 27 00:01:48,400 --> 00:01:52,280 Speaker 1: a pulse. You put your ear to their chest. There's 28 00:01:52,360 --> 00:01:57,000 Speaker 1: no movement, there's no sign of life. You lean down 29 00:01:57,080 --> 00:01:59,680 Speaker 1: and try to give them CPR. You don't even know 30 00:01:59,720 --> 00:02:02,480 Speaker 1: how long you've been doing it. You lose sense of time, 31 00:02:03,120 --> 00:02:06,560 Speaker 1: but eventually you hear sirens. They're blaring, and all of 32 00:02:06,600 --> 00:02:10,360 Speaker 1: a sudden, there's chaos. The room is filled with people. 33 00:02:12,000 --> 00:02:14,320 Speaker 1: A paramedic puts a hand on your shoulder and says, 34 00:02:14,760 --> 00:02:17,880 Speaker 1: let us start working here, and pulls you into another room. 35 00:02:19,400 --> 00:02:21,280 Speaker 1: Then they tell you what you already know but don't 36 00:02:21,280 --> 00:02:28,440 Speaker 1: want to admit. Your spouse is dead. You're not crying, 37 00:02:28,560 --> 00:02:33,239 Speaker 1: You're heaving, trying to catch your breath. The police try 38 00:02:33,240 --> 00:02:36,240 Speaker 1: to console you. They tell you they're sorry, but that 39 00:02:36,320 --> 00:02:38,840 Speaker 1: you have to try to calm down. They need to 40 00:02:38,880 --> 00:02:43,239 Speaker 1: figure out what happened, and they need your help. You're 41 00:02:43,240 --> 00:02:46,359 Speaker 1: in no state to drive, you're put into the back 42 00:02:46,360 --> 00:02:49,519 Speaker 1: of a police car. When you get to the police station, 43 00:02:49,880 --> 00:02:53,800 Speaker 1: a detective comes in with a sweatshirt and sweatpants, and 44 00:02:53,840 --> 00:02:56,720 Speaker 1: he says, take off your clothes and put these on. 45 00:02:57,560 --> 00:02:59,799 Speaker 1: You're somewhat relieved to get out of your clothes, which 46 00:02:59,840 --> 00:03:03,880 Speaker 1: are soaked with your spouse's blood. A different detective comes 47 00:03:03,880 --> 00:03:06,799 Speaker 1: in and she asks you how you got blood on 48 00:03:06,840 --> 00:03:09,960 Speaker 1: the backside of your pants. Where were you standing when 49 00:03:10,000 --> 00:03:12,240 Speaker 1: you got blood on the cuff of your shirt, on 50 00:03:12,280 --> 00:03:15,560 Speaker 1: your sock. You don't know the answer to these questions. 51 00:03:15,600 --> 00:03:20,080 Speaker 1: It was all such a blur. Over the next several weeks, 52 00:03:20,440 --> 00:03:22,840 Speaker 1: you're asked to come down to the police station over 53 00:03:23,040 --> 00:03:28,160 Speaker 1: and over again. The detective's questions become more aggressive, and 54 00:03:28,200 --> 00:03:32,200 Speaker 1: it's becoming quite obvious that they suspect you did this. 55 00:03:34,600 --> 00:03:37,640 Speaker 1: You were eventually charged with the first degree murder of 56 00:03:37,640 --> 00:03:42,480 Speaker 1: your spouse. At your trial, the prosecution calls to the 57 00:03:42,560 --> 00:03:46,680 Speaker 1: stand a blood stained pattern analyst. That expert gets on 58 00:03:46,720 --> 00:03:49,840 Speaker 1: the stand and tells the jury that the story of 59 00:03:49,880 --> 00:03:52,920 Speaker 1: the murder of your spouse is soaked into the blood 60 00:03:52,920 --> 00:03:55,040 Speaker 1: of the clothes you were wearing when the night the 61 00:03:55,120 --> 00:03:59,960 Speaker 1: crime was committed. The blood stain pattern analyst walks into 62 00:04:00,080 --> 00:04:04,120 Speaker 1: jury through each and every stain on your clothing. Droplet 63 00:04:04,360 --> 00:04:08,720 Speaker 1: by droplet, you see that stain. The defendant swung the 64 00:04:08,720 --> 00:04:12,560 Speaker 1: weapon at a ninety degree angle twice right into the 65 00:04:12,640 --> 00:04:16,080 Speaker 1: victim's head, which created the splatter pattern you see here 66 00:04:16,160 --> 00:04:20,360 Speaker 1: on his shirt, high velocity projected spatter. They tell the 67 00:04:20,440 --> 00:04:24,479 Speaker 1: jury no other explanation for it. They say that the 68 00:04:24,520 --> 00:04:26,880 Speaker 1: stain on your sock was dropped from your bloody hand 69 00:04:26,920 --> 00:04:29,560 Speaker 1: as you held the murder weapon. They never tell the 70 00:04:29,640 --> 00:04:32,640 Speaker 1: jury what the murder weapon actually was, and they never 71 00:04:32,680 --> 00:04:35,920 Speaker 1: recovered that object. They just tell the jury that you 72 00:04:36,000 --> 00:04:38,640 Speaker 1: must have gotten rid of it right before you stage 73 00:04:38,680 --> 00:04:41,560 Speaker 1: the nine to one one call. The expert says that 74 00:04:41,600 --> 00:04:45,719 Speaker 1: they've examined the blood drops, the stains, the puddles, the pools, 75 00:04:46,520 --> 00:04:50,280 Speaker 1: and they're able to reconstruct precisely how you committed this murder, 76 00:04:50,920 --> 00:04:53,919 Speaker 1: the angle at which you swung the weapon, the force 77 00:04:54,000 --> 00:04:57,080 Speaker 1: with which you inflicted the blows, and where your spouse 78 00:04:57,160 --> 00:05:00,760 Speaker 1: was standing when they were beaten to death. The stains 79 00:05:00,800 --> 00:05:04,039 Speaker 1: proved that you did not perform CPR. You did not 80 00:05:04,200 --> 00:05:07,240 Speaker 1: check for a pulse, because if you had, there would 81 00:05:07,320 --> 00:05:11,480 Speaker 1: not be this spray pattern. That's projected onto your shirt. 82 00:05:11,680 --> 00:05:15,800 Speaker 1: These stains all indicate that you committed this murder. You 83 00:05:15,880 --> 00:05:19,560 Speaker 1: glance over at the jury. Most are taking rigorous notes. 84 00:05:20,480 --> 00:05:24,120 Speaker 1: One is so taken, so wrapped that he stopped taking 85 00:05:24,120 --> 00:05:28,000 Speaker 1: notes altogether and just sits staring at the expert, covering 86 00:05:28,000 --> 00:05:31,360 Speaker 1: his mouth with his hand. You look over at your 87 00:05:31,400 --> 00:05:36,520 Speaker 1: defense attorney and think, how in the world is this happening. 88 00:05:42,720 --> 00:05:46,279 Speaker 1: I'm Josh dubin civil rights and criminal defense attorney and 89 00:05:46,400 --> 00:05:50,279 Speaker 1: Innocent Ambassadors in the Innocence Project in New York. Today 90 00:05:50,600 --> 00:05:55,040 Speaker 1: on wrongful conviction junk science, We're going to explore bloodstained 91 00:05:55,040 --> 00:05:58,960 Speaker 1: pattern evidence. Like other forms of junk science used in 92 00:05:59,000 --> 00:06:03,440 Speaker 1: criminal trials, bloodstained pattern evidence falsely claims that it can 93 00:06:03,520 --> 00:06:07,640 Speaker 1: identify the culprit of violent crimes. But blood stained pattern 94 00:06:07,680 --> 00:06:12,160 Speaker 1: evidence has no grounding in any verifiable science. So how 95 00:06:12,200 --> 00:06:16,080 Speaker 1: did this kind of junk science become admissible? It turns 96 00:06:16,080 --> 00:06:20,080 Speaker 1: out that blood stained pattern analysis was born in the 97 00:06:20,120 --> 00:06:24,839 Speaker 1: basement of one man's home in a small town named Corning, 98 00:06:25,000 --> 00:06:36,599 Speaker 1: New York. When I think of Herbert MacDonnell, I wonder 99 00:06:36,640 --> 00:06:40,279 Speaker 1: what his neighbors must have thought of him. I imagine 100 00:06:40,279 --> 00:06:43,279 Speaker 1: one of his curious neighbors startled by the sound she's 101 00:06:43,279 --> 00:06:46,560 Speaker 1: hearing from next door, tiptoeing over to his red house. 102 00:06:47,560 --> 00:06:50,200 Speaker 1: I imagine the neighbor crawling on her hands and knees 103 00:06:50,240 --> 00:06:53,279 Speaker 1: to peer into Herb's basement through a small window that 104 00:06:53,320 --> 00:06:57,200 Speaker 1: peeks out from underground. She finds herself going over there 105 00:06:57,279 --> 00:07:01,800 Speaker 1: day after day, half horrified, half intrigued by what she sees. 106 00:07:04,000 --> 00:07:06,880 Speaker 1: One day, she sees Herb aiming a gun at a dog. 107 00:07:07,839 --> 00:07:10,880 Speaker 1: He pulls the trigger, then walks over to examine the 108 00:07:10,920 --> 00:07:15,160 Speaker 1: blood sprayed onto the wall. Another day, Herb isn't alone. 109 00:07:16,120 --> 00:07:18,440 Speaker 1: There are some young women in lab coats in the basement. 110 00:07:19,240 --> 00:07:22,520 Speaker 1: They dip their hair into a thick red substance, then 111 00:07:22,560 --> 00:07:25,840 Speaker 1: they swing their heads around to make Jackson Pollock esque 112 00:07:25,920 --> 00:07:31,200 Speaker 1: splatters onto the paper covered walls. The next week, the 113 00:07:31,240 --> 00:07:34,240 Speaker 1: neighbor sees what appear to be dead bodies, and she's 114 00:07:34,280 --> 00:07:37,680 Speaker 1: got to be mistaken, But then she sees HERB take 115 00:07:37,720 --> 00:07:42,120 Speaker 1: aim shoot the lifeless body and blood slowly oozes onto 116 00:07:42,160 --> 00:07:47,600 Speaker 1: the basement floor. Herbert McDonnell actually used these techniques in 117 00:07:47,640 --> 00:07:51,520 Speaker 1: his basement, giving birth to the forensic science a bloodstained 118 00:07:51,520 --> 00:07:56,920 Speaker 1: pattern analysis. Herb was a chemist who worked for Corning Glassworks, 119 00:07:57,400 --> 00:08:01,720 Speaker 1: which makes corning wear casserole dishes. But his passion was 120 00:08:01,800 --> 00:08:05,600 Speaker 1: crime scenes, and so he doubled as a forensic professor 121 00:08:05,640 --> 00:08:10,360 Speaker 1: at a local community college. For Herb, every crime scene, 122 00:08:10,680 --> 00:08:15,040 Speaker 1: and particularly the blood stains left behind, told a story. 123 00:08:15,200 --> 00:08:17,720 Speaker 1: Not only did he believe the blood stains provide clues, 124 00:08:18,240 --> 00:08:21,000 Speaker 1: he took it much further than that. He believed that 125 00:08:21,040 --> 00:08:24,280 Speaker 1: he could re engineer the choreography of the crime just 126 00:08:24,360 --> 00:08:28,160 Speaker 1: from analyzing the blood stains. Herb styled himself as a 127 00:08:28,200 --> 00:08:31,440 Speaker 1: sort of modern day Sherlock Holmes. He even posed for 128 00:08:31,480 --> 00:08:33,679 Speaker 1: the cover of one of his books and the trademark 129 00:08:33,760 --> 00:08:38,040 Speaker 1: deer Stalker Hat and a Pipe. In nineteen seventy three, 130 00:08:38,080 --> 00:08:41,800 Speaker 1: Herbs started an unaccredited school right out of his basement. 131 00:08:42,440 --> 00:08:46,880 Speaker 1: He named it the Blood Stain Evidence Institute. It took 132 00:08:47,000 --> 00:08:49,560 Speaker 1: twelve years for Herb to get his moment to shine. 133 00:08:50,320 --> 00:08:53,600 Speaker 1: In January nineteen eighty five, four people were found dead 134 00:08:53,640 --> 00:08:56,720 Speaker 1: in their home. Twenty one year old Reginald Lewis was 135 00:08:56,760 --> 00:09:00,600 Speaker 1: accused of shooting his older brother, his younger thirteen years brother, 136 00:09:00,679 --> 00:09:04,880 Speaker 1: and his parents. Reginald's father was discovered on fire in 137 00:09:04,920 --> 00:09:09,720 Speaker 1: a hallway, having been shot and strangled. Before being set ablaze. 138 00:09:09,800 --> 00:09:12,479 Speaker 1: The Sherlock Holmes of Corney to New York. Herb MacDonald 139 00:09:12,559 --> 00:09:16,000 Speaker 1: testified as an expert witness in this case. He claimed 140 00:09:16,040 --> 00:09:18,959 Speaker 1: that dozens of tiny specks of blood on Reginald's clothing 141 00:09:19,120 --> 00:09:22,160 Speaker 1: placed him at the scene of the crime. Reginald Lewis 142 00:09:22,240 --> 00:09:26,160 Speaker 1: was convicted and sentenced to four ninety nine year sentences. 143 00:09:26,880 --> 00:09:30,800 Speaker 1: Herb's recognition continued to grow. In nineteen ninety five, even 144 00:09:30,840 --> 00:09:34,160 Speaker 1: testified for the defense of the oj Simpson trial. But 145 00:09:34,240 --> 00:09:37,640 Speaker 1: bloodstained pattern analysis was never proven to be a reliable 146 00:09:37,679 --> 00:09:41,880 Speaker 1: scientific method, and yet it continued to be admitted in 147 00:09:42,040 --> 00:09:46,320 Speaker 1: case after case after case, spreading its tentacles into the 148 00:09:46,320 --> 00:09:48,520 Speaker 1: criminal justice system in our country. 149 00:09:53,320 --> 00:10:01,920 Speaker 2: This is an entirely interpretive form of forensics. This involves 150 00:10:02,720 --> 00:10:10,119 Speaker 2: somebody viewing a pattern and then stating that, with their training, 151 00:10:10,559 --> 00:10:13,640 Speaker 2: that they are able to tell you how that pattern 152 00:10:13,800 --> 00:10:19,000 Speaker 2: was created, what the trajectory was of the blood, where 153 00:10:19,200 --> 00:10:24,280 Speaker 2: the wound was, where the bullet or knife was in 154 00:10:24,400 --> 00:10:28,880 Speaker 2: the room, and therefore who was wielding it and how, 155 00:10:29,280 --> 00:10:34,080 Speaker 2: which is a pretty incredible claim if you think about it. 156 00:10:34,840 --> 00:10:38,160 Speaker 1: Joining us today is Pamela Koloff, and Pam's a senior 157 00:10:38,200 --> 00:10:40,840 Speaker 1: reporter at Pro Publica and a staff writer from New 158 00:10:40,920 --> 00:10:46,040 Speaker 1: York magazine. So, Pam, when you really look into these 159 00:10:46,120 --> 00:10:50,800 Speaker 1: forensic sciences and see how they originated, I have to 160 00:10:50,840 --> 00:10:54,959 Speaker 1: say that in all of my work and researching various 161 00:10:54,960 --> 00:11:00,160 Speaker 1: disciplines of forensic science, blood spatter analysis has easily the 162 00:11:00,320 --> 00:11:04,720 Speaker 1: craziest story of them all. And you've researched this intensely. 163 00:11:05,800 --> 00:11:08,559 Speaker 1: I want you to tell us more about her. MacDonell, 164 00:11:09,080 --> 00:11:13,280 Speaker 1: the so called grandfather of blood spatter analysis. 165 00:11:14,200 --> 00:11:18,720 Speaker 2: His belief was, and what he sort of told generations 166 00:11:18,760 --> 00:11:23,960 Speaker 2: of police officers was that yes, bloodstain pattern analysis was 167 00:11:24,040 --> 00:11:29,400 Speaker 2: based on highly complex trigonometry and fluid dynamics, but that 168 00:11:29,480 --> 00:11:33,600 Speaker 2: they could master the skills to this in as little 169 00:11:33,640 --> 00:11:38,600 Speaker 2: as a forty hour class. And he began to teach 170 00:11:38,720 --> 00:11:44,320 Speaker 2: these classes all over America at local police departments and 171 00:11:44,320 --> 00:11:49,520 Speaker 2: did so for decades and in turn turned police officers 172 00:11:49,520 --> 00:11:54,400 Speaker 2: with no training in physics or high level of mathematics 173 00:11:54,400 --> 00:11:56,439 Speaker 2: into quote unquote experts. 174 00:11:56,880 --> 00:12:01,319 Speaker 1: So he turns these people with no training in physics 175 00:12:01,440 --> 00:12:04,640 Speaker 1: or mathematics into experts. You don't have any training in 176 00:12:04,679 --> 00:12:07,760 Speaker 1: physics or mathematics, and you took the class and became 177 00:12:07,800 --> 00:12:09,040 Speaker 1: an expert right. 178 00:12:10,240 --> 00:12:14,520 Speaker 2: I went to Yukon, Oklahoma, where the police department was 179 00:12:14,600 --> 00:12:17,960 Speaker 2: offering a week long class. I took it with about 180 00:12:18,000 --> 00:12:24,920 Speaker 2: twenty law enforcement officers, and I was stunned at what 181 00:12:25,000 --> 00:12:28,360 Speaker 2: I saw. We were sort of rubber stamped through just 182 00:12:28,400 --> 00:12:33,800 Speaker 2: the most basic basic concepts of bloodstained pattern analysis, and 183 00:12:33,840 --> 00:12:37,720 Speaker 2: we would have to identify stains according to this taxonomy 184 00:12:37,800 --> 00:12:42,160 Speaker 2: that the discipline has these particular kinds of spatters and 185 00:12:42,240 --> 00:12:45,400 Speaker 2: drips and spurts and swipes and smears. They have all 186 00:12:45,400 --> 00:12:48,560 Speaker 2: these different names for things. The final day of the 187 00:12:48,679 --> 00:12:54,160 Speaker 2: course where our instructor set up these sort of mock 188 00:12:54,360 --> 00:13:00,560 Speaker 2: crime scenes and he used blood to on sort of 189 00:13:00,600 --> 00:13:05,320 Speaker 2: like butcher paper to show us what bloodstains would look 190 00:13:05,480 --> 00:13:08,840 Speaker 2: like at a crime scene. And then our job, and 191 00:13:08,880 --> 00:13:11,640 Speaker 2: this is part of our final grade, was to come 192 00:13:11,679 --> 00:13:16,240 Speaker 2: in and just by looking at that no other clues, 193 00:13:16,400 --> 00:13:21,680 Speaker 2: no other context clues, use that to say what had 194 00:13:21,760 --> 00:13:26,160 Speaker 2: happened at the crime scene, and then to learn how 195 00:13:26,200 --> 00:13:29,360 Speaker 2: to say it on the stand in a way that 196 00:13:29,600 --> 00:13:33,720 Speaker 2: sounded like a scientist and like someone with scientific certainty. 197 00:13:34,440 --> 00:13:37,079 Speaker 2: And that to me was extremely disturbing. 198 00:13:37,400 --> 00:13:40,120 Speaker 1: Aside from what you witness in the class, tell me 199 00:13:40,240 --> 00:13:42,120 Speaker 1: like what is one thing that stood out to you 200 00:13:42,679 --> 00:13:46,160 Speaker 1: as something that seemed off about you know, what he 201 00:13:46,240 --> 00:13:47,200 Speaker 1: did or what he had. 202 00:13:47,080 --> 00:13:52,600 Speaker 2: Students do I know of several students who have shot 203 00:13:52,800 --> 00:13:58,240 Speaker 2: cadavers and controlled situations to look at the way that 204 00:13:58,320 --> 00:14:03,040 Speaker 2: blood moves. Now, think about the way that blood operates 205 00:14:03,040 --> 00:14:06,800 Speaker 2: within a cadaver versus a living person with a beating heart. 206 00:14:06,840 --> 00:14:09,640 Speaker 2: I mean, there's so many things about that that don't 207 00:14:09,679 --> 00:14:10,479 Speaker 2: make sense. 208 00:14:10,520 --> 00:14:14,320 Speaker 1: Right, So with a dead body or cadaver, it should 209 00:14:14,320 --> 00:14:17,640 Speaker 1: be common sense. There's no more blood flown through the veins, right, 210 00:14:17,720 --> 00:14:22,200 Speaker 1: the person isn't moving anymore, and there's a different viscosity 211 00:14:22,280 --> 00:14:25,400 Speaker 1: or thickness to the blood when someone is dead. So 212 00:14:25,840 --> 00:14:28,440 Speaker 1: all of this makes a difference in first how the 213 00:14:28,440 --> 00:14:31,120 Speaker 1: blood travels once the body is hit with an object, 214 00:14:31,200 --> 00:14:34,160 Speaker 1: whether it be a bullet or a bat, and then 215 00:14:34,280 --> 00:14:37,440 Speaker 1: the blood will also look different once it lands, doesn't 216 00:14:37,440 --> 00:14:39,320 Speaker 1: It all come down to there are a lot of 217 00:14:39,320 --> 00:14:41,720 Speaker 1: different ways that blood can get on a surface, and 218 00:14:41,760 --> 00:14:44,640 Speaker 1: you can't say definitively which way it happened. 219 00:14:45,400 --> 00:14:50,120 Speaker 2: That's exactly right, that's exactly right. The surface that blood 220 00:14:50,560 --> 00:14:54,320 Speaker 2: falls onto makes a tremendous difference in what you can 221 00:14:54,320 --> 00:15:01,400 Speaker 2: tell if you had a white all linoleum or marb room, 222 00:15:01,680 --> 00:15:05,240 Speaker 2: like a very controlled atmosphere like that, you might be 223 00:15:05,320 --> 00:15:10,040 Speaker 2: able to make some determinations about some things possibly, But 224 00:15:10,120 --> 00:15:13,360 Speaker 2: in real life, in a real crime scene, you usually 225 00:15:13,440 --> 00:15:20,120 Speaker 2: have blood falling onto porous things, carpet, clothing, things where 226 00:15:20,720 --> 00:15:25,240 Speaker 2: it becomes increasingly difficult to tell the angle that blood 227 00:15:25,280 --> 00:15:28,720 Speaker 2: fell onto those services at because they're so diffused when 228 00:15:28,760 --> 00:15:30,400 Speaker 2: they land on that material. 229 00:15:30,760 --> 00:15:34,080 Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, there are some cases where blood spatter 230 00:15:34,120 --> 00:15:37,680 Speaker 1: analysts have been on video trying to recreate a stain 231 00:15:37,760 --> 00:15:40,560 Speaker 1: pattern from a crime and it takes them ten or 232 00:15:40,640 --> 00:15:43,040 Speaker 1: fifteen tries to get the stain to look similar to 233 00:15:43,080 --> 00:15:45,120 Speaker 1: how it looks at the crime scene or on the 234 00:15:45,120 --> 00:15:47,960 Speaker 1: close of the accuse. I mean, I saw one video 235 00:15:48,000 --> 00:15:51,080 Speaker 1: where they finally get it right right, They get it 236 00:15:51,120 --> 00:15:53,080 Speaker 1: to look like it did at the crime scene, after 237 00:15:53,720 --> 00:15:56,840 Speaker 1: try after try after try, and they start cheering and 238 00:15:57,000 --> 00:16:01,040 Speaker 1: high fiving. So if it's so hard to tell how 239 00:16:01,080 --> 00:16:04,360 Speaker 1: a blood stain got where it did, then what kinds 240 00:16:04,360 --> 00:16:07,000 Speaker 1: of consequences will that have for someone that's been accused 241 00:16:07,040 --> 00:16:07,920 Speaker 1: of a violent crime. 242 00:16:09,160 --> 00:16:13,920 Speaker 2: A common example I've seen this many times is there's 243 00:16:14,080 --> 00:16:22,680 Speaker 2: a spouse who commits suicide, who shoots themselves, and the 244 00:16:23,120 --> 00:16:28,600 Speaker 2: other spouse discovers the person who is shot, rushes over 245 00:16:28,640 --> 00:16:32,280 Speaker 2: to the person, cradles them, tries to give them first aid, 246 00:16:32,360 --> 00:16:35,080 Speaker 2: and in the process gets blood on them. And what 247 00:16:35,200 --> 00:16:39,120 Speaker 2: I saw again and again is if someone who's injured 248 00:16:39,360 --> 00:16:44,560 Speaker 2: expels blood from their mouth or their nose onto another 249 00:16:44,680 --> 00:16:51,680 Speaker 2: person's clothing, right they're coughing, they're struggling to breathe, that 250 00:16:51,880 --> 00:16:55,760 Speaker 2: pattern of blood looks very similar to the kind of 251 00:16:55,840 --> 00:17:01,880 Speaker 2: atomized blood that sprays when someone shot. And then an 252 00:17:01,960 --> 00:17:05,320 Speaker 2: analyst for the state will be brought in and we'll 253 00:17:05,320 --> 00:17:10,959 Speaker 2: give this very convoluted logic as to why that happened 254 00:17:11,040 --> 00:17:14,240 Speaker 2: during the commission of the crime. And then there becomes 255 00:17:14,280 --> 00:17:18,919 Speaker 2: this divergence of opinion of did the victim hold the 256 00:17:18,960 --> 00:17:23,480 Speaker 2: gun and fire this upon him or herself or was 257 00:17:23,520 --> 00:17:26,600 Speaker 2: it the spouse who fired the gun? And the claim 258 00:17:26,760 --> 00:17:29,320 Speaker 2: is that by looking at the way that the blood 259 00:17:29,400 --> 00:17:32,679 Speaker 2: is distributed at the crime scene, you know one hundred 260 00:17:32,720 --> 00:17:34,840 Speaker 2: percent what the answer to that is. 261 00:17:45,520 --> 00:17:49,440 Speaker 1: All right, Pam, you wrote a two part story entitled 262 00:17:49,480 --> 00:17:53,159 Speaker 1: Blood Will Tell And by the way, to our listeners, 263 00:17:53,240 --> 00:17:56,760 Speaker 1: if you haven't read about this case, you absolutely should. 264 00:17:57,160 --> 00:18:00,159 Speaker 1: We'll link to the article in our show notes. It 265 00:18:00,240 --> 00:18:05,080 Speaker 1: is a fascinating, fascinating piece that Pam wrote for Pro 266 00:18:05,160 --> 00:18:08,680 Speaker 1: Publica and again it's entitled blood will Tell the Joe 267 00:18:08,680 --> 00:18:13,000 Speaker 1: Brian Story, and it tells the story of various ways 268 00:18:13,240 --> 00:18:17,720 Speaker 1: bloodstained pattern analysis can go off the rails. And I 269 00:18:17,840 --> 00:18:19,560 Speaker 1: want to say that it has a happy ending, but 270 00:18:19,600 --> 00:18:22,000 Speaker 1: it's a tragedy really right. I mean, you have a 271 00:18:22,040 --> 00:18:26,800 Speaker 1: man that was loved by everybody. He's a high school principal. 272 00:18:26,920 --> 00:18:31,280 Speaker 1: He spent thirty three years in prison for the murder 273 00:18:31,280 --> 00:18:35,639 Speaker 1: of his wife, and you know your story. Pam was 274 00:18:35,760 --> 00:18:39,879 Speaker 1: like the driving force, if not the critical driving force 275 00:18:40,320 --> 00:18:42,800 Speaker 1: behind getting him out of prison. So please tell us 276 00:18:42,800 --> 00:18:44,040 Speaker 1: about the Joe Brian case. 277 00:18:44,840 --> 00:18:48,719 Speaker 2: Joe Brian was a beloved high school principal in a 278 00:18:48,840 --> 00:18:54,000 Speaker 2: little Texas town called Clifton, Texas. And in nineteen eighty five, 279 00:18:54,240 --> 00:18:57,119 Speaker 2: when he was by all accounts out of town one 280 00:18:57,200 --> 00:19:00,840 Speaker 2: hundred and twenty miles away in Austin at an education conference, 281 00:19:01,680 --> 00:19:05,560 Speaker 2: his wife was shot and killed in their home and 282 00:19:06,040 --> 00:19:11,280 Speaker 2: this was initially investigated as a robbery gone wrong. And 283 00:19:11,680 --> 00:19:17,280 Speaker 2: about a week after the murder, a flashlight was discovered 284 00:19:17,640 --> 00:19:22,119 Speaker 2: in the trunk of Joe's car that had tiny, tiny 285 00:19:22,160 --> 00:19:26,240 Speaker 2: specks of blood on it, and there was no blood 286 00:19:26,280 --> 00:19:30,680 Speaker 2: found in the car or anything like that. And who 287 00:19:30,760 --> 00:19:34,440 Speaker 2: this blood belonged to, whether it was even human blood, 288 00:19:34,600 --> 00:19:39,439 Speaker 2: all of this was unknown. But the state took this 289 00:19:40,480 --> 00:19:43,800 Speaker 2: and they brought in a bloodstained pattern analyst, a local 290 00:19:43,880 --> 00:19:49,240 Speaker 2: cop who'd had forty hours of training, and he, through 291 00:19:49,320 --> 00:19:54,800 Speaker 2: his testimony, connected that flashlight and the spatter pattern on 292 00:19:54,880 --> 00:19:58,040 Speaker 2: the flashlight to the crime scene. He said this could 293 00:19:58,119 --> 00:20:02,520 Speaker 2: only have happened at the crime scene, and his theory 294 00:20:02,600 --> 00:20:05,760 Speaker 2: of the case was that Joe had held the flashlight 295 00:20:05,840 --> 00:20:09,480 Speaker 2: in one hand a gun in the other. He'd shot 296 00:20:09,520 --> 00:20:13,840 Speaker 2: his wife, Mickey. The blood had gotten onto the splashlight, 297 00:20:14,240 --> 00:20:17,800 Speaker 2: and this was proof that he was guilty of murder. 298 00:20:18,480 --> 00:20:22,200 Speaker 2: How this man, who would have been bloodied, how did 299 00:20:22,240 --> 00:20:25,720 Speaker 2: he drive off in this car that was absolutely pristine, 300 00:20:26,359 --> 00:20:29,199 Speaker 2: was explained away by the expert, who said things like, 301 00:20:29,720 --> 00:20:32,879 Speaker 2: after he killed her, he completely changed his clothes and 302 00:20:32,920 --> 00:20:36,879 Speaker 2: he changed his shoes, and that's why the interior of 303 00:20:36,960 --> 00:20:40,119 Speaker 2: the car was clean. But he made this error and 304 00:20:40,160 --> 00:20:43,919 Speaker 2: put this in the truck and that was enough. I mean, 305 00:20:43,960 --> 00:20:48,000 Speaker 2: this is a man. There was no motive no physical evidence, 306 00:20:48,760 --> 00:20:51,439 Speaker 2: he was many counties away, he was in a different 307 00:20:51,480 --> 00:20:55,639 Speaker 2: place the night of the crime, but that expert testimony 308 00:20:55,720 --> 00:20:59,720 Speaker 2: from that cop was enough to get a murder conviction 309 00:21:00,119 --> 00:21:00,800 Speaker 2: life sentence. 310 00:21:01,640 --> 00:21:04,399 Speaker 1: I mean, it's so difficult to listen to this, and 311 00:21:04,440 --> 00:21:08,480 Speaker 1: I wish I could say that I'm sitting here, you know, shocked, 312 00:21:09,760 --> 00:21:12,120 Speaker 1: and was able to tell you what. I've never heard 313 00:21:12,440 --> 00:21:15,359 Speaker 1: of a case like that before, where you know, the 314 00:21:15,440 --> 00:21:18,800 Speaker 1: accused is actually in a different town altogether. But unfortunately 315 00:21:18,920 --> 00:21:23,760 Speaker 1: I've heard this before. This happens to many defendants or 316 00:21:23,800 --> 00:21:27,240 Speaker 1: people that are accused of crimes they didn't commit. Was 317 00:21:27,320 --> 00:21:28,480 Speaker 1: Joe ever exonerated? 318 00:21:29,840 --> 00:21:34,560 Speaker 2: So Joe was not exonerated, He was parolled and the 319 00:21:34,720 --> 00:21:39,639 Speaker 2: state of his case. He had an evidentiary hearing in 320 00:21:39,680 --> 00:21:46,560 Speaker 2: twenty nineteen with some really really compelling testimony that suggested 321 00:21:46,640 --> 00:21:51,040 Speaker 2: not only his innocence but a possible other perpetrator. In Texas, 322 00:21:51,080 --> 00:21:54,679 Speaker 2: we have something called a junk science writ which is 323 00:21:54,720 --> 00:22:01,360 Speaker 2: fairly unusual, but it allows somebody to take bad evidence, 324 00:22:01,520 --> 00:22:06,719 Speaker 2: junk science that's been allowed into their case and to 325 00:22:06,840 --> 00:22:08,960 Speaker 2: try to get the courts to take a second look 326 00:22:09,000 --> 00:22:13,000 Speaker 2: at their case because of that. And so he's been 327 00:22:13,119 --> 00:22:17,920 Speaker 2: parolled and is still fighting to prove his innocence. Joe 328 00:22:18,160 --> 00:22:21,960 Speaker 2: turns eighty later this year. He's had congestive heart failure 329 00:22:22,280 --> 00:22:25,840 Speaker 2: for numerous years. His health is not good, and the 330 00:22:25,880 --> 00:22:29,840 Speaker 2: Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles finally decided to release 331 00:22:29,920 --> 00:22:35,119 Speaker 2: him in March, and he is now at home with 332 00:22:35,240 --> 00:22:38,320 Speaker 2: his brother. He's got an ankle monitor for a couple 333 00:22:38,359 --> 00:22:42,120 Speaker 2: more months, and then he'll go back to life as 334 00:22:42,240 --> 00:22:45,159 Speaker 2: much as it can be normal after thirty three years 335 00:22:45,160 --> 00:22:46,760 Speaker 2: behind bars. 336 00:22:46,880 --> 00:22:49,800 Speaker 1: I mean a lot of people always say they hear 337 00:22:49,840 --> 00:22:54,960 Speaker 1: about this work of helping the wrongfully incarcerated, but they 338 00:22:55,000 --> 00:22:57,639 Speaker 1: hear about it when it's too late, you know, after 339 00:22:57,680 --> 00:23:01,400 Speaker 1: they have lost decades and decades of their lives. Oftentimes 340 00:23:01,480 --> 00:23:05,480 Speaker 1: their lives have been utterly destroyed. I mean, you know, 341 00:23:05,520 --> 00:23:08,320 Speaker 1: you read the stories about them getting out, but take 342 00:23:08,320 --> 00:23:14,159 Speaker 1: it from me, having worked with scores of exoneries, not 343 00:23:14,200 --> 00:23:18,000 Speaker 1: only my clients, but some of the innocence projects other clients, 344 00:23:18,000 --> 00:23:22,359 Speaker 1: they're just never the same. The psychological damage of being 345 00:23:23,160 --> 00:23:26,000 Speaker 1: you know, confined to this narrow space, and all of 346 00:23:26,000 --> 00:23:29,000 Speaker 1: the horrors of prison that you hear about that happen 347 00:23:29,080 --> 00:23:32,040 Speaker 1: to these people, and then on top of it being 348 00:23:32,119 --> 00:23:34,919 Speaker 1: in there for something you didn't do. I mean, there 349 00:23:34,960 --> 00:23:39,400 Speaker 1: have been studies about how it inflicts even more psychological 350 00:23:39,480 --> 00:23:41,720 Speaker 1: damage on people to be in there for something that 351 00:23:41,760 --> 00:23:46,360 Speaker 1: you didn't do, and the lost years just can't be replaced. 352 00:23:46,600 --> 00:23:48,480 Speaker 1: No amount of money is going to make that pain 353 00:23:48,560 --> 00:23:53,160 Speaker 1: go away, no matter how much compensation they get. And 354 00:23:53,280 --> 00:23:57,240 Speaker 1: yet these wrongful convictions just continue being propelled by junk science. 355 00:23:57,320 --> 00:23:58,640 Speaker 1: It's just astounding. 356 00:24:01,320 --> 00:24:05,679 Speaker 2: I was flabbergasted when working on this story and trying 357 00:24:05,760 --> 00:24:09,959 Speaker 2: to find, well, where where is the research that backs 358 00:24:10,040 --> 00:24:12,960 Speaker 2: up all these claims that people are making on the stand, 359 00:24:13,320 --> 00:24:19,359 Speaker 2: Where's the academic work that's been done, where is the anything. 360 00:24:20,160 --> 00:24:24,640 Speaker 2: This is a discipline that when you look at sort 361 00:24:24,640 --> 00:24:29,119 Speaker 2: of the fundamentals of how do you prove reliability, no 362 00:24:29,160 --> 00:24:33,359 Speaker 2: one can quote an error rate, There are no markers 363 00:24:33,400 --> 00:24:36,560 Speaker 2: that show that this is something that holds up under 364 00:24:36,840 --> 00:24:41,080 Speaker 2: any kind of scrutiny. And so this idea that we 365 00:24:41,200 --> 00:24:46,360 Speaker 2: can not just look at blood as a clue as 366 00:24:46,400 --> 00:24:48,639 Speaker 2: we would at many, many, many things in a crime 367 00:24:48,680 --> 00:24:52,320 Speaker 2: scene to help us figure out what happened, but as 368 00:24:52,640 --> 00:24:56,560 Speaker 2: something in which you can entirely independent even of any 369 00:24:56,600 --> 00:25:01,840 Speaker 2: other evidence, reconstruct the crime itself quickly leads you into 370 00:25:01,920 --> 00:25:10,439 Speaker 2: wrongful conviction territory. 371 00:25:15,280 --> 00:25:18,800 Speaker 1: I want our listeners to be rest assured that we're 372 00:25:18,800 --> 00:25:24,479 Speaker 1: not just throwing around this term junk science haphazardly. Just 373 00:25:24,520 --> 00:25:29,000 Speaker 1: to be crystal clear, there has been extensive research on 374 00:25:29,080 --> 00:25:34,680 Speaker 1: the effectiveness and the accuracy of bloodstained pattern analysis, and 375 00:25:34,920 --> 00:25:38,160 Speaker 1: this will become somewhat of a drum beat in our series. 376 00:25:38,600 --> 00:25:40,840 Speaker 1: We're going to continue to go back to this study 377 00:25:40,840 --> 00:25:42,760 Speaker 1: that was done in two thousand and nine by the 378 00:25:42,840 --> 00:25:47,119 Speaker 1: National Academy of Sciences, and they issued a report after 379 00:25:47,200 --> 00:25:51,280 Speaker 1: examining various disciplines of forensic science that are used in 380 00:25:51,320 --> 00:25:56,720 Speaker 1: courtrooms across the country, everything from fingerprints to footwear impressions, 381 00:25:56,720 --> 00:25:59,560 Speaker 1: to bite marks and of course bloodstains right PAM. 382 00:26:00,119 --> 00:26:03,360 Speaker 2: The National Academy of Science is actually made up of 383 00:26:03,840 --> 00:26:10,359 Speaker 2: scientists who publish peer reviewed work and who were involved 384 00:26:10,640 --> 00:26:16,439 Speaker 2: in research with real scientific integrity, and they set the 385 00:26:16,480 --> 00:26:21,480 Speaker 2: bar very, very high, and they have long been extremely 386 00:26:21,600 --> 00:26:29,640 Speaker 2: critical of bloodstained pattern analysis and really cautioning courts to 387 00:26:29,680 --> 00:26:33,640 Speaker 2: not consider this a science with the sort of accuracy 388 00:26:34,320 --> 00:26:40,040 Speaker 2: as for example, some DNA testing or toxicology, where you 389 00:26:40,119 --> 00:26:44,080 Speaker 2: really you have numbers and certainty to work. 390 00:26:43,880 --> 00:26:49,080 Speaker 1: With, so outside of DNA, the NAS study was really 391 00:26:49,119 --> 00:26:53,400 Speaker 1: critical of all of these other disciplines of forensic science. 392 00:26:53,600 --> 00:26:57,320 Speaker 1: And what it's said about blood spatter analysis is this quote, 393 00:26:57,800 --> 00:27:03,159 Speaker 1: the capable analysts must possess an understanding of applied mathematics, physics, 394 00:27:03,760 --> 00:27:08,280 Speaker 1: fluid transfer, wound pathology, and that this blood spatter analysis 395 00:27:08,359 --> 00:27:13,359 Speaker 1: is more subjective than substantive. So this report should have 396 00:27:13,440 --> 00:27:16,560 Speaker 1: been a bombshell in the forensic science community, and it 397 00:27:16,600 --> 00:27:18,840 Speaker 1: really should have changed our court system. I mean, why 398 00:27:18,880 --> 00:27:21,560 Speaker 1: do you think it is that you have some of 399 00:27:21,560 --> 00:27:25,960 Speaker 1: the leading scientists in the country so critically rebuking all 400 00:27:26,000 --> 00:27:29,760 Speaker 1: of these forensic disciplines, but courts don't seem to pay 401 00:27:29,800 --> 00:27:30,800 Speaker 1: any attention to it. 402 00:27:31,680 --> 00:27:37,680 Speaker 2: Judges are looking backward at precedent, and science is supposed 403 00:27:37,720 --> 00:27:43,159 Speaker 2: to be looking forward each year we understand through scientific 404 00:27:43,240 --> 00:27:47,119 Speaker 2: inquiry things like forensic science and its accuracy better and 405 00:27:47,160 --> 00:27:50,280 Speaker 2: better and better. But the courts never looked at that. 406 00:27:50,320 --> 00:27:53,960 Speaker 2: They just kept looking back blood stand pattern analysis, like 407 00:27:54,080 --> 00:27:57,119 Speaker 2: so many of the disciplines that are identified in that 408 00:27:57,200 --> 00:28:02,159 Speaker 2: report as being problematic, we're so so deeply entrenched in 409 00:28:03,080 --> 00:28:07,760 Speaker 2: crime labs and across the country. You had experts in 410 00:28:07,880 --> 00:28:11,720 Speaker 2: crime labs that were under local police departments where this 411 00:28:11,880 --> 00:28:14,760 Speaker 2: was just this was the way it was done, So 412 00:28:14,800 --> 00:28:17,480 Speaker 2: there was no effort on the part of law enforcement 413 00:28:17,600 --> 00:28:21,320 Speaker 2: to change that. And for prosecutors, there was no incentive 414 00:28:21,480 --> 00:28:25,879 Speaker 2: because a good bloodstained pattern analyst on the stand who's 415 00:28:25,920 --> 00:28:30,240 Speaker 2: a phenomenal witness really connects with the jury and makes 416 00:28:30,280 --> 00:28:35,040 Speaker 2: things sound very simple. That's gold that can make your case, 417 00:28:35,080 --> 00:28:38,720 Speaker 2: and that can take a circumstantial case and move it 418 00:28:38,880 --> 00:28:41,360 Speaker 2: from gray to black and white. 419 00:28:41,600 --> 00:28:44,000 Speaker 1: So, like you said, many judges rule on a case 420 00:28:44,040 --> 00:28:49,120 Speaker 1: based on precedent, and the President provides essentially the license 421 00:28:49,200 --> 00:28:54,080 Speaker 1: for judges to accept bloodstain spatter analysis as evidence. But 422 00:28:54,400 --> 00:28:56,880 Speaker 1: there was at least one judge who did pay attention 423 00:28:57,000 --> 00:28:59,720 Speaker 1: to this study, and that was a federal judge that 424 00:28:59,720 --> 00:29:04,320 Speaker 1: I know very well in Boston named Nancy Gertner. Nancy 425 00:29:04,320 --> 00:29:06,960 Speaker 1: and I are actually co authors on a textbook together. 426 00:29:07,000 --> 00:29:09,640 Speaker 1: I'll give a nice plug ear for the law of 427 00:29:09,760 --> 00:29:13,840 Speaker 1: jurys in case anybody is aching to read a legal textbook. 428 00:29:13,920 --> 00:29:17,120 Speaker 1: But tell us about what Judge Nancy Gertner did. 429 00:29:17,880 --> 00:29:22,680 Speaker 2: I mean, she was and really sadly remains sort of 430 00:29:22,720 --> 00:29:28,560 Speaker 2: a lone voice in the wilderness. She came out swinging 431 00:29:28,680 --> 00:29:32,800 Speaker 2: and said that judges had to take a more active 432 00:29:32,840 --> 00:29:37,640 Speaker 2: stand in being gatekeepers to this kind of evidence, and 433 00:29:37,680 --> 00:29:41,480 Speaker 2: that they could not be letting junk science into the courtroom. 434 00:29:41,640 --> 00:29:44,680 Speaker 2: And if we're going to continue to see some of 435 00:29:44,720 --> 00:29:49,320 Speaker 2: the disciplines that the NAS report has identified as unreliable 436 00:29:50,000 --> 00:29:54,640 Speaker 2: in our courtrooms, I want to hold admissibility hearings before 437 00:29:54,760 --> 00:29:57,240 Speaker 2: we ever get to trial to decide whether we should 438 00:29:57,240 --> 00:30:02,080 Speaker 2: allow this in. And that shouldn't have been a revolutionary idea, 439 00:30:02,280 --> 00:30:06,440 Speaker 2: but it really was. And she was an outlier in 440 00:30:06,520 --> 00:30:11,800 Speaker 2: this and got a lot of pushback from prosecutors about that. 441 00:30:12,440 --> 00:30:16,560 Speaker 1: I mean, it's really shocking that she got pushback not 442 00:30:16,720 --> 00:30:22,040 Speaker 1: just from prosecutors, but also from her colleagues or fellow judges. 443 00:30:22,720 --> 00:30:25,880 Speaker 2: She is a hero, and I think that her insistence 444 00:30:26,080 --> 00:30:32,120 Speaker 2: on something as basic as fairness being controversial is really disturbing. 445 00:30:37,840 --> 00:30:41,720 Speaker 1: Life doesn't always imitate art, especially when it comes to bloodstains. 446 00:30:42,400 --> 00:30:45,640 Speaker 1: It's important to remember that shows like Dexter and CSI 447 00:30:45,840 --> 00:30:49,680 Speaker 1: or just entertainment, it isn't real life, and many of 448 00:30:49,680 --> 00:30:52,760 Speaker 1: the techniques that we think are science are far from it. 449 00:30:54,040 --> 00:30:56,280 Speaker 1: You might be listening to this wondering what you can 450 00:30:56,320 --> 00:30:58,960 Speaker 1: do to make sure that junk signs like bloodstain pattern 451 00:30:59,000 --> 00:31:03,320 Speaker 1: analysis stop being admitted into courts. In our show notes, 452 00:31:03,360 --> 00:31:06,440 Speaker 1: we're attaching a link to the National Academy of Sciences 453 00:31:06,560 --> 00:31:09,920 Speaker 1: report that we spoke about in this episode. Send it 454 00:31:09,920 --> 00:31:13,080 Speaker 1: to your local criminal court judges. Give them something to 455 00:31:13,160 --> 00:31:17,479 Speaker 1: think twice about before admitting this evidence in their courtroom. 456 00:31:18,040 --> 00:31:20,360 Speaker 1: Something else you can always do is make sure that 457 00:31:20,400 --> 00:31:22,960 Speaker 1: when you get called to jury service, you don't try 458 00:31:23,000 --> 00:31:25,560 Speaker 1: to get out of it. You do it, and do 459 00:31:25,640 --> 00:31:29,000 Speaker 1: it as a conscientious juror. When I pick a jury 460 00:31:29,000 --> 00:31:31,760 Speaker 1: in a criminal case, one question I always ask is 461 00:31:32,240 --> 00:31:34,560 Speaker 1: how many of you believe that my client must have 462 00:31:34,640 --> 00:31:38,320 Speaker 1: done something wrong because they've been arrested and accused of 463 00:31:38,320 --> 00:31:41,160 Speaker 1: a crime. More than half the hands in the room 464 00:31:41,320 --> 00:31:45,920 Speaker 1: always go up. Remember these principles, let the presumption of 465 00:31:45,960 --> 00:31:50,600 Speaker 1: innocence only work if we breathe life into them. Someone 466 00:31:50,640 --> 00:31:53,680 Speaker 1: that is accused of a crime ought to be considered 467 00:31:53,880 --> 00:31:57,640 Speaker 1: innocent all the way through the trial, all the way 468 00:31:57,680 --> 00:32:01,640 Speaker 1: through your deliberations. They are wrapped in a cloak of innocence, 469 00:32:01,720 --> 00:32:05,360 Speaker 1: like a warm blanket. It can never be torn from 470 00:32:05,360 --> 00:32:09,320 Speaker 1: them unless the prosecution overcomes the highest burden in our 471 00:32:09,520 --> 00:32:13,800 Speaker 1: justice system, which is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you 472 00:32:13,920 --> 00:32:18,760 Speaker 1: give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. Unfortunately, 473 00:32:19,000 --> 00:32:22,040 Speaker 1: as I've seen time and time again, the presumption of 474 00:32:22,080 --> 00:32:25,200 Speaker 1: innocence in this country is not a given. It is 475 00:32:25,240 --> 00:32:27,800 Speaker 1: an ideal that we talk about, but we don't live 476 00:32:27,920 --> 00:32:31,160 Speaker 1: up to. But by uncovering the lack of credibility of 477 00:32:31,240 --> 00:32:34,080 Speaker 1: junk signs and our courts, we hope to get one 478 00:32:34,120 --> 00:32:44,640 Speaker 1: step closer. Next week, we'll explore the junk Signs of 479 00:32:44,760 --> 00:32:48,160 Speaker 1: Arson with Innocence Project co founder and famed civil rights 480 00:32:48,200 --> 00:32:53,920 Speaker 1: and criminal defense attorney Barry Shk. Wrongful Conviction Junk Science 481 00:32:54,040 --> 00:32:57,080 Speaker 1: is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts and association 482 00:32:57,200 --> 00:33:00,680 Speaker 1: with Signal Company Number One. Thanks to our exactecutive producer 483 00:33:00,760 --> 00:33:03,560 Speaker 1: Jason Flamm and the team at Signal Company Number one 484 00:33:04,200 --> 00:33:09,080 Speaker 1: executive producer Kevin Wartis and senior producers Kerkornaber and Brit Spangler. 485 00:33:09,880 --> 00:33:13,120 Speaker 1: Our music was composed by Jay Ralph. You can follow 486 00:33:13,160 --> 00:33:16,680 Speaker 1: me on Instagram at Dubin dot Josh. Follow the Wrongful 487 00:33:16,720 --> 00:33:20,840 Speaker 1: Conviction podcast on Facebook and on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction 488 00:33:21,280 --> 00:33:23,160 Speaker 1: and on Twitter at wrong Conviction