1
00:00:00,240 --> 00:00:04,640
Speaker 1: Now here's a highlight from Coast to coast AM on iHeartRadio.

2
00:00:05,040 --> 00:00:10,360
Speaker 2: The Innocent's Project is a well known, not for profit

3
00:00:11,080 --> 00:00:18,840
Speaker 2: legal organization committed to investigating and exonerating individuals who have

4
00:00:19,040 --> 00:00:24,920
Speaker 2: been wrongly convicted through all sorts of different scientific approaches,

5
00:00:25,120 --> 00:00:30,200
Speaker 2: often but includes other methods as well. M. Chris Fabricant

6
00:00:30,440 --> 00:00:33,520
Speaker 2: joins us, the author of Junk Science and the American

7
00:00:34,320 --> 00:00:40,479
Speaker 2: Criminal Justice System. I feel like my introduction to you

8
00:00:40,600 --> 00:00:43,240
Speaker 2: is anemic, because you've got all sorts of other rewards,

9
00:00:43,240 --> 00:00:45,640
Speaker 2: and you all have done great work over the years.

10
00:00:45,880 --> 00:00:48,400
Speaker 2: What do you think of as your proudest achievement?

11
00:00:50,080 --> 00:00:53,599
Speaker 3: No, I think that probably my private achievement. There are

12
00:00:53,800 --> 00:00:57,200
Speaker 3: the generations of the three people that I wrote about

13
00:00:57,200 --> 00:01:01,800
Speaker 3: in Junk Science, Keith Harrow or Stephen Cheney and Ai

14
00:01:01,840 --> 00:01:05,000
Speaker 3: Lee Howard. You apart from you know, raising my two.

15
00:01:04,880 --> 00:01:09,360
Speaker 4: Kids, right, I was going to put that in there too.

16
00:01:09,920 --> 00:01:10,560
Speaker 3: I agree.

17
00:01:11,400 --> 00:01:15,039
Speaker 2: But you all literally get, you know, like a mail

18
00:01:15,200 --> 00:01:22,279
Speaker 2: truck full of applications or cries for help every week.

19
00:01:22,440 --> 00:01:25,280
Speaker 2: How do you begin to determine who is going to

20
00:01:25,319 --> 00:01:29,600
Speaker 2: get the muscle, who's going to get the eyeballs of

21
00:01:29,640 --> 00:01:30,880
Speaker 2: the Innocence Project?

22
00:01:31,880 --> 00:01:34,080
Speaker 3: You know, it's really you know, when you talked about

23
00:01:34,319 --> 00:01:37,720
Speaker 3: the impacts of the Innocence Project on the criminal justice system,

24
00:01:37,760 --> 00:01:39,959
Speaker 3: I think it's a good way to look at our

25
00:01:40,000 --> 00:01:45,280
Speaker 3: intake process is an important touchdown, and you know, relating

26
00:01:45,280 --> 00:01:49,920
Speaker 3: to your question and that when Barry Scheck and Peter

27
00:01:50,080 --> 00:01:53,640
Speaker 3: Neufeld opened the Innocence Project doors thirty one years ago,

28
00:01:54,400 --> 00:01:57,000
Speaker 3: one of the really important decisions that they made was

29
00:01:57,160 --> 00:02:00,520
Speaker 3: about who was going to get the the help of

30
00:02:00,560 --> 00:02:04,000
Speaker 3: the Innocence Projects. And what they decided to do was

31
00:02:04,200 --> 00:02:08,120
Speaker 3: make no subjective judgments about guilt or innocence of anybody

32
00:02:08,360 --> 00:02:11,880
Speaker 3: that had written for our help. The only criteria was

33
00:02:11,919 --> 00:02:15,400
Speaker 3: going to be if you could find and test DNA

34
00:02:15,440 --> 00:02:18,280
Speaker 3: evidence in this case, would that prove innocence? If so,

35
00:02:18,800 --> 00:02:20,600
Speaker 3: it would take the case. Didn't matter. If there is

36
00:02:20,639 --> 00:02:23,560
Speaker 3: a confession, didn't matter, If there are forensic sciences pointing

37
00:02:23,600 --> 00:02:27,240
Speaker 3: to guilt, didn't matter, if their eyewitnesses that were certain

38
00:02:27,280 --> 00:02:30,760
Speaker 3: that it was the defendant. That was the only criteria.

39
00:02:30,919 --> 00:02:34,920
Speaker 3: And as a result of that decision, we learned that

40
00:02:36,120 --> 00:02:39,280
Speaker 3: junk science plays a role in over half of a

41
00:02:39,919 --> 00:02:44,160
Speaker 3: known wrongful convictions. Over half. It is astonishing because up

42
00:02:44,240 --> 00:02:46,679
Speaker 3: until that point we felt that they were essentially infallible,

43
00:02:46,720 --> 00:02:48,480
Speaker 3: and they're still presented that way in the media.

44
00:02:50,320 --> 00:02:53,919
Speaker 2: And we'll get back to that concept of junk science

45
00:02:54,080 --> 00:02:57,760
Speaker 2: and what it means moving forward. But going backward, how

46
00:02:57,840 --> 00:03:01,959
Speaker 2: long ago was it when DNA and it's use in

47
00:03:02,560 --> 00:03:04,720
Speaker 2: a courtroom was considered junk science.

48
00:03:06,280 --> 00:03:10,079
Speaker 3: Well, you know, DNA is not junk science. In nineteen

49
00:03:10,080 --> 00:03:15,120
Speaker 3: eighty time was the first DNA exoneration, and you know,

50
00:03:15,280 --> 00:03:21,080
Speaker 3: somewhat telling ly, in that first DNA exoneration, junk science

51
00:03:21,160 --> 00:03:24,040
Speaker 3: was used microscopic hair comparison of it than something that

52
00:03:24,080 --> 00:03:29,560
Speaker 3: I write a fair amount about. DNA allowed, you know,

53
00:03:29,960 --> 00:03:33,320
Speaker 3: scientific certainty of facts which had never been available before.

54
00:03:33,560 --> 00:03:35,840
Speaker 3: You know, up until that time, we believed that the

55
00:03:35,880 --> 00:03:38,160
Speaker 3: American criminal justice system was the best in the world,

56
00:03:38,800 --> 00:03:44,040
Speaker 3: that wrongful convictions were banishingly rare occurrence, and that all

57
00:03:44,080 --> 00:03:48,400
Speaker 3: of our rights and privileges that it was really nearly impossible.

58
00:03:49,240 --> 00:03:50,680
Speaker 3: And DNA put the lid to that.

59
00:03:52,600 --> 00:03:56,240
Speaker 2: You tell these stories really well, and you tell them

60
00:03:57,400 --> 00:04:00,560
Speaker 2: using a narrative form that most people would have associate

61
00:04:00,680 --> 00:04:05,000
Speaker 2: with true crime before you start to kind of unpack

62
00:04:05,120 --> 00:04:09,560
Speaker 2: the very story that you just presented, and you follow

63
00:04:10,040 --> 00:04:17,920
Speaker 2: the cases as you were involved in repositioning the reader's

64
00:04:18,120 --> 00:04:21,919
Speaker 2: view as to what they had just thought they had understood.

65
00:04:22,680 --> 00:04:26,479
Speaker 2: What's interesting about that to me? I wrote a part

66
00:04:26,520 --> 00:04:31,599
Speaker 2: of my dissertation was about the narratology of true crime,

67
00:04:32,440 --> 00:04:35,600
Speaker 2: and it's called Toward a Theory of True Crime. And

68
00:04:35,720 --> 00:04:39,440
Speaker 2: one of the things that we explored in that in

69
00:04:39,480 --> 00:04:45,240
Speaker 2: them in my research was that frequently true crime was

70
00:04:45,360 --> 00:04:50,279
Speaker 2: used as a narrative form to point out the false

71
00:04:50,720 --> 00:04:54,320
Speaker 2: conclusions of police, not as often as being you know,

72
00:04:54,560 --> 00:04:57,839
Speaker 2: you know, pro law enforcement, but from the very beginning

73
00:04:57,880 --> 00:05:00,240
Speaker 2: it was sort of a burr under the saddle of

74
00:05:00,320 --> 00:05:03,200
Speaker 2: these police departments, and they began to challenge a lot

75
00:05:03,240 --> 00:05:06,520
Speaker 2: of the convictions on the basis of either they were

76
00:05:06,520 --> 00:05:09,240
Speaker 2: trying the wrong person or they had convicted the wrong person.

77
00:05:09,720 --> 00:05:12,599
Speaker 2: And that kind of gave true crime and the narrative

78
00:05:12,640 --> 00:05:16,200
Speaker 2: forms that you use in there this status as being

79
00:05:16,240 --> 00:05:21,400
Speaker 2: sort of a de facto arm of our American judicial

80
00:05:21,440 --> 00:05:25,320
Speaker 2: system that we need to hear the story, not just

81
00:05:25,640 --> 00:05:28,440
Speaker 2: see the facts. And I think you did that really

82
00:05:28,480 --> 00:05:29,159
Speaker 2: well in the book.

83
00:05:29,920 --> 00:05:33,200
Speaker 3: Oh thank you very much. I wanted to, you know,

84
00:05:33,240 --> 00:05:35,560
Speaker 3: I wanted to write a page churner, because really what

85
00:05:35,720 --> 00:05:41,000
Speaker 3: my goal was was to entertain and to educate, you know,

86
00:05:41,040 --> 00:05:44,600
Speaker 3: I mean, and to dispel the myth of insoluble forensics.

87
00:05:44,640 --> 00:05:47,240
Speaker 3: But nobody wants to read a textbook, you know, I mean.

88
00:05:47,279 --> 00:05:51,440
Speaker 3: And the stories of you know, the incredible crimes that

89
00:05:51,560 --> 00:05:55,000
Speaker 3: my clients were wrongfully convicted of and the struggles for

90
00:05:55,120 --> 00:05:57,760
Speaker 3: freedom are really some of the most compelling human interest

91
00:05:57,839 --> 00:06:00,480
Speaker 3: stories that have come across and I felt very sure

92
00:06:00,640 --> 00:06:03,919
Speaker 3: privileged to be you know, a close observer and a

93
00:06:03,960 --> 00:06:07,360
Speaker 3: participant in them. And you know, and really it's an

94
00:06:07,360 --> 00:06:10,839
Speaker 3: effort to create a new true crime genre. On true crime,

95
00:06:11,120 --> 00:06:13,159
Speaker 3: that's really fundamentally what we're talking about.

96
00:06:13,440 --> 00:06:15,359
Speaker 2: But just you know, there's a strong route for that.

97
00:06:15,800 --> 00:06:19,159
Speaker 2: There's a if you go back even to the true

98
00:06:19,160 --> 00:06:23,160
Speaker 2: crime magazines of the nineteen thirties, all the way into

99
00:06:23,560 --> 00:06:27,000
Speaker 2: when true crime became a popular book genre, it was

100
00:06:27,200 --> 00:06:35,400
Speaker 2: often it was considered to be insubordinate, as it didn't

101
00:06:35,440 --> 00:06:41,120
Speaker 2: it no longer. It was a interrogated the very interrogators

102
00:06:41,160 --> 00:06:44,840
Speaker 2: who had gotten what many considered to be, you know,

103
00:06:44,920 --> 00:06:49,240
Speaker 2: to the convictions were too easy. And then the you know,

104
00:06:49,279 --> 00:06:53,560
Speaker 2: mainstream journalism is done with this. They don't the maybe

105
00:06:53,560 --> 00:06:56,760
Speaker 2: the defense attorney continues to lobby the case, but they

106
00:06:56,800 --> 00:06:59,440
Speaker 2: frequently move on and so what do you have? And

107
00:07:00,120 --> 00:07:03,760
Speaker 2: that's often you just have as writings like this, But

108
00:07:03,839 --> 00:07:05,479
Speaker 2: there is a there's a bit of a history on

109
00:07:05,560 --> 00:07:07,960
Speaker 2: that which I think you tapped into really well.

110
00:07:08,760 --> 00:07:11,400
Speaker 3: Thank you. You know, it's it's funny the way you

111
00:07:11,440 --> 00:07:13,520
Speaker 3: know I mean, And we need true crime for that

112
00:07:13,600 --> 00:07:17,480
Speaker 3: reason because most criminal procedurals that we see on television,

113
00:07:17,520 --> 00:07:20,200
Speaker 3: in particularly you know SI, are Law and Order and

114
00:07:20,360 --> 00:07:23,600
Speaker 3: frantic rials and all these other shows you know there

115
00:07:23,720 --> 00:07:27,600
Speaker 3: neatly ston't happened one hour. The frantic that are always

116
00:07:27,640 --> 00:07:32,920
Speaker 3: depicted as infallible, objective, conclusive, right and right, and the

117
00:07:32,960 --> 00:07:36,200
Speaker 3: cops are always the good guys and the criminals get

118
00:07:36,200 --> 00:07:38,480
Speaker 3: what they're have coming. And you know, we know that

119
00:07:39,000 --> 00:07:41,400
Speaker 3: true life true crime is not that way.

120
00:07:42,200 --> 00:07:42,280
Speaker 1: No.

121
00:07:43,200 --> 00:07:46,560
Speaker 2: I had there was a murder in my family and

122
00:07:46,640 --> 00:07:49,280
Speaker 2: I wrote about it in a book and I covered

123
00:07:49,280 --> 00:07:52,880
Speaker 2: the trial from the transcript that still exists of the

124
00:07:52,960 --> 00:07:57,680
Speaker 2: trial from nineteen thirty seven. And one of the things

125
00:07:57,760 --> 00:08:03,360
Speaker 2: that the defense attorneys were saying was that, oh, you

126
00:08:03,480 --> 00:08:06,920
Speaker 2: can't trust this thing about ballistics.

127
00:08:07,240 --> 00:08:08,480
Speaker 1: You know, there was they.

128
00:08:08,320 --> 00:08:13,080
Speaker 2: Were challenging crime science even at what now we consider

129
00:08:13,120 --> 00:08:16,320
Speaker 2: to be a very acceptable level. There wasn't anything, you know,

130
00:08:16,400 --> 00:08:19,000
Speaker 2: and they called it voodoo and they made a big

131
00:08:19,040 --> 00:08:21,280
Speaker 2: deal out of that, and it took a long time

132
00:08:21,320 --> 00:08:25,560
Speaker 2: before that I think was seen differently by the mainstream

133
00:08:25,640 --> 00:08:29,480
Speaker 2: American public. And that's why I was asking about the

134
00:08:29,520 --> 00:08:32,920
Speaker 2: other thing about how long ago before you know, DNA

135
00:08:33,080 --> 00:08:36,200
Speaker 2: was accepted and people were like, oh, well, it's DNA evidence,

136
00:08:36,240 --> 00:08:37,800
Speaker 2: and that was all you needed to hear.

137
00:08:38,920 --> 00:08:41,320
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, I mean there's such a fundamental difference

138
00:08:41,360 --> 00:08:45,040
Speaker 3: between DNA and all the other forentic techniques because you know,

139
00:08:45,160 --> 00:08:50,600
Speaker 3: almost you know, every other forentic discipline is only useful

140
00:08:50,600 --> 00:08:53,640
Speaker 3: in the criminal justice system, and DNA has applications far

141
00:08:53,720 --> 00:08:56,199
Speaker 3: beyond you know, criminal justice matter.

142
00:08:56,240 --> 00:08:58,080
Speaker 1: It's true, So it was.

143
00:08:58,040 --> 00:09:01,559
Speaker 3: Developed in a scientific laboratory, you know, I mean in

144
00:09:01,600 --> 00:09:04,760
Speaker 3: the most forensics were developed by law enforcement for law

145
00:09:04,840 --> 00:09:08,280
Speaker 3: enforcement purposes, and if they were admissible in court and

146
00:09:08,280 --> 00:09:10,400
Speaker 3: they were useful for getting convictions, that was good enough

147
00:09:10,440 --> 00:09:14,400
Speaker 3: for government work. And that's been true for you know,

148
00:09:14,679 --> 00:09:16,920
Speaker 3: a century, you know what I mean, it's still through today,

149
00:09:17,240 --> 00:09:19,680
Speaker 3: you know, I mean, it's you know, much of my

150
00:09:19,800 --> 00:09:23,000
Speaker 3: job is trying to combat to continued introduction of junk

151
00:09:23,040 --> 00:09:24,360
Speaker 3: science and our justice system.

152
00:09:25,040 --> 00:09:27,040
Speaker 2: Well, and I love that, And we'll get to more

153
00:09:27,080 --> 00:09:30,760
Speaker 2: specifics on junk science coming up. But that reminds me

154
00:09:30,840 --> 00:09:34,240
Speaker 2: of a previous guest or two that we've had on

155
00:09:34,360 --> 00:09:37,920
Speaker 2: who have said all of that, what you they would

156
00:09:37,960 --> 00:09:39,880
Speaker 2: say if they were here. Everything you just said is

157
00:09:39,920 --> 00:09:43,920
Speaker 2: true as long as the lab itself is not corrupt,

158
00:09:44,520 --> 00:09:48,520
Speaker 2: that the lab can exonerate or convict on the basis

159
00:09:48,520 --> 00:09:52,199
Speaker 2: of the quality of the science being conducted in the lab.

160
00:09:52,280 --> 00:09:57,120
Speaker 2: Even if the science itself is accepted that it still

161
00:09:57,160 --> 00:10:02,240
Speaker 2: has to be practiced in a way which makes it useful.

162
00:10:02,679 --> 00:10:04,880
Speaker 3: Absolutely, you know what I mean. They I mean there's

163
00:10:04,920 --> 00:10:06,960
Speaker 3: always bad actors, you know what I mean that you know,

164
00:10:07,040 --> 00:10:10,160
Speaker 3: can take an otherwise void technique and turn it into

165
00:10:10,440 --> 00:10:15,000
Speaker 3: you know, a a tool for you know, miscarriages of justice.

166
00:10:15,000 --> 00:10:16,719
Speaker 3: You know Eddie the Howard's case. You know, you talk

167
00:10:16,760 --> 00:10:20,800
Speaker 3: about Michael West and doctor Michael West who's a friend

168
00:10:20,840 --> 00:10:23,719
Speaker 3: of goodontologist and doctor Stephen Hayne, who's a friends of

169
00:10:23,800 --> 00:10:27,720
Speaker 3: pathologist or two of the most notorious Charlatan's you know,

170
00:10:27,800 --> 00:10:29,959
Speaker 3: in the annals of junk science. You know, I mean,

171
00:10:29,960 --> 00:10:33,360
Speaker 3: and you know one was working in you know, largely

172
00:10:33,480 --> 00:10:36,360
Speaker 3: valid field pathology and one was working in you know,

173
00:10:36,559 --> 00:10:39,600
Speaker 3: probably the junkiest field out there. But between the two

174
00:10:39,640 --> 00:10:42,839
Speaker 3: of them, they're responsible for, you know, hundreds of years

175
00:10:42,840 --> 00:10:46,000
Speaker 3: of wrongful incarceration and.

176
00:10:45,720 --> 00:10:50,000
Speaker 2: Into the probably into their own mind too. They thought

177
00:10:50,040 --> 00:10:54,640
Speaker 2: of themselves as pioneers, and the fact that they were

178
00:10:54,640 --> 00:10:59,040
Speaker 2: getting paid you know, tens of thousands of dollars every year,

179
00:10:59,480 --> 00:11:05,560
Speaker 2: if not you know, considerably more to testify, to pick

180
00:11:05,679 --> 00:11:09,800
Speaker 2: up to do a kind of a cursory investigation. And

181
00:11:10,160 --> 00:11:15,280
Speaker 2: you talk about that in the book, where they yeah,

182
00:11:15,960 --> 00:11:18,680
Speaker 2: they looked at it enough to be able to tell

183
00:11:18,720 --> 00:11:22,120
Speaker 2: a jury that they did, but they weren't. Ever, there's

184
00:11:22,160 --> 00:11:30,719
Speaker 2: a lot of these professional witnesses, expert witnesses, who are

185
00:11:30,880 --> 00:11:34,080
Speaker 2: less about the truth and more about how much they're

186
00:11:34,120 --> 00:11:35,200
Speaker 2: going to make doing it.

187
00:11:35,840 --> 00:11:37,240
Speaker 3: Oh, one hundred percent, you know what I mean. And

188
00:11:37,320 --> 00:11:40,160
Speaker 3: it's funny that you call them and they referred to

189
00:11:40,200 --> 00:11:42,960
Speaker 3: them as pioneers of itself, to pioneers, you know, and

190
00:11:43,000 --> 00:11:46,320
Speaker 3: they you know, like you I quoted you know a

191
00:11:46,360 --> 00:11:49,520
Speaker 3: lot from the transcripts of these cases, and you know,

192
00:11:49,600 --> 00:11:53,000
Speaker 3: the prosecutor and maybe the Howard's case called Michael West,

193
00:11:53,040 --> 00:11:56,319
Speaker 3: you compared him to Galileo said that you were attached

194
00:11:56,320 --> 00:12:00,040
Speaker 3: for his groundbreaking youth. Right, it's just the same, and

195
00:12:00,160 --> 00:12:01,880
Speaker 3: it was really astonishing when I read that.

196
00:12:01,960 --> 00:12:06,160
Speaker 4: I just yeah, you couldn't believe it well, And I'm

197
00:12:06,200 --> 00:12:08,880
Speaker 4: afraid if we just get started with that particular case,

198
00:12:08,920 --> 00:12:10,680
Speaker 4: we'll get interrupted at the bottom of the hour break,

199
00:12:10,760 --> 00:12:12,559
Speaker 4: so we'll wait till after that, and then I really

200
00:12:12,640 --> 00:12:14,880
Speaker 4: want you to just tell that story.

201
00:12:15,240 --> 00:12:20,839
Speaker 2: But I had so how did you know this was

202
00:12:20,880 --> 00:12:23,280
Speaker 2: a guy who had the first case we're going to

203
00:12:23,280 --> 00:12:28,160
Speaker 2: talk about sort of parallels the another case that was

204
00:12:28,200 --> 00:12:32,080
Speaker 2: on the on the Netflix series on the Innocence Project

205
00:12:32,120 --> 00:12:36,200
Speaker 2: called the Innocence Files, and they both Some of that

206
00:12:36,440 --> 00:12:44,120
Speaker 2: was focused on the uh forensic ontology, the study of

207
00:12:44,120 --> 00:12:47,600
Speaker 2: of bite marks, and that was I mean, it sure

208
00:12:47,800 --> 00:12:50,200
Speaker 2: looks good. I mean look, I mean just as an

209
00:12:50,240 --> 00:12:55,960
Speaker 2: outside observer, it's like, AH, got them because they you know,

210
00:12:56,400 --> 00:12:58,400
Speaker 2: there are people that believe that there are no two

211
00:12:58,480 --> 00:13:03,000
Speaker 2: bite marks the same. It's like fingerprinting, it's like a

212
00:13:03,000 --> 00:13:06,080
Speaker 2: lot of things. And so if we got bite marks,

213
00:13:06,240 --> 00:13:08,560
Speaker 2: then we're going to lead. We are going to end

214
00:13:08,640 --> 00:13:11,840
Speaker 2: up with the actual killer. And I think that was

215
00:13:11,880 --> 00:13:15,720
Speaker 2: interesting that you started both the book and then The

216
00:13:15,720 --> 00:13:19,679
Speaker 2: The Innocence Project Netflix series kind of started with that

217
00:13:19,760 --> 00:13:23,760
Speaker 2: same premise about bite marks not a coincidence.

218
00:13:24,880 --> 00:13:29,040
Speaker 3: Well, you know it's not. It was a coincidence. You know,

219
00:13:29,120 --> 00:13:33,680
Speaker 3: I'm not sure. I am the it's really it's the

220
00:13:33,880 --> 00:13:37,439
Speaker 3: paradigmatic example of junk science. So it's useful in terms

221
00:13:37,480 --> 00:13:41,079
Speaker 3: of telling the story. And but really some of all

222
00:13:41,200 --> 00:13:43,920
Speaker 3: the problems that are associated with by mark evidence are

223
00:13:43,960 --> 00:13:46,719
Speaker 3: true for so many of the techniques that are still

224
00:13:46,720 --> 00:13:49,760
Speaker 3: admissible today, you know what I mean? And you touch

225
00:13:49,800 --> 00:13:52,840
Speaker 3: on something important about junk science and that it has

226
00:13:53,320 --> 00:13:56,240
Speaker 3: good intuitive appeal, right, you know what I mean. It's

227
00:13:56,240 --> 00:13:58,880
Speaker 3: that if you're not critically thinking about it, it makes sense.

228
00:13:59,240 --> 00:14:02,200
Speaker 3: You think about blood, blood leedding you know was lasted,

229
00:14:02,440 --> 00:14:05,000
Speaker 3: you know, made enough into a defense last two thousand years,

230
00:14:05,080 --> 00:14:07,640
Speaker 3: you know, I mean, you know I'm sick. My blood

231
00:14:07,800 --> 00:14:09,679
Speaker 3: is sick. You know, I get some new blood and

232
00:14:09,679 --> 00:14:13,000
Speaker 3: I'll feel better. Sameous to with bite marks, right, you know, say, well,

233
00:14:13,120 --> 00:14:16,400
Speaker 3: you know what, we've seen this bite mark on this corpse,

234
00:14:16,440 --> 00:14:18,160
Speaker 3: you know, and if we found the teeth that matched

235
00:14:18,240 --> 00:14:20,800
Speaker 3: that bite mark, we would have our killer. But there

236
00:14:20,840 --> 00:14:25,560
Speaker 3: was never any research, There was never any proficiency testing.

237
00:14:25,600 --> 00:14:29,120
Speaker 3: There was never any ability to diagnose a particular jury

238
00:14:29,160 --> 00:14:30,960
Speaker 3: as a bite mark. It was a total guest work,

239
00:14:31,000 --> 00:14:34,680
Speaker 3: and it totally invented, you know, field that had no

240
00:14:34,760 --> 00:14:36,480
Speaker 3: basis in science. And one of the things that was

241
00:14:36,520 --> 00:14:38,680
Speaker 3: astonishing to me is I never saw this in any

242
00:14:38,680 --> 00:14:41,280
Speaker 3: cross examination of any of the cases that I took.

243
00:14:42,200 --> 00:14:43,400
Speaker 3: Is that it should have blown it out of the

244
00:14:43,440 --> 00:14:46,480
Speaker 3: water right from the beginning. And you say that, Okay,

245
00:14:46,600 --> 00:14:48,840
Speaker 3: let's just say that you could diagnose this as a bitemark.

246
00:14:49,040 --> 00:14:53,840
Speaker 3: A forensic odentologist comes in, sometimes days, sometimes weeks after

247
00:14:53,840 --> 00:14:57,440
Speaker 3: a murder, takes a photograph, many many, many, very precise

248
00:14:57,480 --> 00:14:59,720
Speaker 3: photographs of what he believes or she believes is a

249
00:14:59,760 --> 00:15:02,720
Speaker 3: bite and then they take the suspect and they try

250
00:15:02,760 --> 00:15:05,960
Speaker 3: to match it up to this pite mark. But skin

251
00:15:06,560 --> 00:15:11,080
Speaker 3: changes in a decomposing corpse hour to hour, day to day,

252
00:15:11,080 --> 00:15:13,800
Speaker 3: week to week. The same is true with the healing, right,

253
00:15:13,880 --> 00:15:16,720
Speaker 3: and so somebody that might match one hour might not

254
00:15:16,840 --> 00:15:17,840
Speaker 3: match the next hour.

255
00:15:17,720 --> 00:15:18,400
Speaker 1: Or the next day.

256
00:15:18,640 --> 00:15:20,720
Speaker 3: And I never saw a question about that, not once.

257
00:15:20,840 --> 00:15:23,920
Speaker 3: Imagine you mentioned fingerprints. Imagine if few prints matched one

258
00:15:24,000 --> 00:15:25,680
Speaker 3: day and then didn't match the next.

259
00:15:25,440 --> 00:15:32,760
Speaker 2: Didn't match the next day, right, you know, so just

260
00:15:32,880 --> 00:15:36,440
Speaker 2: to make the case too. There are also these really weird,

261
00:15:36,840 --> 00:15:40,920
Speaker 2: rare exceptions. Strange, I would be a better use of

262
00:15:40,960 --> 00:15:46,080
Speaker 2: the word, like the return of blood letting, which they're

263
00:15:46,080 --> 00:15:49,720
Speaker 2: doing with leeches for people who have obese certain problems

264
00:15:49,760 --> 00:15:53,760
Speaker 2: related to obesity. And it's just an experiment, but it's

265
00:15:53,760 --> 00:15:57,640
Speaker 2: something that was in new scientists and they're actually looking

266
00:15:57,680 --> 00:15:59,840
Speaker 2: at that. Again, it doesn't account for how it was

267
00:15:59,880 --> 00:16:04,360
Speaker 2: you before. But as you say, there are all sorts

268
00:16:04,360 --> 00:16:08,800
Speaker 2: of you know, they're on an hour by hour basis,

269
00:16:09,560 --> 00:16:12,840
Speaker 2: our bodies being what they are, both living and dying.

270
00:16:14,000 --> 00:16:17,600
Speaker 2: We would need almost like time lapse photography that's at

271
00:16:17,600 --> 00:16:20,240
Speaker 2: all time to be able to see what's working and

272
00:16:20,400 --> 00:16:20,960
Speaker 2: not working.

273
00:16:21,920 --> 00:16:24,160
Speaker 3: It's true, you know what I mean. This is why

274
00:16:24,200 --> 00:16:27,000
Speaker 3: we we have to, you know, go to the lab.

275
00:16:27,040 --> 00:16:29,400
Speaker 3: We have to do the foundational research, you know. I mean,

276
00:16:29,440 --> 00:16:31,160
Speaker 3: then we have to do the applied research. You know,

277
00:16:31,160 --> 00:16:34,160
Speaker 3: otherwise we're going to end up with wrongful convictions and

278
00:16:34,160 --> 00:16:37,320
Speaker 3: wrongful executions, you know. I mean, it's amazing to me

279
00:16:37,840 --> 00:16:40,720
Speaker 3: that we don't have something like the FDA for forensics.

280
00:16:40,800 --> 00:16:43,120
Speaker 3: You know that there's a government agency that doesn't do

281
00:16:43,200 --> 00:16:46,000
Speaker 3: validation research before it's used in criminal justice, and we

282
00:16:46,040 --> 00:16:50,960
Speaker 3: have that for toothpaste or mouthwash to the paper that

283
00:16:51,040 --> 00:16:53,880
Speaker 3: does that. We care more about consumer products. We care

284
00:16:53,920 --> 00:16:57,200
Speaker 3: more about toilet paper, and we write about the reliability

285
00:16:57,200 --> 00:16:59,960
Speaker 3: of toilet paper than we do about the reliability of science.

286
00:17:00,040 --> 00:17:02,840
Speaker 3: It used to condemn people in our justice system.

287
00:17:03,120 --> 00:17:06,400
Speaker 1: Listen to more Coast to Coast AM every weeknight at

288
00:17:06,400 --> 00:17:09,280
Speaker 1: one a m. Eastern and go to Coast to coastam

289
00:17:09,400 --> 00:17:10,480
Speaker 1: dot com for more