1 00:00:01,320 --> 00:00:04,000 Speaker 1: Hey folks, Kate Judson here. I'm a lawyer and the 2 00:00:04,080 --> 00:00:07,600 Speaker 1: executive director of the Center for Integrity and Forensic Sciences. 3 00:00:09,080 --> 00:00:12,240 Speaker 1: We're back with another episode of Junk Science, a series 4 00:00:12,280 --> 00:00:15,640 Speaker 1: we first released in twenty twenty, but these stories are 5 00:00:15,840 --> 00:00:19,400 Speaker 1: just as relevant as ever. This episode is about tool 6 00:00:19,480 --> 00:00:23,200 Speaker 1: mark evidence, which includes the long used practice of matching 7 00:00:23,360 --> 00:00:29,400 Speaker 1: ammunition to specific firearms. For decades, ammunition matching has been 8 00:00:29,440 --> 00:00:32,599 Speaker 1: seen as a highly reliable way to link a suspect 9 00:00:32,640 --> 00:00:37,000 Speaker 1: to a crime scene, but the actual reliability of this 10 00:00:37,120 --> 00:00:41,519 Speaker 1: type of evidence is increasingly being questioned. Just recently, in 11 00:00:41,640 --> 00:00:45,480 Speaker 1: June of twenty twenty three, the Supreme Court of Maryland 12 00:00:45,960 --> 00:00:50,120 Speaker 1: ruled that ballistics matching may only be represented in court 13 00:00:50,159 --> 00:00:56,200 Speaker 1: by experts as consistent or inconsistent with the gun in question. 14 00:01:00,240 --> 00:01:02,800 Speaker 1: Like other courts in the past few years, they see 15 00:01:02,800 --> 00:01:05,880 Speaker 1: an issue with this type of evidence, something we'll explore 16 00:01:05,880 --> 00:01:09,440 Speaker 1: in more detail later in the episode. This ruling could 17 00:01:09,480 --> 00:01:14,280 Speaker 1: have huge consequences for wrongful conviction actions in Maryland and beyond. 18 00:01:15,080 --> 00:01:19,800 Speaker 1: While it doesn't automatically reopen cases, lawyers and wrongfully convicted 19 00:01:19,880 --> 00:01:23,560 Speaker 1: people can use it to petition courts for relief. 20 00:01:28,920 --> 00:01:33,839 Speaker 2: It's Valentine's Day, nineteen ninety one. You don't usually observe 21 00:01:33,880 --> 00:01:37,280 Speaker 2: the greeting card holidays. You think they're kind of silly, 22 00:01:37,480 --> 00:01:40,399 Speaker 2: and besides, most of the time, you and your partner 23 00:01:40,400 --> 00:01:44,720 Speaker 2: are both busy working. You're always buried in your client's cases, 24 00:01:45,160 --> 00:01:48,040 Speaker 2: and your partner is often on call, running back and 25 00:01:48,080 --> 00:01:51,880 Speaker 2: forth to the hospital to treat patients. Your friends are 26 00:01:51,920 --> 00:01:55,920 Speaker 2: always remarking that you're the classic power couple, but sometimes 27 00:01:55,920 --> 00:01:59,160 Speaker 2: it seems like it's all power and not so much couple. 28 00:02:00,080 --> 00:02:03,640 Speaker 2: So this year, you make dinner, put out a tablecloth, 29 00:02:04,040 --> 00:02:07,200 Speaker 2: and even light a candle. At the end of dinner, 30 00:02:07,200 --> 00:02:10,880 Speaker 2: you do the dishes and your partner takes out the trash. 31 00:02:11,480 --> 00:02:14,680 Speaker 2: The TV is on low in the background, but something 32 00:02:14,680 --> 00:02:18,440 Speaker 2: makes your ears perk up. You glance over and see 33 00:02:18,480 --> 00:02:21,679 Speaker 2: the newswoman reporting from a parking lot not too far 34 00:02:21,720 --> 00:02:26,040 Speaker 2: away from your house. She says, an explosion went off 35 00:02:26,120 --> 00:02:28,919 Speaker 2: not long ago. A man was hit in his leg 36 00:02:28,960 --> 00:02:33,040 Speaker 2: by shrapnel that exploded off a pipe bomb. It detonated 37 00:02:33,160 --> 00:02:37,959 Speaker 2: thirty yards away from where the man was walking. Listening 38 00:02:38,000 --> 00:02:41,880 Speaker 2: to this, you slowly shake your head. It's not uncommon 39 00:02:41,880 --> 00:02:45,480 Speaker 2: in Grand Junction, Colorado, for people to mess around with explosives. 40 00:02:45,760 --> 00:02:48,200 Speaker 2: After all, it's a mining down and people know how 41 00:02:48,200 --> 00:02:51,600 Speaker 2: to use dynamite. The reporter says, the man that was 42 00:02:51,680 --> 00:02:55,240 Speaker 2: hit will probably be Okay, you hope this is just 43 00:02:55,280 --> 00:02:59,520 Speaker 2: some kids joke gone wrong. But then a few weeks 44 00:02:59,600 --> 00:03:04,000 Speaker 2: later there's another news report. A twelve year old girl 45 00:03:04,080 --> 00:03:06,760 Speaker 2: named Maria gets into a van with her parents to 46 00:03:06,800 --> 00:03:10,160 Speaker 2: go shopping, and as the family sets out for the mall, 47 00:03:10,840 --> 00:03:14,320 Speaker 2: a bomb hidden near one of the rear tires explodes. 48 00:03:15,120 --> 00:03:17,760 Speaker 2: Shrapnel is flung through the back of the van's seat 49 00:03:17,800 --> 00:03:22,640 Speaker 2: and into Maria's body. It wedges into her heart. Her 50 00:03:22,680 --> 00:03:25,720 Speaker 2: parents frantically pull her out of the car, but she 51 00:03:25,919 --> 00:03:32,560 Speaker 2: dies right there. Three months after that, husband and wife 52 00:03:32,639 --> 00:03:36,800 Speaker 2: Henry and Suzanne, finish dinner at a local restaurant. They 53 00:03:36,880 --> 00:03:41,520 Speaker 2: drive by a strange looking object. Henry slows the car 54 00:03:41,600 --> 00:03:44,720 Speaker 2: down and reaches out to see what it is. His 55 00:03:44,960 --> 00:03:49,080 Speaker 2: arms are blown off his body and he dies instantly. 56 00:03:59,360 --> 00:04:02,480 Speaker 2: After that third bomb goes off, everyone in Grand Junction 57 00:04:02,680 --> 00:04:06,960 Speaker 2: is extremely anxious. You check under your car every single 58 00:04:07,000 --> 00:04:10,000 Speaker 2: time before you get in, and you continue to follow 59 00:04:10,040 --> 00:04:14,000 Speaker 2: the news coverage as it unfolds. The police department declares 60 00:04:14,040 --> 00:04:17,320 Speaker 2: that out of thirty initial suspects for the bombs. They've 61 00:04:17,400 --> 00:04:20,919 Speaker 2: narrowed it down to just one person. They don't renounce 62 00:04:20,920 --> 00:04:23,400 Speaker 2: who it is, but a camera crew must have gotten 63 00:04:23,400 --> 00:04:26,520 Speaker 2: tipped off because they start following around a young man 64 00:04:26,600 --> 00:04:32,160 Speaker 2: with big glasses. Then you get a phone call from 65 00:04:32,160 --> 00:04:36,400 Speaker 2: a man who identifies himself as Jimmy. He tells you 66 00:04:36,520 --> 00:04:40,600 Speaker 2: he is the suspect in these bombing cases. His words 67 00:04:40,640 --> 00:04:45,000 Speaker 2: come quickly and in fragments of sentences, he sounds scared. 68 00:04:45,760 --> 00:04:48,760 Speaker 2: He says he hasn't done anything wrong, and he hasn't 69 00:04:48,760 --> 00:04:52,360 Speaker 2: been arrested yet, but with cameras following him, he thinks 70 00:04:52,400 --> 00:04:55,480 Speaker 2: it's a good idea to get an attorney. He asks, 71 00:04:56,000 --> 00:04:59,880 Speaker 2: will you help me. You take all of this in 72 00:05:00,080 --> 00:05:03,440 Speaker 2: and think to I really want to be involved defending 73 00:05:03,480 --> 00:05:07,760 Speaker 2: someone who might have done something so horrific. But then again, 74 00:05:08,400 --> 00:05:12,560 Speaker 2: what if he's actually innocent. Everyone deserves an opportunity to 75 00:05:12,560 --> 00:05:17,200 Speaker 2: defend themselves. Ultimately, you agree to take on his case. 76 00:05:18,560 --> 00:05:21,560 Speaker 2: Soon after you become Jimmy's attorney, he gets a knock 77 00:05:21,600 --> 00:05:25,200 Speaker 2: at his door. The police enter his house with a warrant. 78 00:05:25,440 --> 00:05:29,880 Speaker 2: They turn his place inside out, Detectives vacuum the couch 79 00:05:29,960 --> 00:05:32,320 Speaker 2: and carpet to see if they can pick up any gunpowder. 80 00:05:33,200 --> 00:05:38,120 Speaker 2: Nothing all they found or some everyday tools, some pliers, 81 00:05:38,400 --> 00:05:42,400 Speaker 2: wire strippers. The tools that are taken from Jimmy's house 82 00:05:42,920 --> 00:05:45,680 Speaker 2: are brought down to the police station and tested in 83 00:05:45,720 --> 00:05:50,520 Speaker 2: the forensics lab. When the results come back, police arrests 84 00:05:50,600 --> 00:05:55,760 Speaker 2: Jimmy and he gets charged with murder. Of all the 85 00:05:55,800 --> 00:05:58,880 Speaker 2: people to pin this on, you do understand why they're 86 00:05:58,880 --> 00:06:03,560 Speaker 2: targeting Jimmy. He's somewhat of a loaner, definitely an oddball. 87 00:06:03,839 --> 00:06:06,880 Speaker 2: He often goes on late night walks by himself. He 88 00:06:06,920 --> 00:06:09,960 Speaker 2: can be found sitting alone at bars and getting pretty drunk. 89 00:06:11,560 --> 00:06:15,440 Speaker 2: Prior to the trial, the prosecution discloses the evidence they 90 00:06:15,440 --> 00:06:18,880 Speaker 2: intend to use against Jimmy to prove their case, and 91 00:06:18,920 --> 00:06:23,160 Speaker 2: it looks pretty bad. You spend countless days pouring over 92 00:06:23,200 --> 00:06:26,719 Speaker 2: the main piece of evidence, the conclusion of a tool 93 00:06:26,800 --> 00:06:30,919 Speaker 2: mark examiner. The report of this examiner says that the 94 00:06:30,960 --> 00:06:34,520 Speaker 2: impressions taken from the tools they found in Jimmy's apartment 95 00:06:35,160 --> 00:06:38,719 Speaker 2: can be scientifically linked to the tool marks left on 96 00:06:38,920 --> 00:06:42,320 Speaker 2: all three of the bombs. In all your years as 97 00:06:42,360 --> 00:06:45,560 Speaker 2: a criminal defense attorney, you've never heard of this type 98 00:06:45,600 --> 00:06:49,599 Speaker 2: of forensic analysis. You didn't even know it existed, But 99 00:06:49,720 --> 00:06:52,760 Speaker 2: you studied science and undergrad before you decided to become 100 00:06:52,800 --> 00:06:56,640 Speaker 2: a lawyer, so you know how to analyze these scientific documents. 101 00:06:57,480 --> 00:07:04,080 Speaker 2: You dig up everything you can find on tools, evidence, data, statistics, studies, experiments. 102 00:07:04,920 --> 00:07:08,560 Speaker 2: You find nothing. How are you supposed to defend against this? 103 00:07:09,480 --> 00:07:13,239 Speaker 2: If someone has a standard set of needlenos pliers, aren't 104 00:07:13,240 --> 00:07:15,680 Speaker 2: they likely to match up with the impressions made by 105 00:07:15,800 --> 00:07:20,640 Speaker 2: other needlenose pliers. At trial, the jury is shown a 106 00:07:20,720 --> 00:07:24,520 Speaker 2: video by the prosecution. A tool mark expert walks the 107 00:07:24,640 --> 00:07:28,320 Speaker 2: jurors through it. He tells them each tool has unique 108 00:07:28,360 --> 00:07:32,840 Speaker 2: microscopic characteristics. You can see how the tools we found 109 00:07:32,920 --> 00:07:37,320 Speaker 2: in the defendant's home aligned perfectly with marks found on 110 00:07:37,520 --> 00:07:42,760 Speaker 2: fragments of the exploded bombs. The jury is mesmerized by 111 00:07:42,760 --> 00:07:47,800 Speaker 2: the videotape shown by the tool mark examiner after closing arguments, 112 00:07:47,920 --> 00:07:51,440 Speaker 2: when they begin their deliberations, the first note they send 113 00:07:51,440 --> 00:07:55,160 Speaker 2: out is a request to see that video. They view 114 00:07:55,200 --> 00:08:00,840 Speaker 2: it over and over and over again, and then the 115 00:08:00,880 --> 00:08:05,200 Speaker 2: bailiff informs you that the jury is done deliberating. Jimmy 116 00:08:05,280 --> 00:08:07,480 Speaker 2: is brought back into the courtroom from a holding cell. 117 00:08:08,600 --> 00:08:10,920 Speaker 2: You see the trepidation in his face as he takes 118 00:08:10,960 --> 00:08:13,840 Speaker 2: a seat, and you can actually hear him take a big, 119 00:08:14,120 --> 00:08:19,160 Speaker 2: nervous swallow. The jury files into the courtroom, and a 120 00:08:19,240 --> 00:08:24,440 Speaker 2: vein on your temple begins to pulsate in twitch. Jimmy 121 00:08:24,520 --> 00:08:29,240 Speaker 2: is convicted of multiple counts of murder. He is sentenced 122 00:08:29,280 --> 00:08:34,719 Speaker 2: to life in prison. The story you just heard is 123 00:08:34,760 --> 00:08:38,359 Speaker 2: based on the true events of the bombings in Grand Junction, Colorado, 124 00:08:38,400 --> 00:08:42,320 Speaker 2: in nineteen ninety one and the subsequent trial of Jimmy Genrich. 125 00:08:43,320 --> 00:08:46,319 Speaker 2: Jimmy has been in prison for more than twenty five years, 126 00:08:46,520 --> 00:08:50,040 Speaker 2: serving a life sentence. His latest appeal has been taken 127 00:08:50,120 --> 00:08:56,840 Speaker 2: up by the Innocence Project. I'm Josh Dubin, civil rights 128 00:08:56,880 --> 00:09:01,080 Speaker 2: and criminal defense attorney, an Innocent Ambassador Innocence Project in 129 00:09:01,120 --> 00:09:06,160 Speaker 2: New York. Today, on wrongful Conviction junk Science, we examined 130 00:09:06,240 --> 00:09:11,280 Speaker 2: tool mark analysis. It turns out the crime that popularized 131 00:09:11,320 --> 00:09:16,400 Speaker 2: tourl maark analysis was also committed on Valentine's Day over 132 00:09:16,520 --> 00:09:18,280 Speaker 2: ninety years ago. 133 00:09:22,800 --> 00:09:26,160 Speaker 3: When three dozen former Brooklyn Navy yard workers found themselves 134 00:09:26,200 --> 00:09:29,600 Speaker 3: irreparably poisoned by the asbestos they used in the construction 135 00:09:29,679 --> 00:09:32,520 Speaker 3: of the battleships that won World War Two. Perry White 136 00:09:32,600 --> 00:09:36,040 Speaker 3: and Arthur Luxembourg literally put everything on the line to 137 00:09:36,120 --> 00:09:39,680 Speaker 3: successfully represent them. Since then, they've championed the rights of 138 00:09:39,720 --> 00:09:43,760 Speaker 3: over fifty thousand regular Americans injured through the negligence and 139 00:09:43,840 --> 00:09:48,120 Speaker 3: malfeasance of mainly large corporations. Their ability to level the 140 00:09:48,160 --> 00:09:51,760 Speaker 3: playing field against seemingly insurmountable odds has led them to 141 00:09:51,840 --> 00:09:55,920 Speaker 3: litigate against opponents as diverse as Big Pharma all the 142 00:09:55,920 --> 00:09:59,240 Speaker 3: way to those responsible for rendering the water of Flint, 143 00:09:59,240 --> 00:10:03,200 Speaker 3: Michigan drinkable. Whites and Luxembourg ticket personally when there's a 144 00:10:03,200 --> 00:10:06,880 Speaker 3: miscarriage of justice anywhere, and therefore they feel a sense 145 00:10:06,880 --> 00:10:10,600 Speaker 3: of responsibility to support Bramfel conviction podcasts. You can learn 146 00:10:10,600 --> 00:10:14,360 Speaker 3: more about them by visiting Whiteeslux dot com. That's w 147 00:10:14,679 --> 00:10:25,280 Speaker 3: E I t Z lux dot com. 148 00:10:25,320 --> 00:10:30,079 Speaker 2: You've all heard of the legendary mobster Al Capone. During 149 00:10:30,080 --> 00:10:33,400 Speaker 2: the Roaring twenties, he was the leader of the Chicago Mafia. 150 00:10:34,240 --> 00:10:40,120 Speaker 2: Anything corrupt or illegal. He controlled it, from bootlegging to speakeasies, 151 00:10:40,400 --> 00:10:45,480 Speaker 2: gambling to prostitution. Capone owned it all. But there was 152 00:10:45,559 --> 00:10:50,000 Speaker 2: one rival gang that Capone couldn't quite shake. The irishmafia 153 00:10:50,520 --> 00:10:55,880 Speaker 2: led by George bugs Moran. They were manufacturing and selling alcohol, 154 00:10:56,400 --> 00:11:00,880 Speaker 2: stepping on Capone's business. Now Capone he wasn't gonna have it. 155 00:11:01,400 --> 00:11:05,280 Speaker 2: He got hold of some police uniforms and on February fourteenth, 156 00:11:05,520 --> 00:11:10,120 Speaker 2: Valentine's Day, nineteen twenty nine, four of Capone's men, dressed 157 00:11:10,160 --> 00:11:13,360 Speaker 2: as police officers, went over to the garage where bugs 158 00:11:13,400 --> 00:11:17,760 Speaker 2: Moran's gang was producing and selling alcohol. Capone's crew took 159 00:11:17,800 --> 00:11:21,240 Speaker 2: the Irish mob by surprise. They started screaming with their 160 00:11:21,280 --> 00:11:25,360 Speaker 2: guns drawn, line up against the wall, hands where I 161 00:11:25,400 --> 00:11:29,199 Speaker 2: can see him. You're all under arrest. All seven of 162 00:11:29,240 --> 00:11:32,520 Speaker 2: the Irish gangsters lined up against the wall, hands on 163 00:11:32,600 --> 00:11:35,920 Speaker 2: their heads, while Capone's crew shot them all dead in 164 00:11:36,040 --> 00:11:40,920 Speaker 2: broad daylight. By the time the real police arrived, Capone's 165 00:11:40,920 --> 00:11:45,040 Speaker 2: gang was long gone. The cops had more than a 166 00:11:45,120 --> 00:11:48,440 Speaker 2: hunch about who was responsible for this, but they needed 167 00:11:48,480 --> 00:11:51,560 Speaker 2: the hard evidence to prove it, so they raided the 168 00:11:51,559 --> 00:11:54,280 Speaker 2: home of one of Capone's top guys, who went by 169 00:11:54,280 --> 00:11:57,840 Speaker 2: the name of Frank Killer Burke. They took his gun 170 00:11:58,240 --> 00:12:00,120 Speaker 2: and sent it off to what was one of the 171 00:11:59,880 --> 00:12:05,120 Speaker 2: first crime labs in the country. There, an examiner named 172 00:12:05,200 --> 00:12:08,960 Speaker 2: Calvin Goddard shot some test bullets out of the confiscated gun. 173 00:12:09,679 --> 00:12:12,160 Speaker 2: He put one of the test bullets and one of 174 00:12:12,160 --> 00:12:15,679 Speaker 2: the bullets found at the massacre under a special microscope 175 00:12:15,679 --> 00:12:19,400 Speaker 2: that allowed him to compare two images at once. This 176 00:12:19,559 --> 00:12:25,000 Speaker 2: examiner actually invented this technique of comparing bullets. He claimed 177 00:12:25,000 --> 00:12:28,400 Speaker 2: that no two revolvers leave the same mark, and that 178 00:12:28,480 --> 00:12:31,560 Speaker 2: by examining the grooves on the bullets, he claimed he 179 00:12:31,559 --> 00:12:36,000 Speaker 2: could identify the gun that shot them. According to Goddard, 180 00:12:36,320 --> 00:12:39,840 Speaker 2: the bullets of the confiscated gun indeed matched the bullets 181 00:12:39,880 --> 00:12:42,679 Speaker 2: found at the scene of the crime, but the police 182 00:12:42,679 --> 00:12:45,679 Speaker 2: couldn't do much with that evidence. They couldn't prove that 183 00:12:45,720 --> 00:12:49,120 Speaker 2: the owner of the gun, Frank Killer Burke, had been 184 00:12:49,160 --> 00:12:52,320 Speaker 2: at the scene of the crime, and so no one 185 00:12:52,400 --> 00:12:56,160 Speaker 2: was ever charged for what became known as the Valentine's 186 00:12:56,240 --> 00:13:01,600 Speaker 2: Day massacre. The analysis the invented is now known as 187 00:13:01,679 --> 00:13:05,920 Speaker 2: tool mark and firearm analysis. Forensic analysts that follow in 188 00:13:05,920 --> 00:13:08,800 Speaker 2: his footsteps believe that just as each gun leaves a 189 00:13:08,880 --> 00:13:11,880 Speaker 2: unique mark on every bullet that it shoots, each tool 190 00:13:11,960 --> 00:13:15,439 Speaker 2: leaves unique mark on the surface it's used on. But 191 00:13:15,480 --> 00:13:18,640 Speaker 2: no one had closely examined the false assumptions behind tool 192 00:13:18,679 --> 00:13:23,000 Speaker 2: mark identification. What was being presented to jury's was this 193 00:13:23,200 --> 00:13:25,680 Speaker 2: notion that a tool will leave a unique mark on 194 00:13:25,720 --> 00:13:30,079 Speaker 2: a surface. But it turns out that's not necessarily the case. 195 00:13:31,320 --> 00:13:34,760 Speaker 2: If two people own a similar wrench, for instance, both 196 00:13:34,800 --> 00:13:38,640 Speaker 2: wrenches will leave behind a similar mark, So matching a 197 00:13:38,679 --> 00:13:41,240 Speaker 2: mark to a tool owned by a suspect has very 198 00:13:41,280 --> 00:13:46,360 Speaker 2: limited value. Nevertheless, these experts were claiming that a tool 199 00:13:46,440 --> 00:13:49,679 Speaker 2: found at the home of a suspect was the precise 200 00:13:49,760 --> 00:13:53,360 Speaker 2: tool that was used, for example, to cut wires during 201 00:13:53,400 --> 00:13:57,559 Speaker 2: the construction of a bomb. This kind of flawed evidence 202 00:13:57,679 --> 00:14:01,280 Speaker 2: continued to be presented in courtrooms across the country to 203 00:14:01,400 --> 00:14:06,559 Speaker 2: link suspects to crimes, leading to several wrongful convictions, including 204 00:14:06,640 --> 00:14:10,920 Speaker 2: that of Jimmy Genrich in nineteen ninety two. 205 00:14:13,200 --> 00:14:16,800 Speaker 4: It was just so obvious to me that this was 206 00:14:16,880 --> 00:14:21,440 Speaker 4: not you know, this was not a foundationally strong field, 207 00:14:21,840 --> 00:14:26,040 Speaker 4: and I was absolutely stunned because the consequences of this 208 00:14:26,400 --> 00:14:29,120 Speaker 4: stuff can't be higher. You know, people go to prison 209 00:14:29,200 --> 00:14:33,920 Speaker 4: for years, they're sentenced to death. I mean, essentially, for 210 00:14:33,960 --> 00:14:37,280 Speaker 4: this to be totally unproven science, I just absolutely could 211 00:14:37,360 --> 00:14:38,000 Speaker 4: not believe it. 212 00:14:39,080 --> 00:14:43,440 Speaker 2: Today we're talking to Tim Riquarth. Tim's a freelance journalists 213 00:14:43,520 --> 00:14:47,400 Speaker 2: who often writes about the intersection between science and criminal justice. 214 00:14:47,960 --> 00:14:51,160 Speaker 2: He's also a lecturer in science and writing at NYU. 215 00:14:52,360 --> 00:14:55,480 Speaker 2: We're particularly excited to talk to him today because he 216 00:14:55,600 --> 00:14:58,840 Speaker 2: wrote about Jimmy Genrich's case for an article published by 217 00:14:58,840 --> 00:15:03,200 Speaker 2: The Nation. He and his co author extensively researched the case, 218 00:15:03,400 --> 00:15:05,680 Speaker 2: along with the tool mark evidence that was used to 219 00:15:05,720 --> 00:15:09,640 Speaker 2: convict Jimmy. Now, a lot of this episode is based 220 00:15:09,680 --> 00:15:12,960 Speaker 2: on this article that Tim wrote, So after listening to 221 00:15:13,000 --> 00:15:15,200 Speaker 2: this episode, if you want to learn more about tool 222 00:15:15,240 --> 00:15:18,480 Speaker 2: mark evidence in Jimmy's case, you can find the article 223 00:15:18,520 --> 00:15:22,800 Speaker 2: on our show notes. So, Tim, tell us about your background. 224 00:15:22,920 --> 00:15:25,280 Speaker 2: How did you get into writing about science? 225 00:15:26,600 --> 00:15:31,000 Speaker 4: So, for undergraduate, I studied literature and writing, and it 226 00:15:31,040 --> 00:15:34,240 Speaker 4: wasn't until after I'd graduated. I happened to be living 227 00:15:34,280 --> 00:15:37,600 Speaker 4: across the street from a medical school in Chicago, and 228 00:15:37,720 --> 00:15:40,840 Speaker 4: at the same time, my father was suffering from dementia, 229 00:15:41,520 --> 00:15:44,120 Speaker 4: and the books and articles that I was reading on 230 00:15:44,160 --> 00:15:48,160 Speaker 4: dementia didn't quite satisfy me, and so I decided to 231 00:15:48,240 --> 00:15:51,920 Speaker 4: volunteer in a lab that studied dementia. And it was 232 00:15:51,960 --> 00:15:54,160 Speaker 4: at that point that I was first introduced to research, 233 00:15:54,640 --> 00:15:56,560 Speaker 4: and I was hooked. So I went back to school, 234 00:15:56,720 --> 00:15:59,600 Speaker 4: took all of the basic science classes that I hadn't 235 00:15:59,640 --> 00:16:03,880 Speaker 4: taken undergrad and eventually enrolled in a masters, And you know, 236 00:16:03,920 --> 00:16:06,680 Speaker 4: ten years later I found myself in probably with a 237 00:16:06,960 --> 00:16:12,240 Speaker 4: PhD in neuroscience. The sort of breadth of questions and 238 00:16:12,360 --> 00:16:16,520 Speaker 4: material that you could really dive into as a journalist 239 00:16:16,640 --> 00:16:19,920 Speaker 4: or a writer just felt so much more expansive than 240 00:16:19,960 --> 00:16:22,160 Speaker 4: what I could do as a scientist. And so I 241 00:16:22,200 --> 00:16:24,720 Speaker 4: sort of had the realization later on in my PhD 242 00:16:24,880 --> 00:16:28,720 Speaker 4: that research heavy, investigative type of pieces were a really 243 00:16:28,760 --> 00:16:33,520 Speaker 4: good fit for somebody who's trained in answering big questions. 244 00:16:34,160 --> 00:16:37,200 Speaker 2: So before writing this story about tool mark evidence, what 245 00:16:37,240 --> 00:16:40,000 Speaker 2: did you know about any forensic science? 246 00:16:40,040 --> 00:16:44,440 Speaker 4: Before that the first story I did about forensic science, 247 00:16:44,720 --> 00:16:47,120 Speaker 4: I didn't know a lot about it at the time. Then, 248 00:16:48,000 --> 00:16:50,560 Speaker 4: you know, anybody might from watching Law and Order or CSI. 249 00:16:51,400 --> 00:16:54,200 Speaker 4: We profiled the specific case and it involved to a 250 00:16:54,320 --> 00:16:58,000 Speaker 4: mark evidence, and we looked at all of the research 251 00:16:58,120 --> 00:17:02,120 Speaker 4: in the forensic journal. I mean, we went through and 252 00:17:02,160 --> 00:17:08,200 Speaker 4: found every single study and most of them were very 253 00:17:08,240 --> 00:17:12,399 Speaker 4: small sample sizes, very theoretical, or had all kinds of 254 00:17:12,560 --> 00:17:17,320 Speaker 4: methodological design problems, and I was absolutely stunned because this 255 00:17:17,400 --> 00:17:19,600 Speaker 4: is like a solved problem. Like we know how to 256 00:17:19,680 --> 00:17:24,200 Speaker 4: do strong empirical scientific studies to see if something works 257 00:17:24,280 --> 00:17:26,919 Speaker 4: or not. Like take a medical study, which if you 258 00:17:26,920 --> 00:17:29,440 Speaker 4: want to see if a drug has an effect, you 259 00:17:29,800 --> 00:17:34,040 Speaker 4: randomly select two groups of people and you assign one 260 00:17:34,080 --> 00:17:36,159 Speaker 4: of them to get the drug and another one to 261 00:17:36,200 --> 00:17:40,120 Speaker 4: get a placebo which has no effect. You blind both 262 00:17:40,160 --> 00:17:42,919 Speaker 4: the people so they don't know that they're getting the drug, 263 00:17:43,040 --> 00:17:45,320 Speaker 4: and you also blind the researchers so they don't know 264 00:17:45,359 --> 00:17:48,520 Speaker 4: who is getting the drug. You decide ahead of time 265 00:17:48,640 --> 00:17:51,639 Speaker 4: what analysis you're going to do, what outcomes you're going 266 00:17:51,720 --> 00:17:55,960 Speaker 4: to look for, and then you test those using rigorous 267 00:17:56,040 --> 00:17:59,320 Speaker 4: hypothesis testing and statistics to see what happens. And in 268 00:17:59,440 --> 00:18:05,480 Speaker 4: forensics sciences that just it doesn't exist. The practitioners doing 269 00:18:05,480 --> 00:18:09,240 Speaker 4: them are often not blinded, the sample sizes are very low, 270 00:18:09,960 --> 00:18:14,720 Speaker 4: there's conflicts of interest, so it's not following some of 271 00:18:14,760 --> 00:18:19,040 Speaker 4: the most basic tenets that you know would be reflexive 272 00:18:19,680 --> 00:18:22,840 Speaker 4: to your you know, typical scientist in a university. 273 00:18:23,200 --> 00:18:26,399 Speaker 2: I mean most people, especially lay people on a jury, 274 00:18:26,400 --> 00:18:30,919 Speaker 2: hear the words forensic science, and you know, they imagine 275 00:18:30,960 --> 00:18:35,160 Speaker 2: this very pristine process in which things are tested and retested, 276 00:18:35,240 --> 00:18:38,760 Speaker 2: because you know, we all think of the scientific method 277 00:18:38,800 --> 00:18:41,679 Speaker 2: that we learn about in school, and it's kind of 278 00:18:42,080 --> 00:18:45,879 Speaker 2: startling to know that that's not actually the case. So 279 00:18:46,200 --> 00:18:49,439 Speaker 2: what you said really underscores what we've been saying throughout 280 00:18:49,520 --> 00:18:52,080 Speaker 2: this show and how big of a problem it can 281 00:18:52,119 --> 00:18:57,560 Speaker 2: be when jurors confuse what's really junk science presented in 282 00:18:57,600 --> 00:19:03,240 Speaker 2: courtrooms with trig additional science that's used to develop medicines. 283 00:19:03,280 --> 00:19:07,439 Speaker 2: For example. And I'm not sure that our listeners are 284 00:19:07,480 --> 00:19:09,760 Speaker 2: aware of this, but I want you to think about 285 00:19:09,800 --> 00:19:12,960 Speaker 2: this for a moment. In cases where people were later 286 00:19:13,119 --> 00:19:18,719 Speaker 2: proven to be innocent based on DNA, forty five percent 287 00:19:18,800 --> 00:19:23,520 Speaker 2: of those wrongful convictions are based on some misapplication of 288 00:19:23,560 --> 00:19:24,520 Speaker 2: forensic science. 289 00:19:25,760 --> 00:19:28,240 Speaker 4: Imagine if this were the FDA, right Imagine if a 290 00:19:28,320 --> 00:19:30,640 Speaker 4: drug didn't work fifty percent of the time and had 291 00:19:30,680 --> 00:19:33,600 Speaker 4: horrible side effects, they wouldn't just say, well, you know, 292 00:19:33,680 --> 00:19:35,760 Speaker 4: we already approved it, so let's just leave it on 293 00:19:35,800 --> 00:19:38,280 Speaker 4: the market. That's not how it works in medicine, but 294 00:19:38,320 --> 00:19:39,600 Speaker 4: that is how it works in the law. 295 00:19:40,440 --> 00:19:43,159 Speaker 2: So let's get into Jimmy's case. I want you to 296 00:19:43,200 --> 00:19:46,000 Speaker 2: tell us about the crime that led to his arrest 297 00:19:46,760 --> 00:19:48,639 Speaker 2: and the town that had happened, and why did they 298 00:19:48,640 --> 00:19:51,840 Speaker 2: even decide to zero in on Jimmy in the first place. 299 00:19:53,119 --> 00:19:56,399 Speaker 4: Grand Junction is a sort of mining town of about 300 00:19:56,400 --> 00:19:59,159 Speaker 4: thirty thousand people at the time, and there is a 301 00:19:59,240 --> 00:20:02,640 Speaker 4: series of pipe bombs that went off in the town. 302 00:20:03,359 --> 00:20:05,000 Speaker 4: There were three of them, and one of them killed 303 00:20:05,080 --> 00:20:08,600 Speaker 4: a twelve year old girl. It was it was very tragic, 304 00:20:08,600 --> 00:20:11,960 Speaker 4: and they had they were seemingly random, and they had 305 00:20:11,560 --> 00:20:16,879 Speaker 4: no suspect, and so the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 306 00:20:16,960 --> 00:20:21,000 Speaker 4: Firearms was called in and they helped the local police 307 00:20:21,040 --> 00:20:23,400 Speaker 4: force do a bomb investigation to try to figure out 308 00:20:23,400 --> 00:20:25,399 Speaker 4: who this was. They had a list of, you know, 309 00:20:25,440 --> 00:20:28,800 Speaker 4: something like thirty suspects. There was this guy, Jimmy, who 310 00:20:28,840 --> 00:20:32,000 Speaker 4: was sort of a loner. Lived in a boarding house 311 00:20:32,480 --> 00:20:36,040 Speaker 4: near downtown in a twelve by twelve room. I think 312 00:20:36,080 --> 00:20:37,959 Speaker 4: he was a busboy in a restaurant, but was on 313 00:20:38,040 --> 00:20:42,359 Speaker 4: and off of jobs. His mother would bring him, you know, 314 00:20:42,440 --> 00:20:46,240 Speaker 4: meals in a cooler, and he was a little bit 315 00:20:47,600 --> 00:20:51,240 Speaker 4: you know, he had some problems with mental illness. There 316 00:20:51,280 --> 00:20:53,560 Speaker 4: was one event in particular that put him on the 317 00:20:53,600 --> 00:20:56,600 Speaker 4: police's radar, which was he walked into a bookstore one 318 00:20:56,640 --> 00:20:58,480 Speaker 4: day and asked them to order a copy of the 319 00:20:58,520 --> 00:21:02,160 Speaker 4: Anarchist Cookbook, which contains a diagram of a pipe bomb, 320 00:21:03,000 --> 00:21:07,040 Speaker 4: and the bookstore owners had called the police, and once 321 00:21:07,080 --> 00:21:09,480 Speaker 4: they sort of pieced all of this together, that put 322 00:21:09,560 --> 00:21:12,680 Speaker 4: him at the top of the suspect list. They then 323 00:21:13,160 --> 00:21:19,080 Speaker 4: rated his sporting room and found some electronic parts, some 324 00:21:19,640 --> 00:21:24,120 Speaker 4: wire strippers and pliers that could conceivably have been used 325 00:21:24,160 --> 00:21:28,080 Speaker 4: to construct a bomb, and at that point they worked 326 00:21:28,080 --> 00:21:30,560 Speaker 4: to link him to the bomb. They didn't find any 327 00:21:30,640 --> 00:21:35,080 Speaker 4: other physical evidence, never found the Anarchist Cookbook. They painted 328 00:21:35,080 --> 00:21:37,959 Speaker 4: a picture of him as the kind of person who 329 00:21:38,040 --> 00:21:40,800 Speaker 4: would do this, But you have to have physical evidence 330 00:21:40,880 --> 00:21:45,760 Speaker 4: that links people to crimes in very the objective ways, 331 00:21:46,440 --> 00:21:48,280 Speaker 4: and they didn't have that in this case, other than 332 00:21:48,320 --> 00:21:51,000 Speaker 4: the tool mark analysis, which both the prosecutor and the 333 00:21:51,119 --> 00:21:54,639 Speaker 4: judge acknowledged in the trial transcript. They both acknowledged that 334 00:21:54,680 --> 00:21:57,600 Speaker 4: the entire case hinged on the tool mark analysis, and 335 00:21:57,680 --> 00:21:59,960 Speaker 4: if it were thrown out, there would be no case. 336 00:22:10,600 --> 00:22:14,200 Speaker 2: So how did they claim to identify Jimmy's tools as 337 00:22:14,440 --> 00:22:17,320 Speaker 2: the tools that were used on these bombs? 338 00:22:18,480 --> 00:22:22,320 Speaker 4: They look at these microscopic scratches or striations on the 339 00:22:22,359 --> 00:22:26,240 Speaker 4: bomb parts, and then they look at the suspects tools 340 00:22:26,280 --> 00:22:29,639 Speaker 4: and they make a mark on some other piece of 341 00:22:29,680 --> 00:22:33,480 Speaker 4: metal using a microscope. They compare the marks on the metal, 342 00:22:33,600 --> 00:22:37,520 Speaker 4: like their test marks, to the marks on the actual evidence, 343 00:22:37,960 --> 00:22:41,399 Speaker 4: and if those line up in the examiner's you know, 344 00:22:41,480 --> 00:22:45,080 Speaker 4: subjective judgment, they declare to match, and they say that 345 00:22:45,160 --> 00:22:47,679 Speaker 4: this was you know, the only tools that could have 346 00:22:47,720 --> 00:22:50,119 Speaker 4: made these marks, and therefore the owner of these tools 347 00:22:50,240 --> 00:22:52,439 Speaker 4: must have been the person who built the bombs. You know, 348 00:22:52,480 --> 00:22:56,680 Speaker 4: they use the word certainty, and that's very compelling to jurors, 349 00:22:56,960 --> 00:22:59,280 Speaker 4: but the truth is they don't know how certain it is. 350 00:22:59,720 --> 00:23:03,960 Speaker 4: These aren't exotic bomb making tools. They're three dollars pair 351 00:23:04,000 --> 00:23:06,560 Speaker 4: of pliers that you know, were sold at the local 352 00:23:06,880 --> 00:23:10,960 Speaker 4: hardware store. Perhaps so you could imagine that, you know, 353 00:23:11,000 --> 00:23:13,439 Speaker 4: a tool mark. Examiner could say something like, oh, it 354 00:23:13,480 --> 00:23:16,000 Speaker 4: was a really large pair of pliers versus a small one, 355 00:23:16,080 --> 00:23:18,600 Speaker 4: or you know, it's consistent or something like that, but 356 00:23:18,640 --> 00:23:21,520 Speaker 4: they don't say that they individualize it. They say that 357 00:23:21,560 --> 00:23:24,760 Speaker 4: this is an exact match. And this isn't really a 358 00:23:24,840 --> 00:23:28,320 Speaker 4: possible conclusion to come to because you'd either have to 359 00:23:28,400 --> 00:23:32,080 Speaker 4: a test every other tool in the world and see 360 00:23:32,119 --> 00:23:35,680 Speaker 4: if this indeed was a unique mark that was being made, 361 00:23:36,280 --> 00:23:39,960 Speaker 4: or you would have to know the kinds of variations 362 00:23:39,960 --> 00:23:43,359 Speaker 4: that we see in tools, Like how common is it 363 00:23:43,440 --> 00:23:47,040 Speaker 4: that two tools can look about the same but aren't 364 00:23:47,080 --> 00:23:49,520 Speaker 4: the same? Is it you know, two tools that are 365 00:23:49,560 --> 00:23:51,800 Speaker 4: made by the same brand. Is it two tools that 366 00:23:51,880 --> 00:23:55,600 Speaker 4: come off the same you know, lot in a factory. 367 00:23:55,840 --> 00:23:58,720 Speaker 4: So there's all of these things that you'd need to quantify, 368 00:23:58,720 --> 00:24:01,360 Speaker 4: And even if you did do that, you'd have to say, 369 00:24:01,359 --> 00:24:04,159 Speaker 4: you know, there's a one in one hundred chants that 370 00:24:04,240 --> 00:24:06,080 Speaker 4: this is a different tool. There's a one in two 371 00:24:06,200 --> 00:24:08,120 Speaker 4: hundred chance, right, something like that. 372 00:24:08,760 --> 00:24:12,399 Speaker 2: Right, So you're saying that one issue is how many 373 00:24:12,400 --> 00:24:15,040 Speaker 2: tools can be said to match a mark left behind? 374 00:24:15,080 --> 00:24:16,919 Speaker 2: And we really don't know the answer to that. But 375 00:24:17,640 --> 00:24:20,560 Speaker 2: I guess another issue is the examiners doing the matching. 376 00:24:21,200 --> 00:24:24,520 Speaker 2: And the fact of the matter is that these examiners 377 00:24:25,200 --> 00:24:27,680 Speaker 2: never really have to prove whether or not they can 378 00:24:27,720 --> 00:24:31,240 Speaker 2: effectively match a tool to its mark. And there are 379 00:24:31,359 --> 00:24:34,000 Speaker 2: possible ways to test this, right, I mean, if a 380 00:24:34,119 --> 00:24:36,639 Speaker 2: lab wants to test how good someone is at this 381 00:24:36,760 --> 00:24:39,720 Speaker 2: kind of tool matching, they would send a tool mark 382 00:24:39,800 --> 00:24:44,240 Speaker 2: examiner some tools along with some wires or pieces of 383 00:24:44,320 --> 00:24:47,960 Speaker 2: metal with tool marks on them, and the examiners would 384 00:24:48,119 --> 00:24:50,960 Speaker 2: then be asked to match the correct tool to the marks, 385 00:24:51,640 --> 00:24:54,560 Speaker 2: and the lab would have all of the correct answers, 386 00:24:55,000 --> 00:24:58,120 Speaker 2: so they'd be able to tell how good these examiners 387 00:24:58,200 --> 00:25:02,920 Speaker 2: actually are. That kind of testing, which would show how 388 00:25:02,960 --> 00:25:07,080 Speaker 2: good these tool mark examiners are at their job, seems 389 00:25:07,280 --> 00:25:08,560 Speaker 2: like a simple thing to do. 390 00:25:08,520 --> 00:25:12,119 Speaker 4: Right, right, The real test is how well do you 391 00:25:12,200 --> 00:25:16,240 Speaker 4: examiners actually do in reality? And you would say, you know, 392 00:25:16,320 --> 00:25:19,200 Speaker 4: tool mark examiners make a mistake one out of ten times, 393 00:25:19,240 --> 00:25:20,960 Speaker 4: one out of one hundred times, one out of a 394 00:25:21,040 --> 00:25:24,080 Speaker 4: thousand times. That's what you really want to know is 395 00:25:24,119 --> 00:25:25,720 Speaker 4: how often do they make a mistake? 396 00:25:26,119 --> 00:25:28,080 Speaker 2: So why don't they actually do these tests? 397 00:25:29,119 --> 00:25:32,959 Speaker 4: If that comes back and it's really, really, it's not 398 00:25:33,040 --> 00:25:35,320 Speaker 4: so good, Right, you make an error fifty percent of 399 00:25:35,320 --> 00:25:38,680 Speaker 4: the time or twenty five percent of the time, you're 400 00:25:38,680 --> 00:25:41,800 Speaker 4: out of a job. You know, what are these examiners 401 00:25:41,840 --> 00:25:45,560 Speaker 4: going to do if this becomes a technique that is 402 00:25:45,600 --> 00:25:49,520 Speaker 4: no longer a valid technique in court? And you know, 403 00:25:49,600 --> 00:25:51,879 Speaker 4: I think that it's easy to have this narrative that 404 00:25:52,640 --> 00:25:57,679 Speaker 4: you know, these are unscrupulous scientists who are manipulating data 405 00:25:57,920 --> 00:26:01,000 Speaker 4: in a bloodthirsty way to get conviction. And I think 406 00:26:01,040 --> 00:26:04,200 Speaker 4: that's a very cartoonish way to think about it. There 407 00:26:04,200 --> 00:26:07,280 Speaker 4: are certainly cases of misconduct, and there are cases of 408 00:26:08,240 --> 00:26:11,520 Speaker 4: bad motives, but in reality, these are people who really 409 00:26:11,560 --> 00:26:15,240 Speaker 4: believed that what they were doing is true. 410 00:26:15,760 --> 00:26:18,879 Speaker 2: And you actually talked to the tool mark examiner in 411 00:26:18,960 --> 00:26:23,760 Speaker 2: Jimmy's case while you were researching your article. So what 412 00:26:23,840 --> 00:26:27,360 Speaker 2: impressions did you have after talking to someone that actually 413 00:26:27,440 --> 00:26:29,000 Speaker 2: specializes in this stuff. 414 00:26:30,160 --> 00:26:31,960 Speaker 4: I guess the thing that struck me the most as 415 00:26:31,960 --> 00:26:35,119 Speaker 4: a scientist is that there was an extreme lack of humility. 416 00:26:35,440 --> 00:26:39,000 Speaker 4: There is an extreme lack of acknowledging that these could 417 00:26:39,160 --> 00:26:44,000 Speaker 4: not be as infallible as they thought. They have a 418 00:26:44,119 --> 00:26:48,520 Speaker 4: very strong interest in proving that these techniques are very powerful. 419 00:26:49,080 --> 00:26:51,440 Speaker 4: There's a very strong sense of justice. There's a very 420 00:26:51,440 --> 00:26:56,160 Speaker 4: strong sense of righteousness. The posture of the forensic scientists 421 00:26:56,200 --> 00:26:59,239 Speaker 4: and prosecutors they spoke to is it was a bit 422 00:26:59,480 --> 00:27:02,040 Speaker 4: defense of right. The venue for these is a court 423 00:27:02,080 --> 00:27:05,240 Speaker 4: of law, which is an adversarial system, and to admit 424 00:27:05,440 --> 00:27:09,040 Speaker 4: any kind of fallibility or weakness is to weaken the case, 425 00:27:09,440 --> 00:27:13,520 Speaker 4: and that's it's just so against the culture to do that. 426 00:27:14,119 --> 00:27:16,679 Speaker 2: So in Jimmy's case, how does it all work? How 427 00:27:16,680 --> 00:27:20,199 Speaker 2: did the examiner present this tool mark evidence to the jury, 428 00:27:20,880 --> 00:27:23,360 Speaker 2: and how do you think they were able to convince 429 00:27:23,400 --> 00:27:26,560 Speaker 2: the jury that the results were correct? You know that 430 00:27:27,119 --> 00:27:29,520 Speaker 2: Jimmy's tools match the marks on those bombs. 431 00:27:30,760 --> 00:27:35,520 Speaker 4: The presentation of the tool mark evidence was a video presentation, 432 00:27:35,840 --> 00:27:38,720 Speaker 4: and I believe it was the defense attorney that said 433 00:27:38,720 --> 00:27:41,560 Speaker 4: she thought it was one of the first in the nation. Again, 434 00:27:41,600 --> 00:27:44,159 Speaker 4: this was in the early nineties, so this was the 435 00:27:44,160 --> 00:27:46,960 Speaker 4: first sort of video presentation of this kind of evidence. 436 00:27:46,960 --> 00:27:48,720 Speaker 4: Because the way that they do this again is looking 437 00:27:48,800 --> 00:27:53,520 Speaker 4: under a microscope and they line up these little microscopic 438 00:27:53,640 --> 00:27:56,879 Speaker 4: markings from the evidence with their little test cuts. You know, 439 00:27:56,920 --> 00:27:59,080 Speaker 4: it looks very convincing. You pick a little part where 440 00:27:59,080 --> 00:28:01,960 Speaker 4: they do line up and you're like, Aha, that must 441 00:28:02,000 --> 00:28:03,560 Speaker 4: be it, and then you ignore all the parts where 442 00:28:03,560 --> 00:28:05,520 Speaker 4: they don't line up, you know, which is you know, 443 00:28:05,600 --> 00:28:08,359 Speaker 4: part of the problem. During deliberations, the jury asked to 444 00:28:08,359 --> 00:28:10,919 Speaker 4: watch that video, you know, I think dozens of times. 445 00:28:11,480 --> 00:28:14,000 Speaker 4: So it was it was a very convincing presentation. 446 00:28:14,640 --> 00:28:17,880 Speaker 2: So in addition to tool mark examiners, you also talk 447 00:28:18,000 --> 00:28:21,320 Speaker 2: to some of the prosecutors who use this type of 448 00:28:21,400 --> 00:28:25,480 Speaker 2: analysis in their cases. What were their thoughts about using 449 00:28:25,480 --> 00:28:26,480 Speaker 2: this kind of evidence. 450 00:28:27,680 --> 00:28:31,480 Speaker 4: The same cognitive dissonance that would exist for forensic examiners 451 00:28:31,480 --> 00:28:34,760 Speaker 4: also exist for prosecutors. It's a lot to face that 452 00:28:34,840 --> 00:28:37,280 Speaker 4: these tools that you've relied on for so many cases 453 00:28:37,320 --> 00:28:40,280 Speaker 4: may not be as accurate as you thought they are, 454 00:28:40,400 --> 00:28:43,920 Speaker 4: meaning some of the people that you convicted were maybe 455 00:28:43,960 --> 00:28:47,400 Speaker 4: not guilty, and that you shouldn't use them moving forward. 456 00:28:47,640 --> 00:28:51,160 Speaker 4: It's a really hard it's a really hard pill to swallow. 457 00:28:51,960 --> 00:28:53,720 Speaker 4: I think one of the things that I was most 458 00:28:53,760 --> 00:28:57,360 Speaker 4: stunned by when we were interviewing prosecutors was the way 459 00:28:57,400 --> 00:29:01,680 Speaker 4: in which they would rely on legal rulings as a 460 00:29:01,720 --> 00:29:05,000 Speaker 4: substitute for scientific evidence. So what I mean by that 461 00:29:05,160 --> 00:29:08,320 Speaker 4: is we would say, you know, look, we've looked at 462 00:29:08,440 --> 00:29:11,680 Speaker 4: all of the evidence and they have not validated this 463 00:29:11,800 --> 00:29:16,080 Speaker 4: in a scientifically rigorous way, And the prosecutors retort to 464 00:29:16,160 --> 00:29:19,080 Speaker 4: that would be, well, yes, but we've used them, and 465 00:29:19,120 --> 00:29:22,360 Speaker 4: we've convicted guilty people, and it's gotten lots of lots 466 00:29:22,360 --> 00:29:25,320 Speaker 4: of legal rulings in our favor. And so therefore it 467 00:29:25,400 --> 00:29:28,280 Speaker 4: must be true. And so it's a very circular kind 468 00:29:28,320 --> 00:29:31,160 Speaker 4: of reasoning. It's almost like an invasive species. You have 469 00:29:31,240 --> 00:29:33,560 Speaker 4: this thing that's made its way into the courtroom, and 470 00:29:33,600 --> 00:29:37,040 Speaker 4: it gets locked in there by precedents, and it's really 471 00:29:37,080 --> 00:29:39,960 Speaker 4: really hard to get it out. And so that's the 472 00:29:40,040 --> 00:29:43,120 Speaker 4: reason that this stuff stays in courts. You know, science evolves. 473 00:29:43,520 --> 00:29:45,760 Speaker 4: Even if you thought something was true thirty years ago 474 00:29:46,120 --> 00:29:49,479 Speaker 4: and you decide it's not true today, you update, you know, 475 00:29:49,520 --> 00:29:52,520 Speaker 4: you revise, and the courts just don't want to do that. 476 00:29:52,720 --> 00:29:54,000 Speaker 4: They want to keep things the same. 477 00:29:54,600 --> 00:29:57,920 Speaker 2: You know, we often ask our guests to tell our 478 00:29:57,960 --> 00:30:01,400 Speaker 2: listeners what they can do to make sure this type 479 00:30:01,400 --> 00:30:05,600 Speaker 2: of evidence stops being presented to juries in our criminal 480 00:30:05,720 --> 00:30:10,360 Speaker 2: justice system. So what would you tell people a juror, 481 00:30:10,400 --> 00:30:12,960 Speaker 2: for instance, who has to make a decision about someone's 482 00:30:13,000 --> 00:30:16,840 Speaker 2: guilt or innocence when they are presented with forensic evidence. 483 00:30:17,520 --> 00:30:20,480 Speaker 4: If I had any advice to adjur you know, it's 484 00:30:20,560 --> 00:30:25,680 Speaker 4: to realize that there have been major reports by scientific 485 00:30:25,720 --> 00:30:32,160 Speaker 4: bodies that have found deep, deep problems with these techniques. 486 00:30:32,840 --> 00:30:36,560 Speaker 4: As convincing as it sounds, they're only telling you a 487 00:30:36,600 --> 00:30:41,440 Speaker 4: partial picture. And yet the courts have been unable to 488 00:30:42,000 --> 00:30:45,480 Speaker 4: bar them from being used. If you have a justice 489 00:30:45,520 --> 00:30:50,200 Speaker 4: system where that ends justifies the means, right, it's not 490 00:30:50,320 --> 00:30:53,320 Speaker 4: going to function fairly. And so we should all be 491 00:30:53,440 --> 00:30:58,040 Speaker 4: concerned when somebody is convicted by dubious means, because even 492 00:30:58,080 --> 00:31:02,440 Speaker 4: if that person was guilty, somebody else isn't going to 493 00:31:02,480 --> 00:31:05,400 Speaker 4: be and they're going to get convicted by those dubious 494 00:31:05,400 --> 00:31:08,960 Speaker 4: methods as well. You know, it's easy to be pessimistic 495 00:31:09,120 --> 00:31:12,680 Speaker 4: and almost fatalistic about the state of forensics in the courtroom, 496 00:31:12,680 --> 00:31:14,520 Speaker 4: but there are some bright spots. You know, there are 497 00:31:14,560 --> 00:31:17,880 Speaker 4: some rulings that seem really enlightened on the part of 498 00:31:18,400 --> 00:31:21,480 Speaker 4: the judges who are acknowledging that maybe these things do 499 00:31:21,600 --> 00:31:22,880 Speaker 4: need to be revisited. 500 00:31:23,400 --> 00:31:25,920 Speaker 2: And this is even true in regard to Jimmy's case. 501 00:31:26,520 --> 00:31:29,880 Speaker 2: The Innocence Project has picked up as appeal and are 502 00:31:29,920 --> 00:31:31,920 Speaker 2: trying to set a new kind of precedent. 503 00:31:32,880 --> 00:31:35,840 Speaker 4: They are going to have an evidentiary hearing, which means 504 00:31:35,840 --> 00:31:40,440 Speaker 4: that they'll have some reevaluation of the quality of the 505 00:31:40,440 --> 00:31:43,200 Speaker 4: tool mark evidence. So in that sense, you know, it's 506 00:31:43,200 --> 00:31:46,480 Speaker 4: from a legal sense, it's it's progress. Whether you know 507 00:31:46,560 --> 00:31:50,000 Speaker 4: this will pan out for Jimmy, is you know that's 508 00:31:50,000 --> 00:31:51,280 Speaker 4: still up in the air at this point. 509 00:31:53,600 --> 00:31:56,120 Speaker 2: So we often make a plea at the end of 510 00:31:56,160 --> 00:32:00,520 Speaker 2: every episode. Please write your local judges question the so 511 00:32:00,680 --> 00:32:04,240 Speaker 2: called science. Don't try to get out of jury service, 512 00:32:04,320 --> 00:32:09,600 Speaker 2: but rather serve as a conscientist, etc. And so on. Today, 513 00:32:09,720 --> 00:32:12,280 Speaker 2: I'm going to ask you to do something different, so 514 00:32:12,480 --> 00:32:16,600 Speaker 2: I'd like you to consider this. In the seventeen sixties, 515 00:32:16,760 --> 00:32:20,680 Speaker 2: an English judge named William Blackstone wrote an article entitled 516 00:32:20,880 --> 00:32:24,360 Speaker 2: Commentaries on the Laws of England. In it, he wrote 517 00:32:24,360 --> 00:32:30,040 Speaker 2: something extraordinary. It is better that ten guilty persons escape 518 00:32:30,280 --> 00:32:35,840 Speaker 2: than that one innocent suffer. This profound expression of humanity, 519 00:32:36,600 --> 00:32:40,040 Speaker 2: of the recognition that the sacrificing of one innocent person 520 00:32:40,640 --> 00:32:43,800 Speaker 2: should not be the cost of administering justice in any 521 00:32:43,840 --> 00:32:49,680 Speaker 2: civilized society, is at least to me, the personification of empathy. 522 00:32:50,120 --> 00:32:54,480 Speaker 2: This concept became known as Blackstone's ratio, and it's made 523 00:32:54,520 --> 00:32:57,520 Speaker 2: its way into the criminal justice system of virtually every 524 00:32:57,560 --> 00:33:04,280 Speaker 2: Western society. William Blackstone somehow realize that because accusing, convicting, 525 00:33:04,480 --> 00:33:08,200 Speaker 2: and condemning an innocent person to prison for a crime 526 00:33:08,240 --> 00:33:11,520 Speaker 2: they did not commit is the height of human suffering, 527 00:33:12,120 --> 00:33:16,440 Speaker 2: the most unimaginable nightmare that no man or woman should 528 00:33:16,520 --> 00:33:21,000 Speaker 2: have to bear. You've heard stories on this podcast about 529 00:33:21,320 --> 00:33:24,560 Speaker 2: terrible crimes and the junk signs that was used to 530 00:33:24,600 --> 00:33:28,760 Speaker 2: convict innocent men and women, and we mention their names 531 00:33:29,000 --> 00:33:32,840 Speaker 2: like Sante Tribble and Keith Allen Harwood and Jimmy Ginrich 532 00:33:33,320 --> 00:33:37,280 Speaker 2: and many others, But I think their suffering gets lost 533 00:33:37,320 --> 00:33:43,040 Speaker 2: in the shuffle. Wrongful convictions often get discussed in pop culture. 534 00:33:43,560 --> 00:33:47,360 Speaker 2: They certainly have a light shined on them, but we 535 00:33:47,440 --> 00:33:49,960 Speaker 2: often hear about them when the person that was wrongfully 536 00:33:49,960 --> 00:33:53,560 Speaker 2: convicted is getting out, when their nightmare is coming to 537 00:33:53,600 --> 00:33:57,080 Speaker 2: an end. We don't talk much about what they have 538 00:33:57,160 --> 00:34:02,320 Speaker 2: to endure in prison, everything from physical and sexual assaults, 539 00:34:03,000 --> 00:34:07,920 Speaker 2: the constant fear of losing their life, the unthinkable living conditions, 540 00:34:08,640 --> 00:34:14,560 Speaker 2: the isolation from family, friends, alienation from the world, advances 541 00:34:14,560 --> 00:34:19,600 Speaker 2: in technology, and even after they're exonerated, the pain never 542 00:34:19,640 --> 00:34:23,680 Speaker 2: really goes away. I once wrote an article about an 543 00:34:23,680 --> 00:34:28,160 Speaker 2: exonery named Walter Swift in Detroit, and I tried to 544 00:34:28,320 --> 00:34:31,839 Speaker 2: capture in it some of that suffering, and I really 545 00:34:31,840 --> 00:34:33,799 Speaker 2: don't think I can top it, so I'll just read 546 00:34:33,840 --> 00:34:38,399 Speaker 2: to you what I wrote. The sad reality is that 547 00:34:38,480 --> 00:34:43,319 Speaker 2: Walter has struggled terribly since his exoneration. He, as many 548 00:34:43,360 --> 00:34:47,880 Speaker 2: of the wrongfully incarcerated do, has battled substance abuse. He 549 00:34:47,920 --> 00:34:50,640 Speaker 2: has had a difficult time holding down jobs, and has 550 00:34:50,680 --> 00:34:54,440 Speaker 2: suffered from the type of profound psychological issues that are 551 00:34:54,480 --> 00:34:57,719 Speaker 2: the product of the inhumane confinement of an innocent man 552 00:34:57,800 --> 00:35:01,279 Speaker 2: to a cage for more than a quarter or century, 553 00:35:02,000 --> 00:35:08,040 Speaker 2: be exonerated or often angry, paranoid, and suffer from debilitating depression. 554 00:35:11,719 --> 00:35:13,920 Speaker 2: I've done this work for quite some time, and it 555 00:35:14,040 --> 00:35:16,880 Speaker 2: still brings me to the edge of crying even to 556 00:35:16,920 --> 00:35:21,040 Speaker 2: think about it. And I still don't get it, and 557 00:35:21,280 --> 00:35:26,160 Speaker 2: I don't think I ever really will. Their suffering is 558 00:35:26,160 --> 00:35:28,760 Speaker 2: on a level that is not meant to be comprehended. 559 00:35:28,840 --> 00:35:33,400 Speaker 2: It is too raw to piercing, too much for the 560 00:35:33,440 --> 00:35:42,319 Speaker 2: mind to process. Hopefully these stories, our words will make 561 00:35:42,320 --> 00:35:46,840 Speaker 2: a difference. My hope is always to get people to 562 00:35:46,880 --> 00:35:50,000 Speaker 2: think about the presumption of innocence and its importance in 563 00:35:50,040 --> 00:35:54,600 Speaker 2: the same way William Blackstone did. So today I'm going 564 00:35:54,680 --> 00:35:58,080 Speaker 2: to ask you to do something a little different. I 565 00:35:58,200 --> 00:36:01,200 Speaker 2: ask that if you ever find yourself pick to serve 566 00:36:01,280 --> 00:36:03,560 Speaker 2: on a jury, whether you tried to get out of it, 567 00:36:03,640 --> 00:36:08,200 Speaker 2: or not that you really consider the consequences of your verdict. 568 00:36:10,080 --> 00:36:15,120 Speaker 2: Think about what condemning an innocent person actually means. Think 569 00:36:15,160 --> 00:36:19,520 Speaker 2: about the suffering of that individual. Try to even shut 570 00:36:19,520 --> 00:36:29,880 Speaker 2: your eyes and picture the tearing away from their life spouses, children, grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends, 571 00:36:31,160 --> 00:36:43,160 Speaker 2: the confinement, the fear, the loneliness, the slow bleed of time, months, years, decades, 572 00:36:44,239 --> 00:36:50,959 Speaker 2: the absolute obliteration of a life. Maybe then we'll all 573 00:36:51,000 --> 00:36:56,520 Speaker 2: realize that we better be sure, beyond all reasonable doubt, 574 00:36:57,000 --> 00:37:01,799 Speaker 2: that we are getting it right. It is better that 575 00:37:01,920 --> 00:37:07,200 Speaker 2: ten guilty people go free than have one innocent person suffer. 576 00:37:15,719 --> 00:37:18,080 Speaker 2: We know that listeners of this show have already heard 577 00:37:18,120 --> 00:37:21,520 Speaker 2: a lot about Chorus confessions through another show in our stream, 578 00:37:21,880 --> 00:37:26,440 Speaker 2: Wrongful Conviction, False Confessions. On our show next week, we're 579 00:37:26,480 --> 00:37:29,319 Speaker 2: going to take a deep dive into the psychology of 580 00:37:29,400 --> 00:37:34,200 Speaker 2: course confessions to show how and why officers' methods are 581 00:37:34,280 --> 00:37:37,440 Speaker 2: so effective in pulling a false confession out of an 582 00:37:37,520 --> 00:37:42,399 Speaker 2: innocent person. We'll explore the junk science of course confessions 583 00:37:42,480 --> 00:37:47,439 Speaker 2: with David Rudolph, civil rights lawyer and hosts of the podcast. 584 00:37:46,960 --> 00:37:52,400 Speaker 5: Abuse of Power, Wrongful Conviction, Junk Science is a production 585 00:37:52,520 --> 00:37:55,840 Speaker 5: of Lava for Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company 586 00:37:55,880 --> 00:37:59,520 Speaker 5: Number One. Thanks to our executive producer Jason Flahm and 587 00:37:59,560 --> 00:38:03,200 Speaker 5: the team, it's Signal Company number One executive producer Kevin 588 00:38:03,239 --> 00:38:06,880 Speaker 5: Wartis and senior producers Kara Kornhaber and Brit Spangler. 589 00:38:07,680 --> 00:38:10,920 Speaker 2: Our music was composed by Jay Ralph. You can follow 590 00:38:10,960 --> 00:38:14,920 Speaker 2: me on Instagram at dubin Josh. Follow the Wrongful Conviction 591 00:38:15,040 --> 00:38:19,200 Speaker 2: podcast on Facebook and on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and 592 00:38:19,280 --> 00:38:20,960 Speaker 2: on Twitter at wrong Conviction