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