November2015FinalWeb

For as Little as $1000
Drive today!
NO Credit Check!
Call Today
252-338-4007
Dear Dr. Crime
Dr. Crime is a pseudonym for a social scientist holding
a Ph.D. degree in sociology and in criminology. He has
worked in all major parts of the criminal justice system.
Drop him a note at the website www.keepkidshome.net
If you or your child is in trouble, he may be able to help,
give him a call (2523390000)
Dear Dr. Crime: We can trust the use of fingerprints by law enforcement, can’t we? If the pert’s
fingerprints are found at the crime scene it means he was there and handled the items showing his
fingerprint, right? I am so upset with the crimes happening today, and see so little justice, I want to
know I can rely on something to be trustworthy.
Angry Citizen
Dear Citizen:
I have upsetting news. I fear we cannot rely on what we have been assuming are unshakable
assumptions about forensic science. A few years ago an inaccurate fingerprint ID by the FBI
resulted in an innocent man going to jail, so that the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine began a review of the science behind expert witness testimony. A
report was issued in 2009 and is discussed in an article just out in Science News1 calling it a
“damning report… deep cracks ran through several forensic bedrocks – especially those based on
expert interpretation of patterns.” The matching of fingerprints as a “match” is never definitive,
and should be described as a probability but we do not have good statistics to go on. The report
critiques more than fingerprint analysis and says that “There’s little evidence that handwriting and
bite-mark analyses can reliably identify people. Blood spatter experts read too much into stain
patters.” A very disturbing part of the Science News story concerned microscopic hair analysis,
indicating a recent report by the U S Justice Department and FBI indicated the level of errors by
hair examiners was very large. That report indicated where hair analysis linked people to crimes,
the forensic examiners make mistakes in 96% of the cases, and in 33 of the 257 error based
testimony cases, the pert had received the death penalty. Forensic scientists are moving to
develop other methods of identification of subjects, including bacteria and human odor. In the
case of fingerprints, there are small dots on all fingerprints that may improve the reliability of
analysis. Some of the new avenues of identification under study offer improvement, as for example
with pubic hair bacteria. It can identify individuals and tell where they have traveled and
aspects of their lifestyle. So the potential is good for more reliable and valid expert testimony. I
serve as an expert witness in delinquency, child custody and other social science oriented matters,
and that experience tells me this Science News Report is one all of us should read!
I will return to this issue in future columns.
Sudoku
facebook.com/AlbemarleTradingPost Albemarle Tradewinds November 2015 11