Weird Science
Testimony from forensic experts can be the most persuasive evidence presented at trial, but often juries don’t realize that the analysis of hair, fire, and even fingerprints may not be so scientific. And as the story of deputy Keith Pikett, master of the dog-scent lineup, shows, investigations can sometimes lead to the greatest crime of all: putting innocent people behind bars.
3 comments
Tuesday, April 27th, 2010, 10:27 pm
Charles Linch says:
Many things in forensic science have changed since 1994. Hair comparison microscopy is still very useful as a screening tool but should never be entered into court without supporting DNA analysis. I have published many papers regarding this. That implementation was 2 years too late for the Blair case since mtDNA testing only started in the U.S. 1996. Ordinary DNA testing only got good in 1998. In addition, now libel by false impression is legally action in Texas. It unfortunately was not in May, 2000.
The sky is not falling, it is getting more clear.
Tuesday, April 27th, 2010, 10:06 pm
Charles Linch says:
Edited out in my first comment to Texas Monthly staff. I told the jury " I could not say those hairs came from Ashley" as trial transcripts reveal.
Monday, April 26th, 2010, 9:42 pm
Charles Linch says:
The [Michael] Blair case was mine. I view this as excellent documentation with a few exceptions. Blair was not "exonerated", he may still be guilty of the murder of Estelle. The fact he confessed to several child rapes while on death row is significant and pleasing that he will never be released from prison. I pushed for post-conviction DNA testing in the media since I saw no such effort from his appellate attorneys. It is apparently more about juries thought process that we are here to convict regardless of the evidence.
My Library
