Stossel: Junk Science Locks Up Innocent People

DNA testing reveals that long-used forensic methods are error-riddled.

---------

---------

TV shows like CSI, Law & Order, and NCIS depict incredible technology for identifying criminals.

In one NCIS scene, a 3D hologram identifies a person's teeth, precisely matching the killer's bite to a bite mark on a victim. "A little 3D magic for clarity and I give you—the killer's incisors!" NCIS character "Abby" announces proudly.

John Stossel loves crazy Abby, but notes that in the real world, court-approved experts reach similar conclusions—without good science to back them up.

Alfred Swinton was convicted of murder after "bite mark expert" Dr. Gus Karazulas said Swinton's teeth matched a bite on a victim.

Karazulas told the TV show Cold Case Files: "We look at the evidence and we make sure that if we are going to make a decision it's gonna be a truthful decision."

But a decade later, DNA testing showed it was not Swinton's DNA on the bite mark. He was released after 18 years in prison.

To his credit, Karazulas now admits he was wrong. "Bite mark evidence is junk science," he tells us by email. He testified to that in court and resigned as a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

The verdict was wrong because bite mark analysis has never been scientifically proven, says Chris Fabricant of the Innocence Project, which represented Swinton.

Fabricant tells Stossel that bite mark analysis "is similar to you and I looking at a cloud, and then I say, 'John, doesn't that cloud look like a rabbit to you?' And you look at it and say, 'yeah, Chris, I think that does look like a rabbit.'"

Many experts agree. "Bite mark analysis is a subjective method," reads a 2016 report by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which notes that even the most positive studies on it find an error rate of 1-in-6.

NYPD detective Harry Houck tells Stossel that he agrees bite mark analysis has problems, but that it can be used as one piece in a puzzle to convict people.

Other methods have flaws, too. Even fingerprint analysis sometimes goes wrong, as do carpet fiber evidence, gun tracing, and hair matching.

Stossel asks Fabricant: "Why do judges admit this stuff? Why don't defense attorneys get it thrown out?" Fabricant answers: "We all went to law school because we don't know science, we don't know math. And if somebody comes in in a white lab coat...that's good enough for government work."

That shouldn't be the standard, says Stossel. Jurors and judges should be much more skeptical of "scientific" evidence.

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel, his independent production company, Stossel Productions, and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.

[dufasduck]

And through all of this, the police don't care. If they get a conviction of anybody, innocent or not, they are happy.

[nathanweisser]

Gosh this is one of my biggest nightmares

[trajan]

Just a thought. Our justice system encourages imprisoning as many people as possible. Guilty or innocent. Prosecutors have an incentive to put as many as possible in prison because it's the only way they can move up in the world. When they decide to run for any office they always mention their conviction records. Politicians won't reform the rules of evidence because they get money from the private prison companies. People are made comfortable with these convictions by evidence they heard about on tv. So whence come the reforms?

[Earthandweather]

I operate a video transfer and editing service and at least a few times a year people come in with video of someone in a car / truck violating their property. They want to pull the license plate numbers...They mention TV shows they’ve seen where the video is cleaned up at the push of a button...ugh.

[chome]

But the private prison industry and their shareholders need 'bodies' to be locked up. Each night in jail earns profit...even if he's innocent.

[LibertyEver]

Even when the science is much more reliable the application of science is not. Often prosecutors will claim that DNA evidence is infallible to a few parts in a billion and to some extent that's true but they won't tell you that merely finding DNA at a crime scene doesn't really prove anything when there might be hundreds of people's DNA at that crime scene and they just selected one person they want to prosecute.

This is largely a problem with education. Our schools are not teaching kids critical thinking and reasoning skills. Pseudoscience is rampant in our society, whether it's climate policy or big pharmaceutical companies testing drugs or courtrooms.

[werunguns]

As a fan of “Forensic Files”, this was an interesting segment

[nelsonx]

I remember a guy testifying in the Cayle Anthony case who captured air from her trunk and analyzed it and said there had been a dead body in it. It looked to me like he was trying to sell his forensic air device.

[karldo]

Yeah jury should more skeptical but there would be less incompetence on the part of scientists if there would be consequences to their actions. Was that odontologist punished? no Why do you think theres medical malpractice? Physician dont lose their licence and they are protected by colleagues.

[snnyburnett]

Gun tracing really is big joke. You can match a fired bullet to a type or rifling based on the number of lands and grooves and rate of twist for conventional rifling (forget about polygonal and smoothbore) but that's about it. There's no CSI method to say this particular 9mm bullet (which there are hundreds of manufacturers of around the world as well as reloaders who make their own) came out of this particular Beretta 92. Barrels aren't serialized, you can order and have them shipped to your doorstep without any permit.

[DragynryderMW]

This is why I oppose the death penalty. How many innocent people were sent to death? Then after they are euthanized, the case is closed, even if they were wrong.

[dylanschultz-nelson]

Every thing John puts out is a god send

[TickedOffPriest]

I want to use Jury Nullification one day.

[waaazupd]

The more educated that people are the moreville understand that Things like this can go wrong

[readrothbard]

And when you are criminally charged your fate is in the hands of 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty...

[Lurker]

This why I prefer the original Law and Order episodes before all these shows came on air.

[nonmagicmike]

If with today's thorough investigations and trials some innocent ones still slip through the cracks, one can only imagine what the rate of false sentencing was in the times of lynching for instance, when sometimes all it took was some pretty girl pointing the finger and saying he did this and this to me.

[ZakharovProkhor]

I told the court I had a theoretical degree in physics. They said welcome aboard.

[merbst]

So rare to see a law enforcement officer with Integrity.

[laopang]

Nothing is perfect... we all know it. But we have to strike a balance just like all else.