Extra Credit 2: Forensics on Trial

            I just finished watching Nova’s documentary Forensics on Trial. This was an extremely fascinating documentary about how the techniques that forensic scientists use are very flawed. It goes into detail about how finger printing, bite marks and blood splatter are not as scientific as we thought. They are more of an art rather then a science. In the documentary there is also an example of a case in which these techniques were wrong. It also has new advanced technologies that are being used to improve these techniques.

Fingerprint

            On March 11, 2004 in Madrid, Spain there was a terrorist attack that planted ten bombs in trains that killed 191 people and left 1800 people wounded. In a van nearby, police found a blue plastic bag that had bomb-making materials in it. Scientists realize that lines and ridges of fingerprints are made from sweat and oil and can easily be wiped off or distorted. When scientists matched the fingerprint obtained from the plastic bag, the match was Brandon Mayfield, a lawyer in Oregon. He recently represented a convicted terrorist and it was said that his fingerprint was “an absolute match.” When on trail, he even hired his own fingerprint analyst who said that it was a match. Brandon Mayfield was sent to jail for fifteen days before Spanish police found that fingerprint belonged to a known terrorist. Akhlesh Lakhtakia, a professor at Penn State, is working with a team to invent a tool that takes the “geography” of the ridges and uses a gas that does not chemically alter the prints. This device shows very prominent features so its simply matching patterns.

            On May 23^rd 1991, in Auburn NY, a farmhouse was set on fire. Originally the owner of the house, Sabina, was missing. But Coe Ecker, the sheriff’s investigator, found her not far from the home, killed, nude and with bite marks on her breasts, belly and back. Bite marks are bruises with patterns. Forensic odontology makes wax impressions of bite marks to try to get a match. In the Auburn case, Ray Brown was convicted of the murder. The original scientist to take the odontology report said that even though Brown was missing two teeth, he probably twisted and obscured the bites. So Brown was sentenced to 25 years to life. While in jail, Brown went over the case. He noticed that Barry Bench who was a firefighter and ex brother in law of the victim, that his statement did not make sense. He had been fighting with Sabina over the possession of the farmhouse. On his statement he said that he was downtown and went home about 1:30am. If that were true, he would have noticed the farmhouse on fire because he had to pass that. Brown wrote Bench a letter and five days later Bench laid down in front of a train. Police then reinvestigated and found that Barry Bench’s DNA matched the DNA found on the victims t-shirt. Roy Brown was released from jail and sued and won.

            In Sweden they are now using visual autopsy reports. It is a combination of CT scans and MRI’s that produces a 3-D model of the body. Examiners can then give virtual autopsies without having to touch the actual body. Using this technology, persons involved in solving a mystery can see the dead as clearly as the day they died. When doing a hands-on autopsy, cutting open the body releases gases, which is often a big mistake that alters the autopsy report especially in cases related to strangulation. Designers are now making a portable application that can be used anywhere.        

            On June 13^th 1994, in Brentwood California, police found a woman whose throat was slit so deep that her head was almost decapitated. The woman was Nicole Simpson, estranged wife of football player O.J. Simpson. Her friend Ronald Goldmen was dead nearby with at least 20 stab wounds. Within hours of the discovery, police and reporters were walking throughout the crime scene, smearing and tracking blood everywhere. O.J Simpson’s trial lasted nine months but the jury came to their decision in less than four hours. They found him not guilty because there were too many things that did not add up. The police contaminated the scene, photos of the crime scene were not the same and most importantly justice cannot be served if the crime scene is contaminated or moved.

            It is imperative that forensics improve their techniques because murderers are walking free and innocent people are being sent to jail based on interpretations of fingerprints, bite marks, autopsies and blood splatter. Doctors across the world are working on new tools to use to improve these techniques. One new invention, the I See Crime, partners with video gamers to produce a 3-D scan of the crime scene. This gives detectives the opportunity to have a permanent record of the original crime scene. As technology improves, the accuracy of convictions should too. We have the resources to improve old techniques. It is unbelievable the technologies that can be used in forensics now. I never realized how unreliable the forensics techniques can because I am so used to them being used today. It’s crazy and scary to imagine how many innocent people can be in jail because of similarities in fingerprints to the actual murderer but, it’s even scarier to think of how many murders are walking free because of a crime scene or evidence that is contaminated. Slowly but surely the flaws in forensics science is being corrected. The common techniques are being improved and becoming a science rather then an art.