# FBI admits flaws in hair analysis over decades: Is forensic science all it's cracked up to be? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2015, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384 "2015-04-23T20:14:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/1 "2015-04-23T20:14:32Z")
This is obviously completely unacceptable, and that’s an understatement. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310\_story.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html) > [@](#): > > The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000. > > Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence. > > The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions. > … > The FBI searched more than 21,000 federal and state requests to its hair comparison unit from 1972 through 1999, identifying for review roughly 2,500 cases where examiners declared hair matches. I can’t quote more than that but I’ll just add that in many of cases the hair analysis was not the only evidence, so hopefully there aren’t thousands of wrongful convictions, although there are possibly a large number. I have to wonder how many other forensic “experts” are full of crap. I seem to recall bite mark evidence being discredited. What else? Shaken baby syndrome? [Arson experts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham)? [Fingerprints](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield)? Do I even need to mention so-called [facilitated communications](http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wendrows-sex-abuse-cases-dismissed-facilitated-communication/story?id=15274276)? Do we put too much trust in “forensic science”? How much of it is really science? How much has been subjected to proper peer reviewed studies? Is it ever fabricated or just plain mistaken and, if so, how can we know? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/2 "2015-04-23T20:30:35Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > This is obviously completely unacceptable, and that’s an understatement. > Do we put too much trust in “forensic science”? How much of it is really science? How much has been subjected to proper peer reviewed studies? Is it ever fabricated or just plain mistaken and, if so, how can we know? Forensics needs to be blind testing, and it’s not. So, there’s pressure on the techs to make the sample a match. ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/3 "2015-04-23T21:14:28Z")
> **[A brief history of forensics](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/04/21/a-brief-history-of-forensics/)** > > From the very start, our courts have misunderstood the nature and value of forensic evidence. Basically every bit of “forensic science” is hand-waving woo developed outside all scientific norms, and practiced by people who are given financial incentives to lie. The stuff you listed is part of the junk – the entire notion that you can inspect the charred remains of a burnt building and determine whether it was arson is garbage, as is just about any use of fingerprints. Don’t forget handwriting matches, ballistic matching of bullets to guns, and bite mark analysis. The only thing regularly used in court that I can think of with any real validity is DNA matching, and even then, it’s being done by labs that work for the police and are clearly told that their continued employment depends on giving the results the police want. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/4 "2015-04-24T04:20:11Z")
And don’t forget the [Recovered Memory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovered-memory_therapy) craze of the 1990’s. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/5 "2015-04-24T10:12:56Z")
First, physical evidence is not used nearly as [often](http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/11/07/the_case_against_evidence/) in real life as many would think, and it doesn’t really improve conviction rates: > [@](#): > > But does forensic evidence really matter as much as we believe? New research suggests no, arguing that we have overrated the role that it plays in the arrest and prosecution of American criminals. > > A study, reviewing 400 murder cases in five jurisdictions, found that the presence of forensic evidence had very little impact on whether an arrest would be made, charges would be filed, or a conviction would be handed down in court. > > A mere 13.5 percent of the murder cases reviewed actually had physical evidence that linked the suspect to the crime scene or victim. The conviction rate in those cases was only slightly higher than the rate among all other cases in the sample. And for the most part, the hard, scientific evidence celebrated by crime dramas simply did not surface. According to the research, investigators found some kind of biological evidence 38 percent of the time, latent fingerprints 28 percent of the time, and DNA in just 4.5 percent of homicides. > > “Forensics had no bearing on the outcome at all,” said Ira Sommers, professor of criminal justice at California State University, Los Angeles, who coauthored the research with colleague and fellow professor Deborah Baskin. “It was not a significant predictor of the district attorney charging the case and had no relation to actually getting a conviction. That’s a pretty stunning finding considering all the hype around forensic evidence.” Second, no one type of evidence is all it’s cracked up to be, which is the reason why most trials have multiple types or pieces of evidence employed to convict a defendant. We now know things like eyewitness testimony and confessions are often unreliable as well. The point being that it’s hard to solve and crime, and no piece of evidence including DNA is conclusive of guilt in a great number of circumstances. So while it’s troubling that an entire branch of “science” seems to have been undermined, I am not sure we should be as troubled by this in terms of getting the wrong results. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/6 "2015-04-24T13:36:15Z")
We probably put innocent people in prison because of this, or even executed them. How many cases would there have to be to “trouble” you? ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/7 "2015-04-24T13:56:16Z")
Personally, I’m troubled both by the junkification of science to railroad defendants and the fact that the American education system produced even one person who can say with a straight face “Well, he was probably guilty anyway.” ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/8 "2015-04-24T13:57:42Z")
It’s also ironic that the person cited by our local “anyone who is arrested must be guilty” vigilante is a “professor of criminal justice.” A person with no scientific training who works in a fake discipline designed to give aspiring security guards something to major in at community college thinks that the police are always right. What a surprise. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/9 "2015-04-24T14:23:18Z")
He has a doctorate in social work. I have no idea if that involves substantial scientific training but presumably it requires at least some psychology and statistics. ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/10 "2015-04-24T14:34:27Z")
The standards for responsible use of data in social science today are pretty low, and I’m guessing they were even worse in a social work program in the 1980s. He’s certainly bringing enormous biases to the table when looking at the question of whether the police lie. Part of the issue, for those who have been following the WaPo’s articles, is that even professional defense witnesses won’t challenge the basis of garbage like hair analysis because they’d be out of a job too if they couldn’t discuss the particulars of every case in court. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/11 "2015-04-24T16:07:54Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > The only thing regularly used in court that I can think of with any real validity is DNA matching, and even then, it’s being done by labs that work for the police and are clearly told that their continued employment depends on giving the results the police want. Uh, cite? ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/12 "2015-04-24T17:37:06Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Uh, cite? Linked from the article I already posted… > **[New Study Finds That State Crime Labs Are Paid Per Conviction](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/in-some-states-crime-labs_n_3837471)** > > New Study Finds That State Crime Labs Are Paid Per Conviction ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/13 "2015-04-24T17:59:41Z")
So TV lied to me again? I’m so disillusioned. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/14 "2015-04-24T18:00:24Z")
I want to debate this, but I’m too disgusted. Is there anyone who didn’t believe the US had never executed an innocent person, who will now have the scales fall from their eyes? Cops and prosecutors decide who’s guilty and lean on them, and there’s no science in most of this bullshit diagnosis - hair, fire patterns, bite analysis, even fingerprints. But people who insisted the guy in Texas convicted of burning his own house and killing his children, based on bullshit ‘science’ was still guilty, probably believe the guy [executed in Texas who was fingered by other defendants, and was convicted on a single hair that turned out not be his, was still guilty](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/24/on-death-row-for-the-wrong-hair.html). > [@Daily Beast](#): > > Jones was convicted in the killing of a liquor-store owner during a robbery in Texas. His two conspirators testified against him, but under Texas law, accomplice testimony isn’t enough to seal a conviction. State experts presented the hair, which they said likely belonged to Jones. > > Before his 2000 execution, Jones asked then-Governor George W. Bush for a stay of execution and to conduct a DNA test. Bush refused. […] A decade later, testing finally proved that the hair—the only physical evidence in the case—never belonged to Jones. Hey - [here’s a guy who was convicted on a fucking dog’s hair](http://fusion.net/story/123382/fbi-forensics-once-brought-dog-hair-to-a-mans-murder-trial-to-use-against-him/)! I hate our complacency. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/15 "2015-04-24T18:23:05Z")
Is it too much to hope that juries will now start to see through some of this bullshit? Yeah, it probably is too much to hope for. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/16 "2015-04-24T19:30:33Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > We probably put innocent people in prison because of this, or even executed them. How many cases would there have to be to “trouble” you? We certainly put innocent people to death because we have the death penalty. That in and of itself has nothing to do with this. Did you read the article I linked to? The fact is the the use of physical evidence by and large doesn’t increase conviction rates, so the idea that faulty hair comparisons alone led to these people’s deaths is dubious. Doesn’t make it right, but it is likely not supported by the evidence. Unless you have a cite to offer or a compelling reason to think people died because of this, I think you should rethink this. ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/17 "2015-04-24T19:35:46Z")
Your position is that prosecutors should be allowed to lie in court because the defendant was probably going to be convicted anyway, and this in and of itself isn’t an indictment of the justice system but merely a reflection of the fact that everyone is probably guilty of like, original sin or something. Would you be more comfortable living in North Korea? Certainly any reasonable person would be happier with you there than possibly serving on a jury here. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/18 "2015-04-24T20:27:45Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > Your position is that prosecutors should be allowed to lie in court because the defendant was probably going to be convicted anyway, and this in and of itself isn’t an indictment of the justice system but merely a reflection of the fact that everyone is probably guilty of like, original sin or something. If this is a response to **bricbacon** , you should try reading the post again. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/19 "2015-04-24T21:04:33Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Did you read the article I linked to? The fact is the the use of physical evidence by and large doesn’t increase conviction rates, so the idea that faulty hair comparisons alone led to these people’s deaths is dubious. Doesn’t make it right, but it is likely not supported by the evidence. Unless you have a cite to offer or a compelling reason to think people died because of this, I think you should rethink this. How about the one I cited upthread? Getting fingered by your criminal pals isn’t enough to let Texas execute a guy, but a hair that was not his got him executed. The Innocence Project says 9 people have been executed in these 268 cases. I’m trying to find the other 4. Would you be interested in looking? Or is it just easier to assume the hair didn’t matter? ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384/20 "2015-04-24T21:42:17Z")
There is no scientific validity whatsoever to hair analysis, ballistic matching, arson investigation, bite mark matching, handwriting analysis, or fingerprint matching. All of these techniques were developed within police and prosecution environments and not by scientists, and none of them have survived proper scientific review. In addition to the fact that the underlying techniques are just as valid as phrenology or psychic readings, it is also the case that “crime labs” are staffed by employees of the police and prosecutor and understand that their job is to get convictions, not do honest science. In many cases, this is reinforced by an explicit policy of not paying the crime lab unless a “match” is found. These are all true facts. Asserting that “he was probably guilty anyway” or trying to start a debate about the death penalty do not change either the above objectively true facts, nor the moral consequences of ignoring them. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-admits-flaws-in-hair-analysis-over-decades-is-forensic-science-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/718384.md?page=2)