Forensics : “Outsiders from New York causing problems” in Oklahama and elsewhere

This is not a re run of “Anatomy of a Murder.” Law enforcement protectors in Tulsa are irate that 1) they recently had to pay out $8 million to a wrongly convicted African-American and 2) those damned exoneration litigators from NYC are messing up the balance of things in OK.

Here’s a quote from an official who is defending a crime lab tech who seems to have had trouble in 1995 knowing what bleached vs. non bleached hair looked like. Hardly a cutting-edge determination, even in 1995.

What’s rancorous in the following statement is that the entire discipline of micro hair analysis has been de-listed by the FBI. The news consistently says this has tainted thousands of cases across the US. They also trained hundreds if not thousands of state lab techs over decades

“She testified straight-forward. She testified to the truth, and she testified to the evidence within the scientific standards of the day,” Bender said. “What these attorneys from New York do is take the standards of 1995 in hair analysis and look at it in the microscope of 2015. That is totally unfair to all the individuals involved.”

He’s saying the lab tech was not negligent nor untruthful  in 1995.

Let’s just say that its “CYA” time in O-K-L-A-H-O-M-A. The real issue now are all the other cases the tech has analysed in the “hair and fiber” area since the 90’s.

The full story at the WaPo.

 

About csidds

Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
This entry was posted in AAFS, costs of wrongful convictions, Crime lab scandal, criminal justice, CSI and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Forensics : “Outsiders from New York causing problems” in Oklahama and elsewhere

  1. zoe says:

    Why is Gerry Bender, manager of the Litigation Division for the city of Tulsa speaking? Was he there in 1995, side-by-side with the analyst while the evidence was analyzed? Did Gerry train the analyst in hair comparison and that’s why the analysis was incorrect?
    Gerry, baby, if you don’t have any direct information or scientific understanding about the hair analysis, just STFU. Let the analyst defend her position. As a scientist, she should explain.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s