I used to be amazed at the remorseless accuracy and precision of “science”. Thanks to the application of clear, consistent, and unambiguous standards and practices, the conclusion of a “scientific” inquiry into the essential facts of a particular issue could only result in the truth.
And then there are the police.
James Driskell was convicted in 1993 for the murder of his best friend, Perry Harder. I quote:
The RCMP said three hair samples found in Driskell’s van were Harder’s, and that evidence convicted him. Later test results from Forensic Science Services in the U.K. found none of the hairs belonged to Harder.
Three hairs? One can easily imagine the solemn testimony of the scientist who conducted the analysis. Science is truth. Science is certain. Science is never wrong. We found these tiny hairs in James Driskell’s van. How could they have gotten there if he hadn’t murdered Perry Harder?
Is someone going to be charged with obstructing justice? Perjury? Incompetence?
Probably not. Because the authorities will extend to those police officers and lab staff the kind of compassionate understanding that they wish we would not extend to criminals.
Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many of the police officers involved in some of these wrongful convictions still support the death penalty?