On Joyce Gilchrist
Skip Palenik
Fingerprints
Recently, in Ontario, a forensic pathologist, Dr. Smith, was found to have contributed to at least 12 convictions through his incompetent or erroneous autopsies of children who died under suspicious circumstances.
The latest? Remember all those court cases dating back to the JFK assassination in which the prosecution "proved" that the fatal bullet could only have come from the same batch as the one found in possession of the suspect? 60 Minutes and The Washington Post have discovered that there is no scientific basis for such comparisons. Bullets within a single batch often vary wildly, and "identical" bullets (with lead with similar chemical compositions) can be discovered in random batches.
The FBI, bless their little hearts, recently discovered this fact. Well, no they didn't. Is it in their interest to check to see that evidence it had presented at earlier trials was accurate? That no one was convicted as a result of their mistakes? I guess not. A curious retired metallurgist named William Tobin, who had worked in the FBI's crime lab, decided one day to check to see if there was any real scientific basis for the evidence his department was routinely supplying to juries all over the U.S.
Surprise. He found that there was no scientific basis for this evidence-- that the chemical composition of a particular bullet could prove that it came from one particular batch of bullets.
He notified his superiors who immediately called every District Attorney in the U.S. and advised them that any cases in which such testimony may have proved decisive should be reviewed.
Ha ha! Had you there, didn't I? No, no-- the FBI merely informed police forces around the country that they would no longer supply that kind of testimony because it was "problematical".
I suppose an alert police officer might have wondered about previous cases.... but that's not really his job, is it? I suppose it occurred to the FBI that many District Attorneys and police detectives would be less than thrilled to find out that some of their past triumphs should be called into question.
And I wonder how much of our criminal justice system relies on hunches and feelings and appearances and innuendo and suspicion and the desire to gratify the public urge to punish someone, anyone-- and how much is really concerned with truth and justice?