Update: New York Times article on a forensic scientist who committed suicide shortly after it was revealed that he had not followed correct procedures in at least some cases.
Update: New York Times article on a forensic scientist who committed suicide shortly after it was revealed that he had not followed correct procedures in at least some cases.
April 7, 2008
After all the news coverage of the wrongful convictions that have been overturned with DNA evidence and the incompetent or malicious police investigators and forensic "experts" responsible, you would think the police might think twice before pulling something like this:
Michigan State Police fiber expert Guy Nutter testified Wednesday fibers found on Dickinson's body and the pillow covering her face were consistent with those taken from a 100-percent acrylic sweatshirt police discovered at Taylor's home in Southfield.
Graham noted Nutter's report said no individual source of the fibers could be determined because his sweatshirt would be indistinguishable from others just like it. She used prosecution photos of Dickinson's closet to point out a dark blue or black-hooded sweatshirt, which Nutter admitted was not tested for fiber comparisons. From Grand Rapids Press, April 2, 2008
Wow. Here we go. A "fiber expert"! Do you know what that is? Did you think that there was a college somewhere where you could go to study for four years so you could become a "fiber expert"? Or do you think this might just be some science major with a big ego and a microscope? What constitutes a "match", do you think, of two fibers? Do you think there is some objective criteria involved, or just a lot of verbiage and charts and graphs and power point slides? How many "points" of similarity? How many different chemicals used in the formulation of the material?
It turns out that the fibers-- of course-- were not tested until after the police had their suspect. There's no point in testing before you have a suspect, ha ha, since you don't use fiber evidence to find a suspect. If you did, it would find too many suspects. Think about that.
The only purpose of fiber comparisons is to prove that the suspect-- it could be anybody-- is guilty. Since there are any number of fibers available at any given crime scene and any number of fibers available in any given suspect's closet at any given time-- this is a snap. Why don't juries laugh this kind of evidence out of court?
Then we have this:
Michael Arntz, a former EMU police officer, testified for a second time this week about video images he pieced together during a two-week review of footage from campus surveillance cameras.
The images, played repeatedly on a projector screen Wednesday, show a man identified by several people as Taylor leaving Buell Hall shortly after 4 a.m. Dec. 13.
So Michael Arntz, an Eastern Michigan University police officer, took it upon himself to "piece together" some video footage that he and some others claim shows the suspect, Orange Taylor, leaving the residence in which Laura Dickinson's body was later found. That is worrying. One hopes the defense team-- public defenders, of course-- is astute enough to demand that the district attorney either provide a single, intact continuous tape, or exclude the evidence altogether.
The defendant, the colorfully named Orange Taylor, has a serious problem. His semen was found on the body. But the door to her room was left locked from the inside, and there was no evidence of foul play. In fact, the police and medical experts have no idea of how she died. They suggest she was suffocated with a pillow. This is the second trial for Orange Taylor -- the first jury couldn't reach a verdict.
It's hard to know what to make of this case. He might be guilty. It's very hard to explain his DNA on the body if he wasn't there, and it's very hard to explain why he was there if he wasn't committing a crime-- he and the victim were not acquainted-- and it's hard to explain why she died if the sex was consensual.
But the fiber evidence should be laughed out of court.