Forensic Science: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
LastWeekTonight
0:03 JOHN OLIVER: Crime.
0:04 You know that thing that was almost solved -by a flasher dog in 1980's.
0:08 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) But specifically this story is about
0:10 how we increasingly solve crimes using forensic evidence.
0:13 It's that thing that is just a staple of TV crime shows.
0:17 Pull it from the torso on the left.
0:20 Pull it from the boat on the right.
0:23 Two hearts beat as one.
0:25 Matches up perfectly.
0:27 -(DISTORTED SOUND) -That's a match.
0:30 -(COMPUTER BEEPS) -MAN 1: We've got a match.
0:31 MAN 2: And it just found us a match.
0:32 WOMAN 1: Visible match.
0:34 -WOMAN 2: We've a match.
0:35 -Match.
0:35 MAN 3: Were you able to determine which monkey bit him?
0:37 The bite marks match those of the monkey found at the scene.
0:40 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -Wow!
0:42 That last one was presumably from one
0:44 of the crossover episodes where the team from Law& Order,
0:47 worked a case with the cast of Monkey Law and Monkey Order.
0:50 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -(MONKEY SCREECHES) -But...
0:52 -(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING) on TV and in real life
0:56 forensic science plays an important role in criminal convictions.
0:59 Prosecutors often complain about a so called C.S.I.
1:02 effect, where jurors expect to see forensic evidence in every case.
1:06 The problem is, not all forensic science is
1:09 as reliable as we've become accustomed to believe.
1:11 A report in 2009, by the National Academy of Sciences found
1:14 that many forensic scientists do not
1:16 meet the fundamental requirements of science.
1:19 And a report last year by a Presidential Science Council agreed
1:21 saying that, "expert witnesses have often
1:24 overstated the value of their evidence,
1:26 going far beyond what the relevant science
1:28 can justify," and that's the thing here.
1:30 It's not that all forensic science is bad, 'cause it's not, but too often,
1:35 it's reliability is dangerously overstated and one sign of that is that forensic
1:39 experts in court are often nudged to use one very convincing phrase.
1:44 MAN 4: To a reasonable degree of the scientific certainty...
1:46 To a reasonable degree of scientific certainty...
1:48 MAN 5: To a reasonable degree of the scientific certainty...
1:50 Within reasonable scientific certainty...
1:53 To a reasonable degree of scientific certainty...
1:56 MAN 6: Are you able to say
1:57 that within a reasonable degree -of the scientific certainty?
2:00 -Yes.
2:01 And here's the thing that phrase does have a persuasive ring to it.
2:04 Unfortunately, as that Presidential Council pointed out,
2:07 it has no generally accepted meaning in science.
2:10 It's one of those terms like,
2:12 basic or trill that has no commonly understood definition.
2:16 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -Am I trill?
2:17 Is that good or bad?
2:18 I mean I do feel trill, so I'm guessing it's awful.
2:21 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -And— when bad science is confidently presented,
2:26 terrible convictions can happen.
2:28 In fact, among the hundreds of people who
2:30 have been exonerated by DNA testing since 1989, in nearly half of their cases,
2:35 there was some misapplication of forensic science
2:37 and there are people behind those numbers.
2:39 Take Santae Tribble, who was convicted of murder and served 26 years.
2:43 In large part, thanks to an FBI analyst who
2:46 testified that his hair matched hairs found at the scene.
2:48 And as he will tell you, the evidence was presented, as being rock solid.
2:53 They said they matched my hair in all microscopical characteristics.
2:58 And that's the way they presented it to the jury
3:01 and the jury took it for granted that, that was my hair.
3:05 But you know, I can see, why they did.
3:07 Because who other than an FBI expert would possibly know that much about hair?
3:12 Except of course, whoever stalled Amanda Seyfried at the 2009 Oscars.
3:17 Breath taking waves, without loosing any of their body or bounce.
3:21 -Stunning.
3:21 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -Stunning!
3:24 -(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING) -Stunning.
3:26 -(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING) -Stunning.
3:27 -(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING) Stunning!
3:29 Stunning!
3:29 Stunning!
3:30 Stunning!
3:30 Stunning!
3:30 Stunning!
3:31 (AUDIENCE LAUGHING) The jurors in Tribble's case,
3:34 were actually told there was one chance in ten million
3:37 that it could be someone else's hair, and guess what?
3:40 He was exonerated.
3:41 Because once DNA analysis became available,
3:43 his lawyer tested the thirteen hairs from the case and not only
3:47 were none of them his, some of what they found was incredible.
3:50 SANDRA LEVICK: Nine of the hairs had come from the same source,
3:53 a couple had come from different sources and one was a dog.
3:56 INTERVIEWER: Two different FBI agents who had, eh,
3:58 looked at that and analyzed it, didn't recognize that it was -dog hair?
4:01 -It was a K9.
4:03 It was a domestic dog, yes.
4:05 My personal conclusion was, -the dog committed the crime.
4:10 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) Okay.
4:13 So, first, it is amazing that he is able to laugh at that, but second,
4:17 if a dog did commit the crime there's
4:19 really no recourse there because there is actually no
4:22 law against dogs committing murder and that's a fact
4:25 that learned in Air Bud 9, Fuck the Paw-lice!
4:27 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -And— it turns out, Tribble is not the only case where
4:33 FBI experts overstated their confidence in their results.
4:36 NEWSCASTER: The Innocence Project and the National Association
4:39 of Criminal Defense lawyers found from the 1970's through 1999,
4:43 in 268 cases where FBI hair analysis led to a conviction,
4:48 257 or 96 percent of them had errors in analysis.
4:54 -AUDIENCE: Wow.
4:54 -Oh, it gets worse because nine of those defendants had already been executed,
4:59 -(AUDIENCE SWOONING) -which is horrifying.
5:01 And you would expect FBI hair analysis to have a high rate
5:06 of accuracy than your friend's hair analysis of you can totally pull off bangs,
5:10 -because you can't, -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) you absolutely can't,
5:13 believe me I couldn't, just learn— -learn from our mistakes kids.
5:17 -(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING) Save yourselves!
5:20 -(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING) -It's too late for me.
5:21 -(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING) -And look, it's by no means,
5:24 just microscopic hair comparison which has
5:26 had the reliability of these results overstated.
5:28 Those reports that I showed earlier suggests there is weak
5:31 scientific support for some aspects of techniques like a blood pattern,
5:34 footwear, firearm and bite mark analysis.
5:37 And you must be familiar with that last one from cool scenes like
5:41 this: A little 3D magic for clarity and I give you the killer's incisors.
5:47 (COMPUTER BEEPING) Oh, Yo!
5:55 The computer rated it "Yellow rectangle." And we all know yellow rectangle
5:59 is the highest level of match a computer can give you about teeth.
6:02 (AUDIENCE LAUGHING) Look, in the real world,
6:05 bite mark analysis is highly subjective and unreliable.
6:08 The President's Council found the entire discipline,
6:10 does not meet the scientific standards for foundational validity.
6:14 Which I believe, is science speak for "Bullshit!" But people have been sent
6:19 to prison on the basis of bite mark testimony by experts like, Dr.
6:23 Michael West.
6:24 The science of bite marks analysis, is very accurate.
6:27 NARRATOR 1: When it comes to bite marks,
6:29 West consider himself "The maestro." He's found bite
6:32 marks on a decomposed body submerged in a swamp,
6:35 on a corpse that had been buried for more than a year.
6:38 He's even used a bite mark taken out of a bologna sandwich to get a conviction.
6:43 Now, that sounds impressive matching a killer's teeth
6:46 to a bite mark in a bologna sandwich,
6:47 although, you should know that the defendant in that case,
6:50 got a new trial after an autopsy report found that the murder victim had
6:53 actually eaten a small amount of bologna
6:55 consistent with the amounts bitten off the sandwich.
6:58 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -So, that sandwich, was irrelevant to the case.
7:01 In fact, you could even argue that it was actually Dr.
7:04 West, who was full of, say it with me, -shit.
7:07 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) And— that is not the only
7:10 issue that has arisen from his testimony.
7:12 There are now five cases where he testified for the prosecution and where
7:16 the charges were dropped or the conviction was later over turned and even
7:19 West himself has admitted that he no longer believes in bite mark analysis
7:24 for identifying perpetrators and he doesn't think it should be used in court.
7:27 And yet, incredibly, every time a defendant has challenged its
7:31 validity the court has ruled it admissible.
7:34 And a key reason for that is that judges often rely
7:37 on precedent to decide what to allow in front of a jury.
7:40 So, if a particular discipline has been in court before
7:43 it is likely that a judge will admit it again.
7:45 All of which means that as the co-founder of the Innocence Project points out,
7:49 decisions about the validity of science are being made
7:52 by people who don't necessarily know much about it.
7:55 Historically, we had a situation where,
7:58 two scientifically illiterate lawyers argued the bonafides
8:02 of scientific evidence before a scientifically illiterate judge,
8:06 so the 12 scientifically illiterate jurors
8:09 could decide the weight of that evidence.
8:11 And if you think about it, that's absolutely terrifying.
8:14 Trials can often be a situation when no one really knows what they are doing.
8:19 It's like a cooking competition for toddlers,
8:21 hosted by a stray cat and judged by goats.
8:24 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -Oh.
8:25 The tuna was under cooked and covered in cold spaghetti sauce.
8:28 You then for some reason cover the whole dish in honey nut cheerios.
8:32 -I loved it.
8:33 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) And look, none of this is to say,
8:36 that there is not reliable forensic science out there.
8:39 Finger prints and DNA are obvious examples
8:41 but while we think of them as perfect,
8:43 it is important to know they are by no means infallible.
8:47 The FBI has found fingerprint analysis could have a false
8:50 positive rate as high as one error in 306 cases.
8:53 And a dramatic example of this came after the Madrid's train
8:57 bombings in 2004 when the FBI arrested this Oregon man, Brandon Mayfield.
9:02 He had never even been to Spain in his life.
9:05 But, three separate examiners,
9:07 matched his finger prints to one on a bag of detonators.
9:10 So, he was at that point, completely fucked!
9:14 Until, investigators happen to determine that, that fingerprint
9:17 actually also matched someone else who
9:20 was in Spain at the time and that blew the minds of finger print experts.
9:24 MARK ACREE: We always assume that finger prints are very very unique,
9:28 but what the Mayfield case demonstrates,
9:31 is that parts of a fingerprint can be so similar,
9:35 it's possible for two people to be identified to one print.
9:41 That's true.
9:42 It turns out that two people can have finger prints
9:44 that are so close that even experts can't tell them apart.
9:47 Meaning that we are now this close to finally proving my theory.
9:51 There is only one Olsen twin.
9:53 She's just moving very fast -back and forth.
9:56 -(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING) She confuses your eye.
9:58 Now, I don't know how this new information helps me,
10:00 yet, but when it does, the end is— No!
10:03 You frauds!
10:04 You frauds!
10:04 (AUDIENCE APPLAUDING) And then— there is DNA,
10:10 which is the gold standard in forensic science for a reason because
10:13 in perfect conditions it's seen as the most reliable form of evidence,
10:17 but not all DNA tests are equal and crime
10:20 scenes can produce DNA of widely varying quality.
10:23 NARRATOR 2: DNA is very fragile and easily mixed up at a messy scene.
10:28 BRAD HART: So, imagine you come across a crime scene.
10:30 You may have a pool of blood but it may not just be one person's blood, right?
10:33 The more contributors to that— mixture of DNA the more difficult it is,
10:38 to determine, whose DNA it was.
10:39 Whose blood it was.
10:41 Exactly, it can be difficult to tell whose blood is whose,
10:43 in a large pool of blood, which is coincidentally,
10:46 the premise of my new game show.
10:48 So, you think you can tell whose blood is whose in a large pool of blood?
10:51 It premieres on Tuesday night and apparently, -it's already been cancelled.
10:55 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) But the problem here is,
10:58 lower quality DNA samples are sometimes presented
11:01 to juries as if they are highly reliable.
11:04 In 2003, a prosecutor in a double murder told the jury that the odds,
11:08 the defendant's DNA match the glove found at the scene by chance,
11:11 was one in 1.1 billion.
11:13 So, that's pretty strikingly impressive,
11:15 but it turned out the glove actually contained at least three people's
11:19 DNA and a later analysis put the odds closer, to one in two.
11:24 And you know what?
11:25 That's close enough isn't it?
11:26 People do confuse the numbers 1.1 billion and two all the time.
11:31 That's why I'm always mistakenly saying that my favorite
11:34 R&B group is Boyz 1.1 Billion Men.
11:36 (AUDIENCE LAUGHING) And on top of all of this there
11:39 is one more fact that can be impossible to detect.
11:42 And it concerns the relationship between law
11:44 enforcement and the forensic labs themselves because you
11:47 would hope that those labs would work
11:49 independently taking in evidence and spitting out results.
11:53 But many labs work closely with law enforcement knowing details of the case
11:58 that they are working on which can prejudice their work even subconsciously.
12:02 Sometimes it's not intentional fraud but rather,
12:06 something, um, much more, uh, inadvertent.
12:09 Uh, which is the kind of bias that can come
12:12 from feeling like you're part of a side part of a team,
12:15 that you— you're part of— you're attached to the prosecution and you wanna get,
12:19 uh, get the bad guy.
12:21 Yeah, but that's not their job!
12:24 At all!
12:24 They are supposed to be neutral.
12:26 If a referee, started participating in a team's end zone celebration,
12:30 you'd have some serious fucking questions, like, why have you picked a side?
12:35 And, how long you've been practicing the dirty bird?
12:37 (AUDIENCE LAUGHING) So,
12:39 clearly here a lot needs to be fixed and some states have stepped up.
12:43 One has done a lot.
12:45 Including passing a first of its kind Junk Science law.
12:48 Which enables convicts to request a new trial,
12:51 if the sides used to convict them was flawed,
12:53 and that sounds great and the pioneering state
12:56 that did that by the way, -was Texas.
12:58 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) Yes, I know!
13:01 -Texas!
13:02 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) You don't expect Texas to lead
13:04 the nation in science-related criminal justice reform.
13:08 You expect them to lead the nation in remembering
13:10 the Alamo or naming their children "Football." (AUDIENCE
13:14 LAUGHING) "I love you Football but if you ever
13:16 forget the Alamo -we are done." -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) Now,
13:19 sadly, at the federal level progress has been slow.
13:22 Although, one group,
13:23 the National Commission on Forensic Science has tried to fix that.
13:26 They were founded to advise the DOJ on how to address many of the problems,
13:31 that you've seen tonight.
13:32 And their most recent meeting, featured powerful remarks from Keith Harward,
13:36 who spent 33 years in prison for a crime
13:39 that he did not commit based on faulty bite mark evidence.
13:42 Some would say, "Well you're a free man," well...
13:45 I will never be free of this.
13:49 There's no possibility— Excuse me if I get emotional.
13:53 That...
13:55 I spent more than half my life in prison...
13:59 behind the opinions...
14:03 and the expert egos...
14:07 of two Odontologist.
14:09 There's a death penalty case in Pennsylvania that's going on now
14:13 and the judge is going to allow bite mark evidence.
14:17 How many people have to be wrongly convicted
14:19 before they realize that this stuff's all bogus?
14:24 It's all— made up.
14:26 That's a good question and it's also the kind of speech
14:29 that could really inspire that commission to do a lot of good work.
14:33 Unfortunately, that was actually their final
14:35 meeting because the commission was shut
14:37 down in April by Attorney General and xenophobic boss baby, Jeff Sessions.
14:41 And know what?
14:42 That shouldn't really surprise you anyways.
14:44 Sessions is a former prosecutor and he does seem like the kind
14:47 of guy who watched Dead Man Walking and was like, hurry up!
14:50 Let's kill the guy already!
14:52 This movie should be called, "Dead Man Dilly Dallying".
14:54 Let's go people, let's go!
14:57 So, we may honestly be actively going
14:59 backwards on this issue, which is dangerous,
15:01 because not only are innocent people getting convicted,
15:04 guilty criminals are being left on the streets as a result.
15:07 And if this administration does not see
15:09 this as a problem then we should at the very least,
15:12 do more to educate potential jurors about some of the short comings
15:15 in our system and one small way to do that, might be this: NARRATOR 3:
15:22 In this city, -when the heat rises...
15:24 -(SIREN WAILING) so does the murder rate.
15:29 (ROCK& ROLL MUSIC PLAYING)♪ Alright everybody,
15:34 let's get this stuff back to the lab.
15:36 Hey chief, no need.
15:37 Look what I found, bite mark.
15:40 Bologna sandwich.
15:43 Now, that's what I call...
15:46 -"Dead meat." -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) Whoa!
15:51 The fuck is wrong with you?
15:53 Dead meat?
15:53 This is a murder.
15:55 -That's a human person.
15:56 -That is his wife over there.
15:58 -You're a fucking asshole.
16:00 -(WIFE SOBBING) NARRATOR 3: He's a crime solver,
16:03 who doesn't like to play by the rules.
16:05 I'm getting something on these bite marks here, but it's far from conclusive.
16:09 Would you say there's a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?
16:13 No.
16:14 -That's meaningless.
16:16 -Right.
16:17 NARRATOR 3: And that's a problem for absolutely everyone around him.
16:21 Chief, the hair matches the victim's wife.
16:24 Case closed.
16:26 Slow down.
16:27 Microscopic hair comparison is bullshit science.
16:30 Chief, I ran a mitochondrial DNA test on those hairs.
16:33 The wife did it right?
16:35 Case closed.
16:36 Actually, there were five hairs.
16:37 -Three were from...
16:39 a coconut.
16:39 -And two were from...
16:41 the wife.
16:42 One was from a Cabbage Patch Kid and the remaining one was from— -The wife.
16:47 -This Golden Retriever.
16:49 There's our killer right there, Chief.
16:51 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -The victim was shot.
16:54 -How can a dog fire a gun?
16:55 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -That's a bad dog right there.
16:59 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) And he's about to face some...
17:04 "Woof" justice.
17:07 We're in doors.
17:08 Fuck you.
17:10 NARRATOR 3: And he won't stop asking the hard questions.
17:13 How 'bout a certainly reasonable science degree to— No.
17:20 Yeah, okay.
17:22 NARRATOR 3: Because he's passionate about his job.
17:25 Despite not fully understanding what that job is.
17:28 If we don't have something solid by tomorrow, D.A.
17:30 is gonna have my ass.
17:32 Why would the D.A.
17:33 have your ass?
17:34 We don't work for the D.A.
17:37 -What?
17:37 -We don't work for the D.A.
17:39 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -You do understand that, right?
17:40 Please, tell us you understand that.
17:44 -Well, yeah.
17:45 -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) I understand that.
17:47 Totally.
17:47 NARRATOR 3: Oh, there's no way he understands that.
17:50 Because this guy, will not quit.
17:54 How about a certainly reasonable— -Stop talking.
17:57 -Okay.
17:58 -Keep up the good work.
18:00 -Okay.
18:00 NARRATOR 3: And even when his team abandons
18:02 him he's not afraid to call for back-up.
18:05 -This better be good.
18:06 -Oh, it is.
18:07 I brought in some extra help.
18:08 Expert witnesses to help lock in this case.
18:11 Take a look.
18:12 We got, the Forensic Dentist, Twin Boy Detectives,
18:16 an old timely prospector with a divining rod,
18:19 sack full of magic eight balls, and the county's foremost crime sniffing pony.
18:23 -(PONY WHEEZING) -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) None of this is admissible in court.
18:27 Actually, three of them have testified
18:29 in court before and they all got convictions.
18:32 Is that the bologna evidence sandwich?
18:34 Oh my God!
18:36 NARRATOR 3: CSI, Crime Scene Idiot.
18:40 (AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)