Hot News!
• Tea Party leader gets grilled by NAACP membership
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Smitherman still saying the issue is about a “streetcar” (2009)•More on Amy Goodman’s Arrest and the Struggle for a Free Media (2008)
•Journalist Amy Goodman Unlawfully Arrested At RNC (2008)
•Seizing Illegal Guns—Thinking About 2% (2007)
•Information or Advertisements? (2007)
•Nick Lachey: “I have never supported George W. Bush.” (2007)
Contact Us
v mail: (513) 685-0678
e mail: click here
Monday, November 19, 2007
Evidence of Injustice
Posted by Michael Earl Patton
The CBS news program 60 Minutes recently aired a story called Evidence of Injustice, which covers the FBI’s retreat from using bullet lead analysis as trial evidence. This is not a case where law enforcement officials faked the data, but where the whole procedure itself was not scientifically based and eventually the FBI realized it. Hundreds of people who have been convicted based on these FBI analyses may have their cases reviewed. Some may now be found innocent.
Bullet lead analysis checks the exact composition of the bullet lead and compares it to the composition of the lead in other bullets, whether those other bullets were also fired, were still in a gun, or were still in a box. The theory was that the composition of the bullet lead varied from box to box, and by examining the composition one could determine if the bullets came from a certain box.
Bullet lead composition was used when the bullet was too deformed for ballistics testing. It was first used in the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy and “proved” that the bullets that were checked came from a box of bullets possessed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Unfortunately the theory itself was never proven. Bullets within the same box can vary in composition and bullets in one box can match the bullets in many other boxes.
This story shows that even law enforcement officials may err, and may err over a period of decades. Just because some officials say something is true and that’s the way it has always been done, does not mean that is the way it should be done.
It also shows that people who are convicted because of statements by law enforcement officials, even when those statements are sincere, may in fact be innocent. This story will be referenced in a future story in The Cincinnati Beacon.
• Share This Article! | Listen to this article |
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
20 Nov 2007 at 10:30 pm | #
Blood spatter evidence is also being questioned. That spots of blood can tell who, when, how and why a crime was committed is beyond common sense. It’s come out in cases lately that it’s almost impossible to even tell the age of spots much less weave a credible tale around the patterns. But juries seem to believe anything they’re told.