
WASHINGTON, Nov. 18, 2007
FBI's Forensic Test Full of Holes
Hundreds Of Convictions Are In Question Now That FBI Forensic Evidence Has Been Discredited
-
Play CBS Video Video Hunt: I Am Innocent Lee Wayne Hunt, behind bars for over two decades, tells Steve Kroft he is innocent.
-
Video Kroft's Reporter's Notebook Steve Kroft talks about his upcoming report on bullet lead analysis, a questionable forensic tool the FBI used for decades.
-
Video Former Lab Chief's Opinion Former FBI lab director Dwight Adams tells Steve Kroft on what he thinks should happen with cases that may have been impacted by bullet lead analysis.
-
(AP / CBS)
-
Interactive Inside The FBI See the bureau's highs and lows in this interactive portrait of the crime-fighting agency.
Peele, who said he was frustrated that he was never contacted by the academy, added that his bullet matches were meant to be "a part of a puzzle" and never the only forensic evidence. "Is it possible there are innocent people in jail? Yes. Is it possible that bullet lead was part of that process? Yes."
The Origins of the Science
The FBI's bullet-lead analysis was created more than four decades ago to link suspects to crimes in cases in which bullets had fragmented to the point where traditional firearms tracing - based on gun-barrel groove markings - would not work.
So FBI scientists used chemistry to try to find matches. Their assumption was that bullets made from the same batch of lead would have the same chemical composition. U.S. bullet-makers recycle lead from car batteries and melt it down in huge amounts, and it was believed that each batch would produce bullets sharing the same trace elements.
The FBI first used the technique after Kennedy's assassination, hoping to determine whether various bullet fragments came from the same gun. In July 1964, then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote to the commission investigating the assassination that the bureau's findings were "not considered sufficient" to make any matches.
By the early 1980s, the bureau was the only practitioner of the science and routinely used it to help state and local police link crime-scene bullets to those in a gun or a box owned by a suspect. There are few federal murder statutes, but the FBI routinely helps local law enforcement by providing forensic expertise in homicide cases.
In the mid-1990s, Lundy used the science to help prove that Clinton White House lawyer Vincent W. Foster committed suicide, internal FBI documents show.
In the early days, bullet fragments were subjected to neutron beams that would allow scientists to measure the presence and amounts of at least three chemical elements: antimony, arsenic and copper. If two bullets had similar measurements of those three elements - the FBI allowed for a small margin of error - they were declared a match.
In 1996, the bureau switched to a new method called "inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy," in which scientists identified and measured seven trace elements in the bullets, adding the elements bismuth, cadmium, tin and silver. The goal was to increase the precision of the tests. But at the same time that it was measuring more elements, the FBI doubled the margin of error for declaring matches.
"Not enough suspects were being caught in the new net using seven elements, so they chose to use a bigger net," said Clifford Spiegelman, a statistician at Texas A&M University who reviewed the FBI's statistical methods for the science academy.
The bureau conducted a study in 1991 that called bullet-lead analysis a "useful forensic tool" that produced "accurate" and "reproducible" matches.
The study, however, raised two concerns.
First, it found that bullets packaged 15 months apart - a span that assumed separate batches of lead - had the exact composition, potentially undercutting the theory that each batch was unique.
Second, it found that bullets in a single box often had several different lead compositions. That finding, it cautioned, should have "significant impact on interpretation of results in forensic cases."
Peele, the retired bullet-lead examiner, was the primary author of that study. He said he still felt comfortable having told jurors in the past that bullets from the same box could be expected to match, as long as his remarks were carefully qualified.
In the Hunt case, he testified that his match of the crime-scene bullets to those in the suspects' box was "typical of everything we examined coming from the same box or the next closest possibility would be the same type, same manufacturer, packaged on or about the same day."
Peele said that he always tried to tell jurors that some bullets in the same box might not match. Still, he said it was reasonable for jurors to conclude that matching bullets could have come from the same box. "I don't think it's misleading as long as it's fully explained," he said.
Some of Peele's colleagues went further. FBI examiner John Riley told a Florida jury: "It is my opinion that all of those bullets came from the same box of ammunition." A New Jersey prosecutor suggested that the bullets matched by the FBI were as unique as a "snowflake or fingerprint."
Today, the FBI regards all such testimony as inaccurate. "The science does not and has never supported the testimony that one bullet can be identified as coming from a particular box of bullets," said Adams, the retired FBI lab director.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

The secrets of tennis legend 




- 1
- 2
- next
See all 25 Comments--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by BeAnAmerican at 07:57 PM : Nov 18, 2007
+ report abuse
It seem''s you fascist ALWAYS come up with some excuse. PLEASE explain why, when confronted with the story from a DEFENSE Attorney for another man who admitted to the killings, the NAZI judge in N.C. refused to even concider releasing the man but instead turned the Attorney in to the Bar Association.. His CLIENT WAS DEAD!!! You sure know how to bury your head in the sand that''s for sure. I know one thing, if something like this happens based on ONE piece of evidence, someone wasn''t looking for justice... NOPE! That judge ant that jury were looking for a REASON to lock someone up... PERIOD! Sieg Heil Y''all.
if a network or camera or art supply or calculator company can send a signal to a tv,
or send a signal to a paid computet operating system company to spruce up the signal before posting to the tv,
why would the network, camera, art supply, or calculator company choose to waste uncountable vaulable time and effort and other resources trying to develop equipment that is compatible with an operating system that does not even spruce up a signal before passing it to a television?
... ''
Wow ! That man should have his brain exhumed and donated to the bureau of wildlife ! :-( ......tl
And for those of you that think there is even one FBI analyst at the FBI Lab that purposely tries to put innocent people in jail, you should follow dukakislives to Canada. Come on people - a mistake was made and not on purpose. Next time you want to throw a stone at the FBI Lab just think about whether you would want them to help you if your loved one was missing or killed.
And for those of you that think there is even one FBI analyst at the FBI Lab that purposely tries to put innocent people in jail, you should follow dukakislives to Canada. Come on people - a mistake was made and not on purpose. Next time you want to throw a stone at the FBI Lab just think about whether you would want them to help you if your loved one was missing or killed.
And for those of you that think there is even one FBI analyst at the FBI Lab that purposely tries to put innocent people in jail, you should follow dukakislives to Canada. Come on people - a mistake was made and not on purpose. Next time you want to throw a stone at the FBI Lab just think about whether you would want them to help you if your loved one was missing or killed.
We have taken and made criminal elements out of various groups in society that weren''t considered so a hundred years ago. We have seen the creation of laws, and the justification for their existence on so called "moral grounds" that I am sure could never been envisioned by our forefathers.
History has not been kind to justice in America, because justice has not been well served in America. America has found it convenient to throw out justice, when justice got in the way of the undertakings of rich and powerful, whose sole ambitions were to satisfy their lust for the possessions of others at what ever cost necessary, even at the expense of justice.
SEE:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2035108967536002048&hl=en
LOOSE CHANGE shows how elements of the Washington Regime murdered 3,000 Americans...Infowars.com has an archive of the crimes of this Regime against the American people...Why would anyone be surpirsed that the leadership of the Federal Bureau of Incompetence continues its abysmal work...it was only yesterday that the whistle was blown on the FBI''s crime lab hijinks...the FBI leadership sabotaged the investigations of its fine street agents who wanted to go after the terrorist suspects at the flight school...The White House itself threatened agents with arrest if they continued their bin Laden investigations PRIOR TO 9-11.
If America continues to accept the kind of Demopublican criminal leadership that covers up for criminals--as evidenced by the arse-licking corrupt swine on the 9-11 Commission--then you will have a police state that is fully in the service of the criminals.
I can''t whip up any indignation over this one...nor any of the other daily tales of malfeasance. My outrage meter pegged years ago.
And the really crazy thing is: look at the comments on that story about a texas ****** who decided he "had to" act as judge, jury, and executioner as he left his house with a shotgun, went next door, and murdered two petty thieves who were taking junk from his neighbor. Lots of a-holes are saying he was justified! How stu/pid can they be? If every paranoid lunatic with a gun can just decide, on their own, who is guilty and who deserves to die (death for petty theft?) and immediately sentence the "guilty" to death and carry out the sentence on the spot, guess what? We''ll have total chaos, anarchy, and life will not be worth shiiiiit for anybody!
What the h3ll has this country become under the "leadership" of the freat "Decider"?
Should the journalist here really be calling someone a "drug dealer" when they very well might be innocent? Shouldn''t this say something like, "...a North Carolina man accused of drug dealing..."?
ARROGANT AND POWER HUNGRY PROSECUTERS WILL NEVER ADMIT MISTAKES. CHANCES ARE THAT 99% OF THE CONVICTED ARE GUILTY, BUT, THERE COULD BE THAT 1%, THAT ARE INNOCENT.
OH WELL! TO BAD.............
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 25 Comments