7 ms·

Do you think this "expert" should get 22 years in prison? And maybe his boss too

mfoy_ 11y ago
I'd rather see his expression if he ever found himself face to face with someone his false testimony put away for a couple decades... the majority of the prime of someone's life gone in a flash because of such incompetence... it's hard to fathom.
- visarga 11y ago
  The FBI expert doesn't want to accept the truth, preferring to see himself as the victim of false scientific claims. He says: > about the nationwide inquiry that is under way into the FBI’s use of hair analysis: “It’s all a bunch of baloney,” he said. “It’s all a bunch of poppycock. His bosses too. > A senior manager from the FBI laboratory, Harold Deadman, told his global partners: “We are believers in hair comparisons.” They are BELIEVERS. You can't challenge men of faith.
- spacemanmatt 11y ago
  I'd rather see his expression if he ever found himself maliciously prosecuted and placed behind bars based on his own specious arguments.
mirimir 11y ago
They should all be tried for perjury. Edit: And it's too bad that civil suits aren't an option.
- avodonosov 11y ago
  Yes, perjury should be considered in the first place. He testified it's very very unlikely for hairs of two people to be so similar, which (according to the article) is false. For convenience, here is a quote from the article, describing what the expert said: Having performed thousands of similar hair examinations over the previous 10 years, the FBI agent told the court, there had been only eight or 10 times when hairs from two different people were so similar that he could not tell them apart – suggesting the firm probability that the rapist’s hair and Odom’s hair had come from the same scalp. I think it's worth to address the suggesting the firm probability that the rapist’s hair and Odom’s hair had come from the same scalp. as a lie. He said this is supported by thousands of experiments, but didn't give enough information to the court about the methodology of the experiments, so we address only this conclusion he provided. He should not escape by saying - "I told the court the numbers and they should have calculated probability themselves". But in addition it's worth asking about those thousands of experiments. Did he really perform the experiments? What was the methodology? And if the experiments were organized so that they obviously do _not_ support his conclusion, then it's an additional evidence of lie - he knew these experiments do not suggest any firm probability. Also, was he instructed by his superiors to testify in that form?
  - mirimir 11y ago
    It was pseudoscience, with a veneer of misapplied statistics. I do get that it's hard to prove perjury by expert witnesses. They're allowed to testify about their opinions. Witnesses can otherwise only testify about "facts". Those are arguably opinions too, about what they remember, but that's another matter. Anyway, I believe that expert witnesses are safe, as long as they don't lie about "facts". But they should still be tried. Maybe for conspiracy or whatever. Even for following orders without disclosing that fact. Get some smart prosecutors on it.
    - avodonosov 11y ago
      Expert are allowed to express opinions, but are they allowed to express knowingly false opinions? For example, somebody uploaded an image promoting inter-racial hate. I'am invited to the court as an expert, and asked "Here is the HTTPS log with the IP address of the defendant, his client certificate (he authorized with client certificate). Does it prove that the defendant uploaded this image?". And I testify: HTTPS is secure hyper TEXT transfer protocol, but we have an image here, not text. Image can not be uploaded with hyper TEXT transfer protocol. Is it a perjury?
      - mirimir 11y ago
        Yes, it's arguably perjury. And for something as obvious as this, it would be hard to claim that it's just a difference of opinion. But for expert opinions that involve substantial interpretation of evidence, it's hard enough to exclude under the Daubert standard, let alone to make a case for perjury.
        avodonosov 11y ago
        I would like to note the Daubert standard applies to how a court actions (how it accept or reject expert opinion). While our subject is not court actions, but the expert actions - was he committing a perjury. It's a different topic. But I understand the difficulties, it's a subtle issue. I even admit it could be just ignorance of the "expert", without intentions - just and accident. I do not pretend to provide a correct and well formulated accusation, I mean there are ways to explore. It would of course require time and efforts (collect facts, speak with the ex-prisoner, reading the case materials, questioning the "expert"). Did the "expert" have motives? Was he instructed by superiors how to testify? Did he really perform those thousands of tests - according to the article this phrase was a common cliche circulating between FBI agents, so probably he didn't really perform the experiments. There might be facts allowing to differentiate this case either as a intended pejury, criminal negligence or an accident. BTW, another surprising thing in this article is how little care the court gives to the fate of this guy. They were just told about 8 to 10 cases when similar hairs were from different people, and nevertheless sentenced the guy without any other reliable evidence.
- avodonosov 11y ago
  Why civil suites aren't an option?
  - mirimir 11y ago
    In the US, federal agents have qualified immunity from civil suits.[0] So one must sue the federal government, and federal courts have jurisdiction.[1] It's a hard slog. [0] http://www.justice.gov/usam/civil-resource-manual-33-immunity-government-officers-sued-individuals http://www.justice.gov/usam/civil-resource-manual-33-immunit... [1] http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/12 http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/12

mfoy_ 11y ago

I'd rather see his expression if he ever found himself face to face with someone his false testimony put away for a couple decades... the majority of the prime of someone's life gone in a flash because of such incompetence... it's hard to fathom.

visarga 11y ago
The FBI expert doesn't want to accept the truth, preferring to see himself as the victim of false scientific claims. He says: > about the nationwide inquiry that is under way into the FBI’s use of hair analysis: “It’s all a bunch of baloney,” he said. “It’s all a bunch of poppycock. His bosses too. > A senior manager from the FBI laboratory, Harold Deadman, told his global partners: “We are believers in hair comparisons.” They are BELIEVERS. You can't challenge men of faith.
spacemanmatt 11y ago
I'd rather see his expression if he ever found himself maliciously prosecuted and placed behind bars based on his own specious arguments.

mirimir 11y ago

They should all be tried for perjury. Edit: And it's too bad that civil suits aren't an option.

avodonosov 11y ago
Yes, perjury should be considered in the first place. He testified it's very very unlikely for hairs of two people to be so similar, which (according to the article) is false. For convenience, here is a quote from the article, describing what the expert said: Having performed thousands of similar hair examinations over the previous 10 years, the FBI agent told the court, there had been only eight or 10 times when hairs from two different people were so similar that he could not tell them apart – suggesting the firm probability that the rapist’s hair and Odom’s hair had come from the same scalp. I think it's worth to address the suggesting the firm probability that the rapist’s hair and Odom’s hair had come from the same scalp. as a lie. He said this is supported by thousands of experiments, but didn't give enough information to the court about the methodology of the experiments, so we address only this conclusion he provided. He should not escape by saying - "I told the court the numbers and they should have calculated probability themselves". But in addition it's worth asking about those thousands of experiments. Did he really perform the experiments? What was the methodology? And if the experiments were organized so that they obviously do _not_ support his conclusion, then it's an additional evidence of lie - he knew these experiments do not suggest any firm probability. Also, was he instructed by his superiors to testify in that form?
- mirimir 11y ago
  It was pseudoscience, with a veneer of misapplied statistics. I do get that it's hard to prove perjury by expert witnesses. They're allowed to testify about their opinions. Witnesses can otherwise only testify about "facts". Those are arguably opinions too, about what they remember, but that's another matter. Anyway, I believe that expert witnesses are safe, as long as they don't lie about "facts". But they should still be tried. Maybe for conspiracy or whatever. Even for following orders without disclosing that fact. Get some smart prosecutors on it.
  - avodonosov 11y ago
    Expert are allowed to express opinions, but are they allowed to express knowingly false opinions? For example, somebody uploaded an image promoting inter-racial hate. I'am invited to the court as an expert, and asked "Here is the HTTPS log with the IP address of the defendant, his client certificate (he authorized with client certificate). Does it prove that the defendant uploaded this image?". And I testify: HTTPS is secure hyper TEXT transfer protocol, but we have an image here, not text. Image can not be uploaded with hyper TEXT transfer protocol. Is it a perjury?
    - mirimir 11y ago
      Yes, it's arguably perjury. And for something as obvious as this, it would be hard to claim that it's just a difference of opinion. But for expert opinions that involve substantial interpretation of evidence, it's hard enough to exclude under the Daubert standard, let alone to make a case for perjury.
      - avodonosov 11y ago
        I would like to note the Daubert standard applies to how a court actions (how it accept or reject expert opinion). While our subject is not court actions, but the expert actions - was he committing a perjury. It's a different topic. But I understand the difficulties, it's a subtle issue. I even admit it could be just ignorance of the "expert", without intentions - just and accident. I do not pretend to provide a correct and well formulated accusation, I mean there are ways to explore. It would of course require time and efforts (collect facts, speak with the ex-prisoner, reading the case materials, questioning the "expert"). Did the "expert" have motives? Was he instructed by superiors how to testify? Did he really perform those thousands of tests - according to the article this phrase was a common cliche circulating between FBI agents, so probably he didn't really perform the experiments. There might be facts allowing to differentiate this case either as a intended pejury, criminal negligence or an accident. BTW, another surprising thing in this article is how little care the court gives to the fate of this guy. They were just told about 8 to 10 cases when similar hairs were from different people, and nevertheless sentenced the guy without any other reliable evidence.
avodonosov 11y ago
Why civil suites aren't an option?
- mirimir 11y ago
  In the US, federal agents have qualified immunity from civil suits.[0] So one must sue the federal government, and federal courts have jurisdiction.[1] It's a hard slog. [0] http://www.justice.gov/usam/civil-resource-manual-33-immunity-government-officers-sued-individuals http://www.justice.gov/usam/civil-resource-manual-33-immunit... [1] http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/12 http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/12