ProPublica is a non-profit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
Decades have passed since the intersection of forensic science and criminal justice first became a pop culture phenomenon, popularized in countless TV shows, movies and books. But the growing public awareness of forensic techniques obscures a far more complex field that is rife with fake science—and the people who champion it, often for profit.
For years, ProPublica has reported on these dubious techniques that have crept into every corner of our actual criminal justice system.
So what is legitimate forensic science and what is junk? Let’s start with the basics.
What Is Junk Science?
Junk science refers to any theory or method presented as scientific fact without sufficient research or evidence to support it. This may interest you : Master science with this Ridiculous Inventions science kit, now 45% off. Some types of junk science have virtually no supporting evidence, while others are oversimplifications of real but complex scientific discoveries.
Adding to the risk they pose to the justice system, many forms of junk science are highly subjective and highly dependent on individual interpretation.
How to Spot Junk Science in Forensics
When ProPublica reported on junk science, we found many commonalities. These may include:
Examples of Junk Science in Forensics and Law Enforcement
Tracking the spread of junk science through the criminal justice system can be difficult. On the same subject : Carbon dioxide has been detected around an alien world for the first time. But ProPublica has been tracking forensic junk in various forms for years.
911 Call Analysis
Police and prosecutors trained to analyze 911 calls are taught to spot a killer on the phone by analyzing speech patterns, tone, pauses, word choice and even the grammar used during emergency calls. These are known as “guilt indicators,” according to the principles of the program. See the article : The best sci-fi movies on Prime Video. A misplaced word, too long a pause or a polite phrase can reveal the killer.
911 call analysis appears in the criminal justice system in many different ways. Some detectives say it’s a tool to help build a case or prepare to question a suspect. They used him to extort a confession. Others present their analyzes to prosecutors or hire Tracy Harpster, the program’s creator and retired Ohio deputy police chief, to consult on cases.
During Harpster’s career, he had almost no homicide investigation experience or scientific background. He developed a 911 call analysis technique based on a small study for his master’s thesis in 2006. After partnering with the FBI to promote his findings nationwide, there were enough requests from law enforcement agencies to create a full training curriculum .
Since the development of the technique, the analysis of 911 calls has been used in investigations across the country. ProPublica documented more than 100 cases in 26 states where Harpster’s methods played a role in arrests, prosecutions and convictions — likely a fraction of the actual number. In addition, Harpster says he has personally consulted on more than 1,500 homicide investigations across the country.
Despite the apparent ubiquity of the technique, researchers who have studied emergency care have been unable to confirm Harpster’s claims. A 2020 FBI study warned against using analysis of 911 calls to report actual cases. A separate 2022 FBI study said applying the 911 analysis could actually increase bias. Both academic studies by researchers from Villanova University and James Madison University came to similar conclusions.
Ultimately, five studies failed to find scientific evidence that analyzing 911 calls works.
In a 2022 interview, Harpster defended his program and noted that it also helped defense attorneys argue the innocence of suspects. He argued that critics do not understand the research or how to use it appropriately, a point he has repeated in correspondence with law enforcement officials over the years. “The investigation is designed to uncover the truth wherever it lands,” Harpster said.
Case in point: ProPublica noted how 911 call analysis was used in the case of Jessica Logan, who was convicted of murdering her baby after a Harpster-trained detective analyzed her call and then testified about it during her trial.
Bloodstain-Pattern Analysis
Bloodstain pattern analysis is a forensic discipline whose practitioners consider drops, splatters, and traces of blood at crime scenes as clues that can sometimes be used to reconstruct and even reverse engineer the crime itself.
The reliability of bloodstain analysis has never been definitively proven or quantified, but thanks largely to the testimony of criminalist Herbert MacDonell, it was consistently recognized in court after court across the country in the 1970s and 80s. MacDonell spent his career teaching week-long bloodstain analysis “institutes” at police departments across the country, training hundreds of officers who, in turn, trained hundreds more.
Although there is no index listing cases in which the analysis of bloodstain samples has played a role, state appeals court rulings show that the technique has played a role in criminal cases across the country. In addition, he helped send innocent people to prison. From Oregon to Texas to New York, convictions based on the testimony of bloodstain pattern analysts have been overturned and defendants acquitted or charges dismissed.
In 2009, a landmark report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences cast doubt on the discipline, finding that “the uncertainties associated with the analysis of bloodstain samples are enormous” and that expert opinions are generally “more subjective than scientific.” More than a decade later, there are few peer-reviewed studies, and research that could determine the accuracy of the analysts’ findings is almost non-existent.
When MacDonell, who died in 2019, was asked if he ever considered changing the structure of the course or the certification process after seeing students give false testimonies, MacDonell said no. “You can’t control other people’s opinions,” he said. “The only thing you can do is go and testify to the contrary.”
Example: ProPublica also reported on how bloodstain analysis was used to convict Joe Bryan of murdering his wife Mickey.
Other Junk Science Examples
ProPublica’s reporting on the junk science of forensics goes beyond analyzing bloodstain samples and analyzing 911 calls. We also covered:
How Does Junk Science Spread in Forensics?
Junk science can be disseminated in many different ways, but there are some common patterns in how it is disseminated by forensics and policing.
Often, junk science occurs when an individual devises a forensic technique based on minimal or limited experience and data. For example, the original 911 call analysis training curriculum was based on the study of only 100 emergency calls, most of which came from a single state.
The creators of these techniques then put together curricula and workshops aimed at law enforcement at all levels across the country. As more police officers attend these courses, these techniques are increasingly used in crime investigations and questioning of suspects. When police officers testify in court, the influence of worthless forensic techniques seeps into the justice system.
In other cases, prosecutors call the creators and practitioners of these forensic methods as expert witnesses, as is common with the analysis of bloodstain samples.
In the courtroom, it is up to the judge to decide whether certain evidence is admissible. Although judges are experts in the law, they are not necessarily experts in the scientific disciplines that make up forensics. Once some kind of junk science is accepted in a case, other prosecutors and judges can use it as a precedent to allow it in future cases. In this way, new junk science methods like 911 call analysis can quickly spread through the justice system.
How Long Has Junk Science Been a Problem in Criminal Justice?
Forensic science has had a waste problem for decades. In the 1980s and ’90s, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies used erroneous microscopic hair comparisons in hundreds of cases, formally acknowledging the problematic science only in 2015. Since at least the 1990s, law enforcement agencies have used a written content analysis tool without scientific support for the interpretation of witness and suspect statements.
A 2009 report by the National Academy of Sciences, which reviewed the state of forensic science in the United States, found that much forensic evidence “is entered into criminal trials without any meaningful scientific validation, error rate determination, or reliability testing to explain the boundaries of the discipline.” A 2016 report by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology found that despite efforts to fund forensic science research, there is still a large gap in understanding the scientific validity of many forensic methods.
In 2017, the Trump administration allowed the charter of the National Forensic Science Commission to expire, further limiting progress in validating forensic science methods. Since then, many forensic scientists have criticized the junk science problems that are rampant in forensics and criminal justice.
Are fingerprints pseudoscience?
Are fingerprints scientifically proven? When defendants are accused of crimes, we want them to remember their rights and remain sober even if they believe the evidence may convict them. Fingerprints are unique to individuals and allow accurate identification. However, they are never absolute scientific proof that any individual has committed a crime.
Why are fingerprints unreliable?
It is often said that no two people’s fingerprints are exactly the same, and therefore a latent print found at a crime scene that matches a suspect’s prints must mean that the suspect left the print at some point in the past.
Is forensics a pseudoscience?
Although judges and others demand more scientific evidence from forensic scientists, few are willing to completely dismiss these branches of forensics as pseudoscience.
What is junk science in court?
The term junk science is used to describe scientific data, research, or analysis that the person using the term considers false or fraudulent. The concept is often invoked in political and legal contexts where facts and scientific results carry great weight in decision-making.
What is considered garbage in forensics? This is why it is so important that courts take seriously not only their role in ruling out the junk science of things like microscopic evidence from hair comparisons, bite mark analyses, tire treads, and Shaken Baby Syndrome cases—but also that they take seriously their role in ruling out the unreliable the application of an otherwise reliable …
What is the difference between sound science and junk science?
Junk science is not based on fact and can be easily disproved. It is usually used to sell a product or service. Sound science is based on the scientific method and can be reproduced by other scientists. It can be used to predict, for example, climate change.
Why do courts not accept junk science?
In Perry Mason shows, truth wins out over good legal work, but in the real world, junk science dramatically changes the settlement value of cases, thereby unfairly shifting money from defendants to plaintiffs with bogus claims, or failing to shift money from rogue defendants to deserving plaintiffs.
What should happen to cases that relied upon junk science to help convict the suspect?
Cases that relied on ‘junk science’ to help convict suspects should either go through a retrial to see if they can get any convictions based on the factual evidence presented. If not, they should be released. Forensic science can try to reduce errors through quality control and quality analysis.
Why do courts not accept junk science?
In Perry Mason shows, truth wins out over good legal work, but in the real world, junk science dramatically changes the settlement value of cases, thereby unfairly shifting money from defendants to plaintiffs with bogus claims, or failing to shift money from rogue defendants to deserving plaintiffs.
Is all forensic science admissible in court? In short, unlike most other forms of evidence, expert testimony – including forensic science expert testimony – is inadmissible unless the proponent of the evidence can establish that it is reliable in various ways.
Why is forensic science not reliable?
Evidence is not always readily available and evidence collected may not be accurate. Much of the evidence, such as fingerprints and blood samples collected at the scene, is circumstantial. This basically means that they are not nearly as reliable as they are portrayed on television.
How do courts protect against junk science?
To guard against the use of such “junk science” in the courtroom, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of decisions in the 1990s—known as the Daubert Trilogy—directing trial courts to act as gatekeepers to allow only relevant and reliable scientific evidence is presented to the jury.
