There is a new article in ProPublica today about yet another bit of junk science resulting in junk justice for many people. In this case, it revolves around one self-appointed expert who has taught his seminar to hundreds of law enforcement personnel around the country. His claim: the words used by those calling for help via 911 can determine whether they are lying about the crimes they are calling to report. If the 911 caller says “Hi” to the 911 operator, that’s an indicator of lying??
Read the entire investigative report is here. It is quite detailed. Among many other stories, you will learn about Riley Spitler, Kathy Carpenter and Russ Faria. All were charged with or convicted of murder after their call for help was used as evidence against them. And all three were either released or acquitted of those charges.
Readers and Authors Alike are Fascinated by Forensic Science, But What’s Legit?
Some of us readers are inherently interested in the “scientific evidence” used in criminal investigations. Even back in 1959, my seventh grade “science fair” project was about finger printing! My motive for learning about the topic was my mystery book reading, not the “science.”
Some of what we learn from mystery writers is accurate to current practice AND good science. Other times, an author might accurately portray current practice which is NOT actually “good science”! Yes, cops, prosecutors, judges, and even defense lawyers have, in some cases, been bamboozled by eager-beaver police consultants. As the above article regarding 911 calls demonstrates extremely well.
I know that forensic “experts” are a big hit at mystery writer conferences. CSI experts, medical examiners, and even the “Poison Lady.” I have heard some of them. But who are these guest speakers? Do they know the latest and are they providing a voice to the new information discrediting common myths?
TV Shows and Novels Must Work Harder at Dispelling Myths
Viewers are informed by TV shows like CSI that are loaded with both real and junk science. When was the last time you saw a crime fiction show, or read a good police procedural where blood splatter evidence and/or teeth marks were used to charge a suspect? Where jailhouse jailbirds testify against fellow inmates? You probably absorbed information through the fictional story that was all or in part junk science.
There are many people improperly charged with crimes they did not commit because prosecutors and judges relied on junk science. I just hope that today’s scriptwriters and novelists do not perpetuate such myths about criminal evidence. I want Harry, Mickey, and many of my other favored heroes to do justice. That means their corresponding authors need to know the facts about evidence.
ProPublica and other investigative journalism organizations have unearthed a lot of these myths. Authors: Read up!
At right is one book that presents some of these issues. Just a little looking in Amazon will produce quite a few more books on the latest discoveries that debunk some things cops believe and we have seen on TV crime fiction shows. Some other articles:
- Blood Evidence: https://www.propublica.org/series/blood-will-tell
- Bite Evidence, Hair Analysis, Burn Patterns: https://www.propublica.org/article/another-startling-verdict-for-forensic-science-1
