Crime laboratories are built to examine forensic evidence for criminal cases. With the importance of forensic evidence being tested properly sometimes improperly tested evidence can lead to wrong convictions. “Because forensic science results can mean the difference between life and death in many cases, fraud and other types of misconduct in the field are particularly troubling” (Something.org)
Bite compensation, hair microscopy and serology commonly known as blood typing have yet to be tested to make sure that they can be effectively used. (Innocence Project) Scientist have used these mechanisms for years and although they might be effective at setting a starting ground to the issue that is to be displayed before the court, the truth of it is that they hold no true substance.
The process of hair microscopy is strenuous. The forensic analyst must determine where the hair came from, conduct racial determination, and decipher whether the follicles came from a male or female and the age of that person. Hair microscopy is questioned because of the scientific process it endures thus not being reliable as it should be. (Hair, 2012) Bite comparison has been questioned because “the marks can be altered through the stretching, moving and changing to the environment during and after the actual bite.” (Forensic Dentistry, 2012)
There have been cases that have been documented, and they seem to suggest that scientist and experts who have been given evidence to be tested for criminal investigations, have conducted improper testing thus leading to a conviction that was substantial to the evidence tested. “In 1987 in Houston, Texas a fourteen-year-old was forced into a car by two Latino men. She was then taken to a house and then raped repeatedly. George Rodriguez became the main suspect due to false evidence under the direction of Jim Bolding. The laboratory tested the victims’ rape kit and clothing and determined that hair follicles’ found in the victims underwear was...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document