04x25 - Forensic evidence

[bunniefuu]

[Rock music]

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

[Cheers and applause]

John: welcome,

Welcome, welcome

To "last week tonight."

I'm john oliver.

Thank you so much

For joining us.

And we must begin with

Puerto rico, where more than



Continue to cope with the

Aftermath of hurricane maria.

The president's response has

Been widely criticized this

Week, and it still doesn't seem

Entirely clear that he

Understands the gravity

Of the situation.

The loss of life

Is always tragic.

But it's been incredible.

The results that we've had with

Respect to loss of life.

People can't believe

How successful that has been,

Relatively speaking.

John: how are you even trying

To take a victory lap right now?

The only way he could've saved

That statement is if he added,

"And don't forget.

I just kind of ramble.

I know nothing.

I talk because silence

Sounds weird.

Think of me as a parrot

Who memorized some human sounds.

Yabba dabba doo,

Jumanji, bye-bye."

And look, getting aid

To a disaster zone

Is a huge challenge.

But trump's rosy assessment of

Success has been disputed by

Many on the ground,

Like san juan mayor

Carmen yulin cruz, who went on

Tv to plead for more aid, which

Got a depressingly predictable

Response from the president.

The president up early this

Morning and tweeting about

Puerto rico.

"Such poor leadership ability

By the mayor of san juan

And others in puerto rico

Who are not able to get their

Workers to help.

They want everything to be done

For them when it should be

A community effort."

John: really?

Really?

The primary obstacle to

Hurricane relief has been

Puerto rican "laziness"?

You've got to hand it to trump.

Anybody can say horrible r*cist

Things about hispanic people

On a golden escalator.

But it takes balls to do it

While their fellow citizens

Are dying.

Trump is basically saying,

"When hurricanes hit our people,

They're not hitting our best.

They're k*lling poors.

They're k*lling lazies.

And some, I assume, have said

Nice things about me."

And this debacle came at the end

Of a week of embarrassments

For trump's administration

From the resignation of

Tom price to the failure of

The graham-cassidy health care

Bill in the senate.

Although to hear trump tell it,

There's a good excuse for that.

We have one senator

That's in the hospital.

He can't vote because he's

In the hospital.

Are you talking about

Cochran?

He can't vote because

He's in the hospital.

I'm almost certain we have

The votes.

But with one man in the

Hospital, we cannot display

That we have them.

We can't do it now because we

Have somebody in the hospital.

Sir, who is in the hospital?

Which senator are you referring

To?

Because he can't come here

And vote.

In other words, he can't come

Here and vote because he is

In the hospital.

Who is in the hospital, sir?

You probably didn't hear me,

Because as you know, one of our

"Yes" votes is in the hospital.

I can't take -- I can't wait --

I can't take him

Out of the hospital.

John: now, to be fair to the

President, he couldn't take that

Senator out of the hospital,

Because -- and this will not

Surprise you -- there was

No senator in the hospital.

People thought he may have been

Thinking of senator

Thad cochran, who was out for

Medical reasons, but who tweeted

"Thanks for the well-wishes.

I'm not hospitalized."

And cochran's staff even

Released a statement saying

He was recuperating from

A "urological issue."

So the president's lies

Essentially became so

Frustrating, the only way to

Shut them down was to publicly

Discuss the fact something

Maybe wrong with thad cochran's

d*ck.

And just think about what

Happened there.

The president just repeatedly

Said something that was not

True, that was wrong.

We just caught him in a lie.

In other words --

And I have waited a long time

To do this --

We got him!

We got him!

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

He's still president.

He's still president.

I just found out

He's still president.

I'm sorry!

I thought that cochran thing

Would do it..

I'm really sorry.

I thought he was finished.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

The senator wasn't in

The hospital.

I guess we've got to carry on

With the show, so let's

Move on to tax reform.

The concept that gives

Grover norquist

A shattering nor-gasm.

The president has been promising

Tax reform all year, which is

Usually taken to mean

"A comprehensive overhaul

Of the tax code."

But it seems, in trump's hands,

To have become much narrower.

At the very center of that

Plan is a giant, beautiful,

Massive, the biggest ever

In our country, tax cut.

John: okay, to be clear:

A tax cut is not just at the

Center of his plan.

It basically is his plan.

It's like saying "at the center

Of this egg is an egg."

Well, yeah, of course,

It's an egg.

That's all it is.

And while the plan is

Maddeningly light on detail,

When the nonpartisan

Tax policy center tried to

Create an estimate for what it

Might do, they found that,

By 2027, it could raise taxes

On many middle-class families,

And that around 80% of

The benefits would go to

Taxpayers in the top 1%.

And just this morning

Trump's treasury secretary

Steven mnuchin -- also known as

Me, john oliver, moments after

Waking up from a surgery to have

My morals removed --

He dismissed those concerns.

I don't know how the tax

Policy center can publish those

Figures since they don't have

All the details,

Including the brackets.

People like the tax foundation

And others have waited,

Which I think is responsible.

John: okay, so first.

I'm just gonna say it.

I think he's handsome.

You know?

Not in a conventional way.

But, like, he really

Is striking.

But it's hard to hear mnuchin

Urge people to withhold

Judgment, when this

Administration has been out

Aggressively selling the plan

All week.

Take trump's chief economic

Advisor, gary cohn, the answer

To the question "what if daddy

Warbucks never met annie and

Just kept being an assh*le for

The rest of his life?"

He spoke to reporters and was

Happy to game out how a

Middle-class family could spend

Their hypothetical tax cut.

If we allow a family to keep

Another thousand dollars of

Their income, what does that

Mean?

They can renovate their kitchen.

They can buy a new car.

They can take a family vacation.

They can increase their

Lifestyle.

John: hold on.

A thousand dollars for a kitchen

Renovation?

Or a new car?

He's talking about $1,000 like

A cartoon hobo from the 1920s.

"Oh, if I ever got that kinda

Money, yowza.

I'd buy myself a private island,

I would.

I'd eat caviar three times

A day, and my butler would be

A trained seal.

Man, with a thousand smackaroos,

I'd never have to worry about

Nothin' never again."

Look, as for the president

Himself, he is still insisting

That wealthy americans,

Including himself,

Will not benefit.

Our framework includes our

Explicit commitment that tax

Reform will protect low-income

And middle income households,

Not the wealthy and well

Connected.

They can call me all they want.

It's not going to help.

I'm doing the right thing.

And it's not good for me,

Believe me.

John: I don't believe you.

I don't believe you.

And you know why?

Just one element of the plan --

The elimination of the estate

Tax -- could, by one estimate

Save trump's family as much

As a billion dollars.

So, again, he's wrong.

We just caught him

In another lie.

So you know what?

This time I'm definitely going

To call it.

We got him!

We got him!

We --

That's fair.

And now this.

Announcer: and now guy

Fieri gives a surprisingly

Detailed tour of his favorite

Place on earth.

I'm guy fieri.

You know what I need?

I need you riding shotgun.

I am on my way to flavor town.

This is like a freight train to

Flavor town.

Ravioli train.

Flavor town passport.

$10 Ticket to flavor town.

I am minding for food in

Flavor town river.

The shipyard of flavor town.

That looks like a manhole cover

In flavor town.

The community pool of

Flavor town.

She threw away the dental floss

At flavor town.

This may be making a brick at

The capital of flavor town.

It's like the a*tillery center

In flavor town.

The first discovered culinary

Cave of flavor town.

That's the natural ground.

John: moving on.

Our main story tonight concerns

Crime, you know, that thing

That was almost solved by

A flasher dog in the 1980s.

Specifically, this story is

About how we increasingly solve

Crimes using forensic evidence.

That thing that's

A staple of tv crime shows.

Bulletin from the torso on

The left.

b*ll*ts from the boat on the

Right.

Two hearts beat as one.

That's advantage.

I think I just found us

A match.

We have a match.

Were you able to determine

Which monkey bit him?

The bite marks matched those

Of the monkey found at the

Scene.

John: oh!

That last one was presumably

From one of the crossover

Episodes, where the team

From "law & order" worked a case

With the cast of

"Monkey law & monkey order."

But on tv and in real life,

Forensic science plays an

Important role in criminal

Convictions.

Prosecutors often complain about

A so-called "csi effect,"

Where jurors expect to see

Forensic evidence in every case.

The problem is, not all forensic

Science is as reliable as we've

Become accustomed to believe.

A report in 2009 by the national

Academy of sciences found that

Many forensic sciences

"Do not meet the fundamental

Requirements of science."

And a report last year

By a presidential science

Council agreed, saying that

"Expert witnesses in court have

Often overstated the value of

Their evidence, going far beyond

What the relevant science can

Justify."

And that's the thing.

It's not that all forensic

Science is bad.

'Cause it's not.

But too often, its reliability

Is dangerously overstated.

And one sign of that is that

Forensic experts in court are

Often nudged to use one very

Convincing phrase.

To a reasonable degree

Of scientific certainty.

To a reasonable degree

Of scientific certainty.

To a reasonable degree

Of scientific certainty.

Within a reasonable degree

Of scientific certainty.

A reasonable degree

Of scientific certainty.

Are you able to say that

Within a reasonable degree

Of scientific certainty?

Yes.

John: and that phrase does

Have a persuasive ring to it.

Unfortunately, as that

Presidential council pointed

Out, it "has no generally

Accepted meaning in science."

It's one of those terms like

"Basic" or "trill" that has no

Commonly understood definition.

Am I trill?

Is that good or bad?

I mean, I do feel trill,

So I'm guessing it's awful.

And when bad science is

Confidently presented, terrible

Convictions can happen.

In fact, among the hundreds of

People who've been exonerated by

Dna testing since 1989,

In nearly half of their cases,

There was some misapplication

Of forensic science.

And there are people behind

Those numbers.

Take santae tribble, who was

Convicted of m*rder and served



To an fbi analyst who testified

His hair matched hairs found

At the scene.

As he'll tell you, the evidence

Was presented as rock-solid.

They said they match my hair

In all microscopical

Characteristics.

And that's the way they

Presented it to the jury and the

Jury took it for granted that

That was my hair.

John: I can see way they

Did.

Who other than an fbi

Expert would possibly know that

Much about hair?

Except, of course, for whoever

Styled amanda seyfried

At the 2009 oscars.

Breathtaking waves, without

Losing any of their body

Or bounce.

Stunning.

Stunning.

Stunning.

Stunning.

Stunning.

Stunning.

Stunning.

Stunning.

Stunning.

Stunning.

Stunning.

Jurors in tribble's case were

Actually told that there

Was one chance in ten million

That it could be someone else's

Hair.

And guess what?

He was exonerated.

Because once dna analysis became

Available, his lawyer tested

The 13 hairs from the case,

And not only were none of them

His, some of what they found

Was incredible.

Nine of the hairs had come

From the same source, a couple

Had come from different sources,

And one was a dog.

Two different agents didn't

Recognize it was dog hair?

It was a canine, a domestic

Dog.

My personal conclusion was,

The dog committed the crime.

John: okay, first:

It's amazing

That he's able to laugh at that.

But second, if a dog did commit

The crime, there's really no

Recourse, because there's

Actually no law against dogs

Committing m*rder, a fact

I learned in

"Air bud nine:

f*ck the paw-lice."

And it turns out, tribble

Is not the only case where fbi

Experts overstated their

Confidence in their results.

The innocence project and the

National association of criminal

Defense lawyers found from the



Where fbi hair analysis lead to

A conviction, 257 or 96% of them

Had errors in analysis.

John: oh, it gets worse,

Because nine of those defendants

Had already been ex*cuted.

Which is horrifying.

And you'd expect

Fbi hair analysis to have

A higher rate of accuracy than

Your friends' hair analysis of,

"You can totally pull off

Bangs."

Because you can't.

You absolutely can't.

Believe me.

I couldn't.

Learn from my mistakes, kids.

Save yourselves.

It's too late for me.

It is by no means just

Microscopic hair comparison

Which has had the reliability of

Its results overstated.

Those reports I showed earlier

Suggest there's weak scientific

Support for some aspects of

Techniques like blood pattern,

Footwear, firearm,

And bite mark analysis.

And you must be familiar with

That last one, from cool scenes

Like this.

A little 3d magic for clarity

And I give you the k*ller's

Incisors.

[Beeping]

John: oh, no!

The computer rated it yellow

Rectangle!

As we all know, yellow rectangle

Is the highest level of match

A computer can give you about

Teeth!

In the real world, bite mark

Analysis is highly subjective,

And unreliable.

The president's council found

The entire discipline

"Does not meet the scientific

Standards for foundational

Validity," which I believe is

Science-speak for "bullshit."

But people have been sent to

Prison on the basis of bite-mark

Testimony by experts like

Dr. Michael west.

The science of bite marks

Analysis is very accurate.

When it comes to bite marks,

West considers himself

The maestro.

He's found bite marks

On a decomposed body submerged

In a swamp, on a corpse that had

Been buried for more than

A year.

He's even used a bite mark taken

Out of a bologna sandwich

To get a conviction.

John: that sounds impressive.

Matching a k*ller's teeth to a

Bite mark in a bologna sandwich.

Although you should know the

Defendant in that case

Got a new trial, after

An autopsy report found that

The m*rder victim had actually

Eaten a small amount of bologna,

Consistent with the amount

Bitten off the sandwich.

So that sandwich was irrelevant

To the case.

In fact, you could even argue

That it was actually

Dr. West who was full of --

Say it with me --

Shit.

And that's not the only issue

That's arisen from his

Testimony.

There are now five cases

Where he testified for the

Prosecution and where the

Charges were dropped

Or the conviction

Was later overturned.

And even west himself

Has admitted that,

He no longer believes

In bite mark analysis for

Identifying perpetrators, and he

Doesn't think it should be used

In court.

And yet, incredibly,

Every time a defendant has

Challenged its validity,

The court has ruled it

Admissible.

And a key reason for that is

That judges often rely on

Precedent to decide what to

Allow in front of a jury.

So if a particular discipline

Has been in court before,

It's likely a judge will admit

It again.

All which means that, as the

Co-founder of the innocence

Project points out, decisions

About the validity of science

Are being made by people who

Don't necessarily know much

About it.

Historically, we had

A situation where two

Scientifically illiterate

Lawyers argue the bona fides

Of scientific evidence for a

Scientifically illiterate judge

So that 12 scientifically

Illiterate jurors could decide

The weight of that evidence.

John: if you think about

It, it's terrifying.

Trials can often be a situation

Where no one really knows

What they're doing.

It's like a cooking competition

For toddlers, hosted by

A stray cat and judged

By goats.

"The tuna was undercooked and

Covered in cold spaghetti sauce.

You then, for some reason,

Covered the whole dish

In honey nut cheerios.

I loved it."

None of which is not to say

There isn't more reliable

Forensic science out there.

Fingerprints and dna are

Obvious examples.

But while we think of them as

Perfect, it's important to know,

They are by no means infallible.

The fbi has found fingerprint

Analysis could have

A false-positive rate as high

As 1 error in 306 cases.

And a dramatic example

Came after the madrid

Train bombings in 2004, when the

Fbi arrested this oregon man,

Brandon mayfield.

He'd never even been to spain,

But three separate examiners

Matched his fingerprints to one

On a bag of detonators.

So he was at that point

Completely f*cked.

Until investigators determined

That that fingerprint actually

Also matched someone else,

Who was in spain at the time.

That blew the minds of

Fingerprint experts.

We always assumed that

Fingerprints are very,

Very unique.

But what the mayfield case

Demonstrates is that parts

Of the fingerprint can be

So similar it's possible for two

Different people to be

Identified to be one latent

Print.

John: it's true.

It turns out, two people can

Have fingerprints that are so

Close that even experts can't

Tell them apart.

Meaning we are this close

To finally proving my theory

That there is only one

Olsen twin.

She's just moving very fast back

And forth.

She confuses your eye.

I don't know how this new

Information helps yet, but when

It does, the end is nigh,

You fraud!

You fraud!

And then there's dna, which is

The gold standard in forensic

Science for a reason.

In perfect conditions,

It's seen as the most reliable

Form of evidence.

But not all dna tests are equal,

And crime scenes can produce

Dna of widely varying quality.

Dna is very fragile

And easily mixed up

At a messy scene.

So you imagine you come

Across a crime scene, you may

Have a pool of blood and it may

Not be one person's blood,

Right?

The more contributors to that

Mixture of dna, the more

Difficult it is to determine

Whose dna it was, whose blood

It was.

John: yeah, it can be

Difficult to tell whose blood is

Whose in a large pool of blood,

Which is, coincidentally,

The premise of my new game show.

"So you think you can tell whose

Blood is whose in a large pool

Of blood?"

It premieres on tuesday night,

And apparently, it's already

Been canceled.

The problem is, lower-quality

Dna samples are sometimes

Presented to juries as if

They're highly reliable.

In 2003, a prosecutor in a

Double m*rder told the jury

The odds the defendant's dna

Matched a glove found

At the scene by chance

Was 1 in 1.1 billion.

That's pretty impressive.

But it turned out, the glove

Actually contained at least

Three people's dna, and a later

Analysis put the odds closer

To one in two.

And you know what?

That's close enough.

People confuse the numbers



All the time.

I'm always mistakenly saying

That my favorite r&b group is

Boyz 1.1 billion men.

And on top of all this, there's

One more factor that can be

Impossible to detect, and it

Concerns the relationship

Between law enforcement and the

Forensic labs themselves.

Because you'd hope those labs

Would work independently, taking

In evidence and spitting out

Results.

But many labs work closely with

Law enforcement, knowing

Details of the case

They're working on,

Which can prejudice their work,

Even subconsciously.

Sometimes it's not

Intentional fraud.

But rather something much more

Inadvertent, which is the kind

Of bias that can come from

Feeling like you're part

Of a side, part of a team, that

You're part of -- you're

Attached to the prosecution

And you want to get the bad guy.

John: yeah, but that's not

Their job at all.

They're supposed to be neutral.

If a referee started

Participating in a team's

End zone celebration, you'd have

Some serious f*cking questions,

Like "why have you picked

A side?"

And "how long have you been

Practicing the dirty bird?"

So, clearly, a lot needs to be

Fixed.

And some states have stepped up.

One has done a lot, including

Passing the country's first

"Junk science" law, which

Enables convicts to appeal if

-- Request a new trial if the

Scientist used to convict them

Was flawed.

That sounds great.

And the pioneering state that

Did that, by the way?

Texas!

Yes, I know!

You don't expect texas to lead

The nation in science-related

Criminal-justice reform.

You expect them to lead

The nation in remembering the

Alamo or naming their children

"Football."

I love you, football, but if you

Ever forget the alamo,

We are done.

Sadly, at the federal level,

Progress has been slower.

Although one group,

The national commission on

Forensic science, has tried

To fix that.

They were founded to advise the

Doj on how to address the many

Problems you've seen tonight,

And their most recent meeting

Featured powerful remarks from

Keith harward, who spent 33

Years in prison for a crime he

Didn't commit, based on faulty

Bite mark evidence.

Some would say, well, you're

A free man.

I will never be free of this.

There's no possibility.

Excuse me if I get emotional.

That I spent more than half

My life in prison behind the

Opinions and the expert egos

Of two odontologists.

There's a death penalty case

In pennsylvania that's going on

Now, and the judge is going to

Allow bite mark evidence.

How many people have to be

Wrongly convicted before they

Realize that this stuff's all

Bogus, it's all made up?

John: that's a good

Question.

That's the kind of speech that

Could really inspire that

Commission to do a lot of good

Work.

Unfortunately, that was actually

Their final meeting.

Because the commission was

Shut down in april by attorney

General and xenophobic boss baby

Jeff sessions.

And that shouldn't really

Surprise you.

Sessions is a former prosecutor,

And seems like the kind of guy

Who saw "dead man walking"

And was like "hurry up!

Let's k*ll this guy already!

This movie should be called dead

Man dilly-dallying!"

Let's go.

So we may be actively going

Backwards on this issue, which

Is dangerous, because not only

Are innocent people are getting

Convicted, guilty criminals are

Being left on the streets

As a result.

And if this administration

Doesn't see this as a problem,

Then we should at least do more

To educate potential jurors

About some shortcomings

Of our system.

And one small way to do that

Might be this.

In this cd when the heat

Rises.

So does the m*rder rate.

♪ ♪

All right, everybody.

Let's get this stuff back to the

Lab.

No need.

Look what I found.

A bite mark.

That's what I call dead meat.

This f*ck is wrong with you?

This is m*rder.

That's a human person.

That's his wife over there.

You are a f*cking assh*le.

He doesn't like to play by

The rules.

It is far from conclusive.

Would you say there is a

Reasonable degree of scientific

Certainty?

Theo no, that's meaningless.

Right.

That's a problem for

Absolutely everyone around him.

Chief, the hair matches the

Victim's wife.

Case closed.

Microscopic hair comparison

Is bullshit science.

Iran a mitochondrial dna test

On the hairs.

There were five haters.

Three were from a coconut.

One was from a cabbage patch

Kid.

The remaining one was from this

Golden retriever.

There is the k*ller.

The victim was shot.

How could a dog fire a g*n?

That's a bad dog right there,

And he's about to face some roof

Justice.

We are indoors.

f*ck you.

He won't stop asking the hard

Questions.

How about a certainly

Reasonable science degree?

No.

Okay.

He is passionate about his

Job despite not fully

Understanding what that job is.

If we don't have something

Solid by tomorrow, the d.a. Is

Going to have my ass.

We don't work for the d.a.

We don't work for the d.a.

You do understand that, right?

Please tell us to understand

That.

Well yeah, I understand that

Totally.

There is no way he understand

That because this guy will not

Quite.

How about a certainly

Reasonable --

Stop talking.

Keep up the good work.

Even when his team abandons

Him, he's not afraid to call for

Backup.

It's better to be good.

I brought in some expert help,

Witnesses to help lock in the

Case.

Take a look.

We've got a forensic dentist,

Twin boy detectives, unroll tiny

Prospector, magic eight balls,

And the counties for foremost

Crime sniffing pony.

None of this is admissible in

Court.

Three of them have testified

In court before and they got

Convictions.

Is that the baloney evidence?

Csi crime scene idiot.

The one before we go, if you

Want or if you are able to help

Relief efforts in puerto rico,

You can give here.

That's our show tonight.

Thank you so much for watching.

We will see you next week.

Good night.