Forensics Under the Microscope: The FBI and Hair Analysis

Ann and I are in the process of switching writing gears from our current Abbott and Lowell series to our new FBI K-9s series. So when a story recently broke that combined the forensics of one series and the organization of the other, it caught our attention. And what a story it turned out to be. We’re going to be starting a new series of blog posts this week as a result: Forensics Under the Microscope—what happens when the science of forensics goes wrong. Needless to say, the ramifications are enormous.

The FBI story concerns their use of hair analysis in criminal investigations and prosecutions. But before we get into that, let’s start with the technical basics—what is hair analysis and how is it used as part of forensics?

What is the structure of a strand of hair? Hair is actually made up of a number of components, but we’re going to look at the main three: the medulla—the middle or marrow of the shaft; the cortex—the thickest part of the shaft which also gives the hair colour; and the cuticle—the scaly outer layer comprised of dead cells.

What is compared? When crime techs go through a scene, they collect trace evidence, including hair and fibers. When a suspect is arrested, investigators will take various samples from the suspect, including strands of hair. The hair is first examined macroscopically for colour, coarseness and curliness. It is then examined microscopically at up to four hundred times magnification, and the structure and characteristics of the hair are compared side by side in the same field of vision as hairs found at the crime scene (see above photo).

How is a match made? Microscopically, the crime scene hair and the suspect’s hair are compared to match diameter, characteristics of each structural section, and colour variations. A match upon several criteria may be considered a positive result. But unlike fingerprinting, which in its early days had a set number of points that had to match to be considered a positive result, hair analysis depended more on the analyst’s subjective opinion about colour and texture with no minimum number of matching characteristics. Worse still, two examiners might not come to the same conclusion about a single comparison, but the testifying analyst would still have the final word. Finally, the science of hair analysis came into question since there was very little population-specific data about hair traits—i.e. how often a certain trait could be found at random in the general population. As a result, outrageous probability claims (i.e. a one in a million match) were declared during court testimony with absolutely no supporting data.

What happened at the FBI? It was recently reported that the FBI admitted to twenty years of overstated hair analysis evidence in favour of the prosecution. During the 1980s and 1990s, 26 of 28 analysts from the microscopic hair comparison laboratory gave erroneous statements concerning evidence, often overstating the reliability of the technique and the probability of accurate matches. Out of a possible 2500 cases spanning 46 states during that time period, 268 convictions involved hair analysis. Of those convictions, 257 or over 95% of the cases are affected by these erroneous or exaggerated analyses. Of those 257 convictions, 38 suspects were sentenced to death and 9 of these individuals have already been executed, while 5 more died during incarceration. In addition, 13 crime lab examiners mishandled these cases, often not informing defendants that their convictions might be in question.

Is hair analysis still used today? The FBI recognized more than a decade ago that there were problems inherent in the technique, and stopped using it early in 2000. At the time, FBI Unit Chief Douglas W. Deedrick said that the “experience, training, suitability of known hair standards, and adequacy of equipment” could all affect the reliability of the analysis. Another issue raised was that some analysts considered certain microscopic characteristics so unique in hair samples that if the sample partly matched only on these microscopic characteristics, that would be considered a full positive match. Yet there was no population data to support this opinion.

Some consider fingerprinting to be too subjective and prefer definitive evidence such as DNA identification. Yet hair analysis is even more subjective and, as an identification tool, was compared by Deedrick as being no more useful than the ABO blood matching system. A match might steer the investigation towards a group of people, but it should never identify a specific suspect.

What’s the bigger picture and the result of this reveal? Does this mean that all convictions affected by this flawed analysis will be overturned? Of course not; other evidence in the cases may have been strong enough to have convinced the jury without the additional hair evidence. But every case must be individually re-examined.

It’s a story we’ve seen before and that we’ll look at more closely in the future—departments that are part of, or associated with law enforcement organizations, whose employees feel obligated or are externally pressured to support that organization, despite the actual laboratory findings. For any scientist, this is a horrific thought. As I’ve often told my graduate students, your results are your results; they’re not wrong, they simply are. And you shouldn’t bend them to fit your hypothesis. If they don’t fit, then your hypothesis is wrong.

The larger picture here is not scientific results per se, but rather their downstream effect and the lives changed, often forever, because of them. For those looking for more specific information, the Washington Post has published a detailed breakdown of the cases involved.

The U.S. federal government has made the decision to waive the statute of limitations in all of the involved cases and will do DNA testing (not available at the time) in the hopes of conclusively confirming or overturning the convictions. For many involved, it’s much too little, much too late. But hopefully for some, it will be a chance to try to pick up the lives stolen from them so many years ago.

Photo credit: University of Rhode Island

Coming up on Saturday, May 2nd, it’s the inaugural Canadian Authors for Indies Day! I will be appearing on Saturday at 4:30pm at A Different Drummer Books in Burlington, ON (address below) with a roster of very talented authors. So if you’re in the area and would like to stop by and show a great indie bookstore how much we still need them and how important they are in our community, I’d love to see you that day. And if you’re not local to me, but still want to show your supports, please stop by one of the participating indie bookshops listed on the website!

A First Look at LAMENT THE COMMON BONES

Ann and I have just recently finished the fifth installment of the Abbott and Lowell Forensic Mysteries, LAMENT THE COMMON BONES. As we’ve been getting lots of questions about this book—what it’s about and when it’s coming out—we thought we’d give our readers some upfront information now so they know what to expect.

When we left Matt and Leigh at the end of TWO PARTS BLOODY MURDER, they’d just finished solving a trifecta of murders—one from eighty years ago, another from forty years ago, and one where the blood wasn’t even dry yet. On top of that, the subplot that started in A FLAME IN THE WIND OF DEATH continued: a mysterious figure was attempting to besmirch the name of Leigh’s father, a well-respected cop, killed in the line of duty. In TWO PARTS BLOODY MURDER, the case surrounding these deliveries grew more complicated, implicating a person of authority in Leigh’s life, putting her in grave danger.

In LAMENT THE COMMON BONES, we’ll not only see a brand new murder case for the team, but we’ll also see the resolution of this subplot:

When death hides in plain sight, only the most discerning eye can see the truth.

Forensic anthropologist Dr. Matt Lowell and his team of grad students don’t go looking for death—it usually comes to them. But when one of Matt’s students suspects the skeleton hanging in a top competitor’s lab is actually from a murder victim, Matt has no choice but to sneak in to confirm a suspicious death. Once the case comes to Massachusetts State Police Trooper Leigh Abbott, the team is back together again.

While trying to handle a new murder case, Matt and Leigh also uncover new evidence behind the mysterious deliveries intended to smear the name of Leigh’s father, an honored cop, fallen in the line of duty four years before. When the person behind the deliveries is finally uncovered, it becomes clear that lives are in jeopardy if they attempt to thwart him. At the same time, as the murder case delves into underground societies and grows complicated when the killer himself becomes a victim, it will take all of Matt and Leigh’s teamwork to solve both cases and escape with their lives.

LAMENT THE COMMON BONES will release in 2016. When we have more specifics on it, we’ll announce it here and you’ll also find the details on the Abbott and Lowell book page.

Like all the other Abbott and Lowell books, I’ve started a Pinterest board for LAMENT THE COMMON BONES which can be found here. If you’re curious about some of the themes in the book and some of the real locations used, stop by for a look at Matt and Leigh’s upcoming journey.

Photo credit: University of Liverpool, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences

Skeleton Keys Archives - Forensic Case Files: The Strange Case of Colonel William Shy

Things have been a little crazy lately. Not only is it tax time on both sides of the border, but Ann and I are working on two manuscripts simultaneously right now. So instead of missing a week at the blog, I thought I'd pull one of the most popular posts out of the archives - the case that set forensic anthropology pioneer Dr. Bill Bass on the road to completely change the science to become an invaluable forensic tool. So relax, settle back, and let's revisit the very strange case of Colonel William Shy, originally posted on April 10, 2012...

Colonel William Shy, killed at the Battle of Nashville, Dec. 16, 1864.

The whole affair started as an exercise in grave robbing.

In late December 1977, forensic anthropologist Dr. Bill Bass was called in to consult when the disturbed grave of Confederate officer Lieutenant Colonel William Shy was discovered. The grave was dug down three or four feet, but, most shockingly, there was a headless body in a sitting position on top of the antiquated cast-iron coffin, dressed in what appeared to be a tuxedo jacket.

In his role as Tennessee’s forensic anthropologist, Dr. Bass did an initial examination of the body on site. It was in an advanced state of decay and partially disarticulated, but some of the remaining flesh was still pink and many of the joints were still intact. He collected the remains, recovering everything but the head, feet and one hand, which was not unexpected in an outdoor burial where animal scavenging is common.

However, when the remains were removed from the grave, the team working the investigation found a large hole in the top of the coffin, approximately one-foot by two-feet in diameter, made by the grave robbers with a pick axe or a shovel. Hanging upside down over the pit and using a flashlight, Dr. Bass peered into the hole and found precisely what he expected in an 1864 burial – nothing. From other Civil War era burials in the area, he knew that more than 100 years in Tennessee’s damp conditions would break down a corpse completely, even the bones, leaving nothing but the layer of goo he found inside Colonel Shy’s coffin.

After cleaning and examining the bones, Dr. Bass concluded that the extra body in the grave was that of a male in his mid-to-late twenties who originally stood between five-foot-nine and six feet tall. There was no obvious indication of what had killed the man, but he estimated the time since death to be between two and six months. As to his presence in another man’s grave, the team postulated that the grave robbers had opened the grave to remove any valuable grave goods they could find, and were in the process of secreting a body when they were interrupted and fled.

And then some strange facts started to surface.

In the new year, when the local sheriff’s deputy and the coroner went back to excavate the grave further, they found the skull inside the coffin. It appeared that the grave robbers had been interrupted in attempting to stuff the victim into the coffin, dislodging the head. The cause of death was no longer a mystery – huge gunshot entry and exit wounds had shattered the skull into seventeen pieces. But, curiously, the dead man had clearly never been to a dentist and had significant, untreated cavities.

When the state crime lab examined the clothes, they found that they were simply made from only natural fibers and were completely without labels. The pants were also an odd style, lacing up the sides. A technician called Dr. Bass, expressing some concern about the items, but the scientist was already one step ahead.

He wasn’t sure how it could be, but he was beginning to suspect that the body in the grave hadn’t been added by the grave robbers, but instead was Colonel Shy’s disturbed body, having lost his head after being pulled from the coffin. It was a known fact that Colonel Shy, 26 at the time of his death, was killed when he was shot at point blank range with a .58 caliber ball. The remains being those of Colonel Shy would explain the lack of modern dental work as well as the clothing artifacts, but how could a body that appeared to be less than a year dead be that of a fallen war hero, nearly 113 years in the grave?

In retrospect, the reasons were quite clear. Although, it was a rarity at the time, Colonel Shy’s body had been embalmed as befitting a man of his wealth and social status, and had been buried in his best suit, the same suit he is seen wearing in the portrait above. Also, the coffin was made of cast iron, and was so sturdy that it not only kept all moisture from the body, but it also kept out the insect life and oxygen that would have rapidly progressed the decomposition process.

The miscalculation was a watershed moment in Dr. Bass’ career. He’d been a forensic scientist for over twenty years at that point, but neither he nor anyone else in the field knew enough about human decomposition to accurately estimate time since death. He made the decision then and there to address that lack of knowledge.

In 1981, Dr. Bass opened the University of Tennessee’s Anthropology Research Facility (more commonly known as the Body Farm) and the world of forensic science was irrevocably changed for the better. Next week, we’re going to delve deeper into the Body Farm and how it’s been a crucial part of forensics and crime solving from the moment it took in its very first research subject.

Forensic Case Files: The Final Journey of Richard III

We’ve been covering the fascinating story of England’s King Richard III for two and a half years now here on Skeleton Keys, so it only seems fitting to cover the last stage in his journey as well. The modern portion of Richard’s story started in August of 2012, when it was announced that the combined forces of the Richard III Society, and the University of Leicester Archeology Department had discovered very old remains under a parking lot in the City of Leicester. The remains were discovered under the posited historic location of Greyfriars church, where King Richard was supposedly buried in 1485 following his death at the Battle of Bosworth Field. The church was demolished in 1536, and its exact location lost to time in the following centuries, but meticulous research and many man hours led the combined team to this location.

Archeologists were hopeful that they had indeed discovered the remains of Richard III due to the conformation of the buried remains—the spine of the buried man had a significant curve or scoliosis. Over the centuries, the Tudor family, with the help of Shakespeare, had maligned Richard, turning the memory of a once-favoured king into that of a hunchbacked monster, and a man responsible for the death of his two nephews to ensure him the throne. But contemporary reports from Richard’s own time had simply reported him having one shoulder higher than the other, a common occurrence in those with scoliosis. Certainly, his curved spine didn’t prevent him from sitting a horse or fighting in battle. The skull also showed that the man had died a violent death, likely through battle.

In February of 2013, the University of Leicester released the news that the parking lot remains were indeed that of Richard III. Using mitochondrial DNA and tracing his line from his sister down through all the female relatives, as well as carbon dating, age and sex estimation of the remains, and analysis of the wounds to match with the account of Richard III’s death, it was determined they had a positive identification beyond any reasonable doubt.

On March 22^nd, 2015, Richard III’s coffin, topped by a wreath of white roses, was transferred by horse-drawn carriage from the University of Leicester to Leicester Cathedral. Hundreds of people lined the route which passed the site of the Blue Boar, the inn he possibly stayed at during his last night; the Guildhall, built in 1390 and one of the last remaining buildings in Leicester Richard III might have seen; and the Newarke Gateway, through which his body was likely carried on its way back into the city following the battle. His body lay in state at the cathedral for the next three days as thousands came to pay tribute to the fallen monarch.

On March 26^th, following more than a year of DNA testing, facial reconstruction, bone analysis and historical research, Richard III was finally laid to rest in Leicester Cathedral. Richard’s coffin, crafted by his decedent, carpenter Michael Ibsen, was carried into the cathedral by ten decorated Army soldiers and the service was presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury. His coffin was lowered into a tomb topped with a plinth of Kilkenny marble and will be closed with a massive block of Swaledale stone, incised across the top with a cross. Ironically, his final resting place is only forty yards from his original burial beneath Greyfriars church.

The service was attended by members of the royal family, including the Countess of Wessex, and the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester. Queen Elizabeth II did not attend but sent a message that was read at the beginning of the service.

Benedict Cumberbatch, who will play Richard III in an upcoming BBC production, and who is a third cousin, sixteen times removed, of Richard III, read the poem Richard by Poet Laureate Carol Ann Duffy (the video can be found here, for those of you who like me would listen to him read anything, including the dictionary).

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons  and The University of Leicester