Prosecutors in the US are notorious for trying to obtain convictions at the expense of justice. In doing so, they will resort to all manner of dubious methods and what has come to be known as ‘junk science’, evidence that seems scientific but has not been shown to be reliable or consistent, is one such technique, using such methods to persuade judges and juries to convict. These junk science theories are advanced by people who pose as expert witnesses in cases, usually on the side of the prosecutors, while judges and juries are not made aware that these methods are unreliable. These so-called experts make a living by being ‘expert witnesses’ in cases and providing ‘training’ to police and police officers.
ProPublica has been exposing one such method known as ‘911 call analysis’.
Revelations that a new type of junk science known as 911 call analysis has infiltrated the justice system have triggered calls by prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys nationwide to ban the use of the technique, review past convictions in which it was used and exact sanctions against prosecutors who snuck it into court despite knowing it was inadmissible.
The actions follow a two-part ProPublica investigation published last year that many judges and other court officers said took them by surprise. “I never anticipated that prosecutors — officers of the court — would engage in systematic organized frauds,” a judge in Ohio wrote in an email to ProPublica. She said she had alerted fellow judges to be on the lookout for 911 call analysis, which ProPublica found to be pervasive throughout the justice system: “I’m sure that some will care and share my outrage that innocent people are going to prison.”
The technique’s chief architect, Tracy Harpster, developed a program to spread his methods and says police and prosecutors who take his training will learn how to identify guilt and deception from the word choice, cadence and grammar of those calling 911. So far, researchers who have tried to corroborate Harpster’s claims have failed.
Last year, ProPublica documented more than 100 cases in 26 states where law enforcement has employed his methods. Those responsible for ensuring honest police work and fair trials — including the FBI — have instead helped 911 call analysis metastasize. The investigation revealed that some prosecutors knew 911 call analysis would not be recognized as scientific evidence but still disguised it in trial against unwitting defendants anyway.
There is a need to systematically root out junk science from the legal system.
Faulty scientific disciplines, including misleading testimony, are the second most common factor in wrongful convictions, according to the Innocence Project. “The criminal legal system can add 911 call analysis to the junk pile of fake scientific theories contributing to this statistic,” said Nellie King, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. She called the business of 911 call analysis “dangerous and insidious.
ProPublica earlier published an article on how to identify junk science and the various types in circulation.
When ProPublica has reported on junk science, we’ve found many common traits. They could include:
- It has limited or no scientific evidence or research supporting it.
- It is presented as absolutely certain or conclusive, with no mention of error rates.
- It relies on subjective criteria or interpretation.
- It oversimplifies a complex science.
- It takes just a few days to become an “expert.”
The article lists Bloodstain-Pattern Analysis (popularized by the TV series Dexter) as another type of junk science. It also describes other highly dubious practices.
- The pervasiveness of Scientific Content Analysis, or SCAN, a means of dissecting written suspect statements while looking for markers of deception.
- How the FBI used unproven photo analysis in its investigations for years.
- Why police and prosecutors kept using roadside drug tests with known high rates of false positives.
The links above have the following passages:
SCAN:
SCAN, a product sold by a company called the Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation (LSI), has, in the words of four scholars in a 2016 study, “no empirical support” — meaning, there’s no dependable research showing that it works.
[T]he work of image examiners has never had a strong scientific foundation, and the FBI’s endorsement of the unit’s findings as trial evidence troubles many experts and raises anew questions about the role of the FBI Laboratory as a standard-setter in forensic science.
FBI examiners have tied defendants to crime pictures in thousands of cases over the past half-century using unproven techniques, at times giving jurors baseless statistics to say the risk of error was vanishingly small. Much of the legal foundation for the unit’s work is rooted in a 22-year-old comparison of bluejeans. Studies on several photo comparison techniques, conducted over the last decade by the FBI and outside scientists, have found they are not reliable.
POLICE OFFICERS ARREST more than 1.2 million people a year in the United States on charges of illegal drug possession. Field tests like the one Officer Helms used in front of Amy Albritton help them move quickly from suspicion to conviction. But the kits — which cost about $2 each and have changed little since 1973 — are far from reliable.
…There are no established error rates for the field tests, in part because their accuracy varies so widely depending on who is using them and how. Data from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement lab system show that 21 percent of evidence that the police listed as methamphetamine after identifying it was not methamphetamine, and half of those false positives were not any kind of illegal drug at all.
This is one of these situations where the success of science has resulted in people using the label to claim credibility for ideas that have not been adequately tested. Popular TV shows and films also give the impression that forensic methods provide much greater precision and accuracy than they can rightfully claim.
Does the FBI continue to promote junk forensics? Their lab was pretty scandal-ridden for a while, there. I’m sure it’s all reformed now, though.
In Australia, all positive roadside tests need to be confirmed with a test administered at station using much more precise, non-disposable equipment. Does America not have any confirmation process?
It’s good to see how opposed to junk science you are Holms. (Lol)
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
Oh cool, an attempt to derail an on-topic thread with an old argument you consider unfinished / want to revive. Troll much?
(lmao)
(also rofl)
I note that by posting those links intended to malign trans people, Holms has now violated the rules of probation set out by Mano ages ago.
They do no such thing, abbey.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1914162.html
Too bad junk journalism.continues to perpetuate exaggerations and omissions….
@Holms — Nice try at gaslighting an actual trans person, there. You don’t get to decide something isn’t transphobic.
1) That’s not what gaslighting means; 2) I do in fact get to arrive at and express judgement calls despite not being trans; 3) the links do not malign trans people.
Three lies in one, Holms! New record!
I will put aside our disagreement over 1 and 3, but are you really saying I don’t get to even have opinions on whether an article maligns a group without being a member of that group?
You don’t get to have correct ones, no. But that’s irrelevant and disingenuous, Holms. We already know where your political allegiances lie, and how you got banned from every other blog. When you post links about trans people, it’s going to be intended to malign them, because that is the thing you do, empirically.
Disingenuous? I said in #9 “I do in fact get to arrive at and express judgement calls despite not being trans” and WMDKitty called that a lie. Read for yourself, she thinks it a lie that I get to have and express opinions.
Your change of wording does not fix this either. So you’ll grant that I get to have opinions, but I’m not allowed to have correct ones?? Stupid.
Speaking of incorrect things…
“you got banned from every other blog.” No I didn’t.
“When you post links about trans people,…” you didn’t read them did you?
“it’s going to be intended to malign them, because that is the thing you do, empirically.” You can express your judgement as to my intent, but I can correct you: you are wrong.
Holms, I think you really are pushing it. Remember.
BTW, it’s clear to me the intent is to highlight that your claim boils down to “despite not being trans, my opinion about trans people (and their reality) is correct”, not that you are not allowed to have correct opinions.
“BTW, it’s clear to me the intent is” -- yes, you’re well known for overlooking the specific wording of a comment in favour of the probable intended meaning. As to the rest, this mess is not about my “opinion about trans people”, it’s about whether those two links “malign trans people”. WMDKitty called it a lie that I get to have opinions on that, and I sought to clarify precisely the point you bring up -- surely she doesn’t mean I literally don’t get to have an opinion on that? She just misspoke, right?
No reply from WMD on that yet.
Heh.
So, if I take that literally, you’re admitting that given my reputation, if even I can determine what’s being said then it must be super-obvious.
If I don’t, then you’re just evading the point with a feeble argumentum ad hominem.
(Face it, rhetoric is not your strong suit)
Your, ahem, well-known opinion. Seems to me it’s been exactly about that ever since SilentBob successfully goaded you into responding.
Holms @13 You misgendered me. My pronouns are they/them, and you *will* respect that.
And no, when you’re a transphobic POS, you do NOT get to have opinions on trans issues.
More misgendering @15.
My dude, I have been out for years now, there’s no way you missed it. Stop using feminine pronouns when referring to me.
#16 John
Say rather, you habitually ignore plain language interpretations of meaning as a means to start an argument. Narrow nit picking is merely the means by which you get your argument fix.And now you’ve chosen to reverse course, speculatively because otherwise you’d be agreeing with me -- no argument that way!
And we see now from WMDKitty’s reply at #17 that the narrow meaning was the one intended all along: I “do NOT get to have opinions on trans issues.” Although I notice that particular sentence is based on a conditional (when [I’m] a transphobic POS) which happens to be untrue.
I guess I get to have an opinion on those links after all!
___
#17 WMDKitty
Thank you for clarifying. Unfortunately you chose to clarify in favour of the most idiotic interpretation possible; of course I ‘get to have’ opinions as to the malignancy of those links. All people do.
Holms:
Yeah, but I was referring to your immediately preceding comment, where you were misrepresenting abbeycadabra by insinuating that “You don’t get to have correct ones, no.” was supposedly interpreted as “I’m not allowed to have correct ones??” as if that proposition had been context-free.
Heh. Even were that true, it’s irrelevant to whether you did that.
(You do know the name for that, right?)
Sure.
Thing is, the only possible context for you to adduce them is to sustain the supposed merit of your well-known and at-length expressed opinion, which you are now flaunting again.
(There’s a reason SilentBob succeeds at goading you, while falling flat when attempting to goad me)
#20 John
That’s no misrepresentation, especially not after WMDKitty clarified that the earlier exchange was definitely intended to have the narrow meaning.
You refer to your trusty friend tu quoque, but we can see that I did not do that. Remember, my first response to the exchange with WMD was not to “ignore plain language interpretations of meaning as a means to start an argument.” Gaze upon comment 13 and you will see that I asked WMD to clarify.
Is to directly address his linked-to article on the topic of how many sexes there are.
And, no maligning of trans people takes place in either link.
Shut up, transphobe.