After 25 Years In Prison, Man Is Finally Free After Being Framed By Detroit PD

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Saibotkram1988

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: 727Sky

...new tests on the bullets supported his remarkable claim that police framed him with bogus evidence.

Whose bullets were they?

Might not necessarily have a trace on whose they were but they could tell they were not from a gun he handled.

So why did the cops knowingly 'frame him'? Who were they covering for?

Edit: I have to go so instead of playing twenty questions I'll just add something...

Bullet forensics are as accurate as finger prints. If the lands and grooves match there is no doubt. If the lab declared a match falsely, they knew it was a hoax, apparently they 'have been closed' for 'mishandling' evidence? Thats evidence of a far deeper problem connected with the P, not just "whoopsies".

25 years later, likely your questions cannot be answered.

This case demonstrates how poor our criminal justice system is.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Saibotkram1988

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: 727Sky

...new tests on the bullets supported his remarkable claim that police framed him with bogus evidence.

Whose bullets were they?

Might not necessarily have a trace on whose they were but they could tell they were not from a gun he handled.

So why did the cops knowingly 'frame him'? Who were they covering for?

Edit: I have to go so instead of playing twenty questions I'll just add something...

Bullet forensics are as accurate as finger prints. If the lands and grooves match there is no doubt. If the lab declared a match falsely, they knew it was a hoax, apparently they 'have been closed' for 'mishandling' evidence? Thats evidence of a far deeper problem connected with the P, not just "whoopsies".

25 years later, likely your questions cannot be answered.

This case demonstrates how poor our criminal justice system is.

Or how entrenched the corruption is. They only let him go after so many years because the responsible are dead or retired from the force.

They know why this guy was in prison all these years, and they don't care. They were forced to let him go because of publicity, not because they were sorry, they let him go because they were found out.

a reply to: intrptr

After rereading what I put, I should have said it's not as accurate as everyone thinks it is, its accuracy can be called into question, it's not a slam dunk. I over stated.

Also, your assumptions about me are incorrect as well.

Now then, down to brass tacks...

Here's Popular Mechanics The Truth About 4 Common Forensics Methods .

Forensic examiners use the marks left on bullets to match them to specific firearms, but the technique lacks a solid base of research, and errors are common.

Forensic examiners measure bullet size to determine caliber, then check the direction of rifling marks and the degree of twist to narrow down the gun's manufacturer. To match a specific firearm to a bullet, investigators test-fire the weapon with a new slug and compare both bullets under a microscope, looking for identical striations. Investigators can also query computer databases that suggest potential matches.

As with fingerprints, not enough research has been done to quantify the probability of error in ballistics matching. So it's impossible to say with certainty that the marks made on bullets as they are fired are truly unique to an individual gun. Currently, ballistics examiners are aided by computer databases such as the ATF's National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, but lab techs always rely on their own visual inspection to make the final call. The Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners only requires an examiner to find "sufficient agreement" between bullets in order to conclude that they came from the same gun. Those judgment calls can cause false results. Last September the Detroit Police Department's crime lab was shut down after an audit by the state of Michigan found a 10 percent error rate in ballistics identification.

Let's take a look at something more recent,

One fundamental problem with firearms analysis is the lack of a precisely defined process, the NAS found. An examiner may offer an opinion that a specific tool or firearm was the source of a specific mark when “sufficient agreement” exists in the pattern of two sets of marks, but there is no precise definition for that statement. The NAS also found there have been no scientific studies to answer questions regarding variability, reliability, repeatability, or the number of correlations needed to achieve a given degree of confidence.

That's from Frontline, Forensic Tools: What’s Reliable and What’s Not-So-Scientific

Just because i'm not in my 60s, it doesnt make me the internet generation. Get off your high horse.

a reply to: cenpuppie

I would agree, the science is misused. The current case being one example.

As far as positive matches, there is no doubt. As far as honest labs, this one was closed due to falsified results, no?

If you can't trust the cops, the forensics and the justice system...

I would say ask Michael Brown, but he's dead and that Mississippi Mis-justice organ grinds on, business as usual.

Further: I don't know the details of the case, can't comment further about events.

a reply to: cenpuppie


Sorry, replying twice. I trust the main stream to confuse the issue, (especially Frontline) the forensics of firearms identifications is a lot more detailed than they presented in their show. All they concluded was it can't be trusted. Leaving out the injustice of the current justice system entirely...