[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
3 MILLION AMERICAN CITIZENS
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 RACIST
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 KILLING POORS.
THEY'RE KILLING 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
DICK.
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!
♪ ♪
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.
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 ASSHOLE 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 --
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 ARTILLERY 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.
BULLETS 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 MURDER AND SERVED
26 YEARS, IN LARGE PART, THANKS
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.
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 MURDER, A FACT
I LEARNED IN
"AIR BUD NINE:
FUCK 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
1970s THROUGH 1999, IN 268 CASES
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 EXECUTED.
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 KILLER'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 KILLER'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 MURDER 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 FUCKED.
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!
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 MURDER 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
1.1 BILLION AND TWO
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 FUCKING 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 KILL 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 MURDER 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 FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?
>> THIS IS MURDER.
THAT'S A HUMAN PERSON.
>> THAT'S HIS WIFE OVER THERE.
YOU ARE A FUCKING ASSHOLE.
>> 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 KILLER.
>> THE VICTIM WAS SHOT.
HOW COULD A DOG FIRE A GUN?
>> THAT'S A BAD DOG RIGHT THERE,
AND HE'S ABOUT TO FACE SOME ROOF
JUSTICE.
>> WE ARE INDOORS.
FUCK 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.