While watching TV a few weeks ago I found myself watching one of those famous crime shows. In this case however, the ‘team’ was trying to overturn the ruling of a man that had been proven guilty. Not surprising, by the end of the 60 minute show the man was released. However, what was surprising about the show was that the evidence used to overturn the initial ruling, was the finding that chemical bullet matching tests were not scientifically significant.

     While at the time I thought that this type of unreliable test was simply something made up for the purpose of entertainment, I soon learned that this was not in fact the case, and on the contrary, this unreliable process of chemical matching bullets has been used in thousands of cases over the past few decades. The serious concerns with this technology are appalling, and it is terrible that such unreliable forensic ‘science’ has been presumably used to put innocent people behind bars.

     While scientists at one point assumed that pots of lead, used to make bullets all contained unique and varying degrees of components that could be used to individualize a bullet found to just a few other manufactured bullets. However, the assumptions that the FBI and other forensic scientists have been making, has been largely inaccurate and untrustworthy. Of late the FBI has revisited this information and severely limited the importance that its scientists and investigators can attribute to such information and scientific findings.

     This investigation is extremely important, yet at the same time extremely troubling. With shows like CSI, Cold Case, and Law and Order among many others, we have become a society that is infatuated with physical and forensic evidence. Juries today expect physical evidence in order for a conviction to happen, and have more knowledge about crime scene science than ever before.

     While scientists are put on the stand and give credit to a science that clearly doesn’t deserve it, not only is it harmful to the integrity of the scientist, and the man who is innocently put behind bars, but it casts a shadow and tarnishes the entire field as well. People are left to surmise the possibility of other scientific techniques not being as ‘trustworthy’ as they should be.

     Not surprisingly, this is exactly what has happened, at and a result courts and other legal experts have been given the power and authority to question such rulings. Tool mark analysis, handwriting analysis, and even fingerprinting analysis have recently come under fire, and the courts have had to take a close look at these techniques to make wise and accurate decisions. While the power and importance of physical evidence cannot be understated, trusting techniques that are not in fact trustworthy or useful is even worse.

     I think that the importance of this article is the fact that scientists and legal experts are reviewing the trust we place in physical evidence. By reviewing such techniques we will work to ensure that the system and techniques that we currently rely on are as good as we say they are. Such reviews of procedures, as was done in the chemical matching case, may be time consuming and costly, but in a judicial system where we rely so much on science, we must make sure that when we convict someone it is for the right reasons, and not because of some technique that isn’t even reliable.