Murder Cases Put "Junk Science" in the Spotlight
Undigested bits of mushrooms and tomatoes from Christine Morton’s last meal — a celebratory birthday dinner she had with her husband — were still in her stomach when the medical examiner performed his autopsy in 1986.
Those remnants, the prosecutor told the jury during Michael Morton’s trial, “scientifically proved” that Morton had beaten his wife to death.
Twenty-five years later, DNA science revealed that someone else had actually killed Christine Morton and that her husband’s murder conviction and more than two decades in prison were a tragic mistake. His exoneration based on DNA evidence is the 45th in Texas ...
Comments (6)
annie kobus
They really need to make sure any scientific evidence including statistical evidence is true befreo admitting it. Judges are sending sex offenders to life sentences based on unproven statistics and popular opinion that they cannot be rehabilitated. As a result these people are getting no rehab or psychiatric counseling other than what is provided by the prison systems. This only adds to the probelm by neglecting to treat and address the behaviors under the microscope. They bahaviors are passed on the the next generation of victims and it manifests itself again and again just like a generational virus.
If they have not found treatment that works, they need to find new treatment rather than throw out the hypothesis. That's what research is for. If the state taks over all research and the prison system is the one publishing all the data we take our polls from, then that really is not science is it?
Del Murphy
As long as we have prosecutors that put politics ahead of ethics and face no personal consequences (Burleson County, Williamson County, Dallas County, etc. nothing is going to change. Justice delayed is justice denied, but prosecutor misconduct is injustice, an atrocity.
Del Murphy
Why do I keep seeing Michael Quinn Sullivan prominently posted here. This is the doofus that praised "The Greening Earth Society" as a paragon of scientific excellence while he was a flack for CNS. The GES was a front group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greening_Earth_Society for a coal industry front group. Talk about junk science. Given the Tribune's purported goal of presenting unadulterated information, it is puzzling to see them shilling for this scam artist.
Lee Crites
"Junk Science" is not "junk" until someone proves it so. The risk we have in this whole discussion is that one person's "junk" is another person's "science." What happens if ten years from now we find "proof" that DNA evidence that we are touting today as the mother of all pure scientific achievements is just another example of "junk" science? Will we castigate the judges for allowing that "obviously junk science" in the court?
Inv. A. Bryant
It's not just "junk" science. It is the Prosecuting D.A.'s, Investigators, and officers who lie, hide evidence, ignore evidence, and place evidence (and remove it) to stroke their egos, get promotions, and make a fast buck. They always go after the closest relative or friend, then they search for their DNA only ignoring all other evidence, finger prints, and DNA. It is quick and easy.
Lee Crites
There is a saying that goes: "Figures never Lie, but Liars can Figure."
The discussion wasn't about lying. It was about "junk science." If the prosecutor is going to lie, it doesn't matter what kind of science is used. If the judge will allow the lie, it doesn't matter what kind of science is used. If the judge will allow evidence to be withheld from the jury (a very common form of judicial lying), then it doesn't matter what kind of science is used.