A reminder that gullibility can cut both ways

How many times have you heard a TV detective say something like this: “We also found a strand of hair, our lab has matched it to you.”

And thus CSI puts another bad guy away, thanks to a single piece of hair from his own guilty head.

But seven years ago, Margaret Berger of the Brooklyn School of Law went on CNN and gave a pretty clear warning about hair evidence.

“There’s no statistical basis. They have no idea of how many other people have that same sample of hair,” Berger told CNN.

And three years ago, the Washington Post reported the same thing – that at least up until the year 2000, when better DNA testing came along, a lot of FBI investigators were exaggerating the significance of hair evidence from crime scenes, potentially sending hundreds of innocent people to prison.

And now, the FBI is officially acknowledging those mistakes.

Peter Neufield, with the Innocence Project, said the mistakes in the hair comparison unit went on for 30 years.

“So far, they’ve found that their own agents testified incorrectly in ninety-five percent of the transcripts,” Neufield told reporters.

The FBI promises it will change its practices and re-open cases where necessary.

But this is yet another reason why trust in law enforcement has been slipping. Americans value law and order. We have no patience for soft judges – nor for defense attorneys – who get gullible juries to free the bad guy on a technicality.

This story is a reminder that gullibility can cut both ways. And that sometimes the technicality we’re talking about is something called innocence.