Errors & evolution of forensic science
DNA analysis was introduced to the criminal justice system in the 1980s and has helped exonerate many innocent people. The results of forensic analysis techniques such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis, shoe comparisons and blood typing that were accepted as reliable early on are now under serious scrutiny. Many have been found to be unreliable and inadmissible as evidence. Reliable forensic techniques are still subject to human interpretation and identification, so there is always the potential for error.
Connected case
Hair microscopy evidence played a role in the wrongful conviction of James Driskell. It was argued that three hairs found in James’ van matched those of the victim, suggesting that James had forced the victim into his vehicle which he took to the murder site. DNA testing later reveled that the hairs thought to be the victim’s were not.

James Driskell’s
story
About Us
What We Do
Governance
Staff
Careers
Innocence Support
Support & Answers
Eligibility Criteria
Review Process
Application
Learning Hub
Why It Happens
Path to Exoneration
Book an Event
Student Programs
Join our mailing list

