Forensic hair morphology comparison - A dying art or junk science?

Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 95-100

  Taupin, J M ^a  

^a F5 Culham Science Center   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Admissibility; Comparison; Criminalistics; Forensic science; Hair; Justice

Indexed keywords

DNA; MITOCHONDRIAL DNA;

ALLELE; ARTICLE; COURT; DNA FINGERPRINTING; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HAIR; HAIR ANALYSIS; HUMAN; JUSTICE; LEGAL LIABILITY; MICROSCOPY; MORPHOLOGY; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; RELIABILITY; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 1942472669     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1355-0306(04)71695-0     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Saferstein R. Criminalistics - An introduction to forensic science, 5e. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey 1995.
2. Pollak J. US v Plaza, Acosta and Rodriguez Cr. No. 98-362-10,11,12 District Court of Pennsylvania Order 13 March 2002.
3. A Newman. Judge rules fingerprints cannot be called a match. New York Times 2002 January 11.
4. Houck M. Statistics and trace evidence: the tyranny of numbers. Forensic Science Communications 1999; Oct 1(3) available on the Internet at www.fbi.gov.
5. Grieve M and Wiggins K. Fibres under fire: suggestions for improving their use to provide forensic evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2001; 46(4): 835-843.
6. B Scheck, P Neufeld and J Dwyer. Actual Innocence. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
7. www.innocenceproject.org.
8. Honourable F Kaufman. The Commission on proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin. Volume 1. 1998. Ontario Government.
9. Williamson v. Reynolds, 904 F. Supp. 1529, 1588 (E.D. Oklahoma 1995)
10. Smith CAS. Forensic hair comparison analysis: nineteenth century evidence or twentieth century snake oil. Columbia Human Rights Law Review 1996; winter: 227.
11. Seta S, Sato H and Miyake B. Forensic hair investigation. In: Maehly A, Williams RL, eds. Forensic Science Progress, 2e. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1988.
12. Brauner P, Zamir A, Gorski A, Granger-Taylor H, Sheffer A, Salmon I. Wall hangings, hairs and the holocaust. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1994; 39(4): 1120-1125.
13. Linch CA and Prahlow J. Postmortem microscopic changes observed at the human head hair proximal end. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2001; 46(1): 15-20.
14. Petraco N, Fraas C, Callery FX and De Forest P. The morphology and evidential significance of human hair roots. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1988; 33(1): 68-76.
15. Gill P, Jeffreys AJ and Werrett DJ. Forensic applications of DNA 'fingerprints'. Nature 1985; 318: 577-579.
16. Higuchi R, von Beroldingen CH, Sensabaugh GF and Edich HA. DNA typing from single hairs. Nature 1988; 332: 543-546.
17. Wilson MR, DiZinno JA, Polanskey D, Replogle J and Budowle B. Validation of mitochondrial DNA sequencing for forensic casework analysis. International Journal of Legal Medicine 1995; 108: 68-74.
18. Linch C, Smith S and Prahlow J. Evaluation of the human hair root for DNA typing subsequent to microscopic comparison. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1998; 43(2): 305-314.
19. Hellman A, Rohleder U, Schmitter H and Wittig M. STR typing of human telogen hairs - a new approach. International Journal of Legal Medicine 2001; 114: 269-273.
20. Houck MM and Budowle B. Comparison of microscopic and mitochondrial DNA hair comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2002; 47(5): 1-4.
21. Kind SS and Owen GG. The assessment of information content gained from the microscopical comparison of hair samples. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1976; 16(3): 235-239.
22. Robertson J. An appraisal of the use of microscopic data in the examination of human head hair. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1982; 22: 390-395.
23. Robertson J and Aitken CGG. The value of microscopic features in the examination of human head hairs: analysis of comments contained in questionnaire returns. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1986; 31(2): 563-573.
24. Smith SL and Linch CA. A review of major factors contributing to errors in human hair association by microscopy. American Journal Forensic Medicine and Pathology 1999; 20(3): 269-273.
25. Ogle R. Individualization of human hair: The role of the hair atlas. Microscope 1998; 46(1): 17-22.
26. Gaudette BD and Keeping LS. An attempt at determining probabilities in human scalp hair comparison. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1974; 19(3): 599-606.
27. Gaudette BD. Probabilities and human pubic hair comparison. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1976; 21(3): 514-517.
28. Barnett PD and Ogle RR. Probabilities and human hair comparison. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1982; 27(2): 272-278.
29. Wickenheiser R and Hepworth D. Further evaluation of probabilities in human scalp hair comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1990; 35(6): 1323-1329.
30. Podolak A and Blythe C. A study of the feasibility of establishing a computer bank of hair characterization using standard descriptive criteria. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Forensic Hair Comparisons. US Department of Justice, FBI. June 1985.
31. Gordon I, Turner R and Price TW. Medical Jurisprudence, 13e. Edinburgh, London: Livingstone Ltd, 1953.
32. Nute HD. A scientific basis for forensic science. Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1996.
33. Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 U.S. 597 (1993).
34. Kumho Tyre Co., Ltd. V Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
35. Peterson J and Markham P. Crime Laboratory Proficiency Testing Results, 1978-1991, I: Identification and Classification of Physical Evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1995; 40(6): 994-1008.
36. Peterson J and Markham P. Crime Laboratory Proficiency Testing Results, 1978-1991, II: Resolving Questions of Common Origin. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1995; 40(6): 1009-1029.
37. Thompson W, Taroni F, and Aitken C. How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2003; 48(1): 47-54.
38. Burkeman O. Sloppy DNA tests sow legal doubt. The Age (Guardian, New York Times) 13 March 2003 Melbourne. Australia.
39. Keefe-Feldman M. Chromosome crime fighters. Missoula Independent 23 October 2003; Vol 14 No.43.
40. Forensic examiner found incompetent. The Olympian 10 September 2003.
41. Struzzi D. New test casts doubt on old evidence; convict's rape case pits DNA analysis against microscopic hair comparisons. The Hartford Courant 29 December 2002.
42. Luscombe B. When the evidence lies. Time Australia May 21 2001.
43. Forensic Evidence Review. Government of Manitoba. Available at www.gov.mb.ca/justice/forensic.
44. Lett D. 'Junk science' cases to get provincial review. Winnipeg Free Press 15 March 2003.
45. Wrolstad M. Hair matching flawed as a forensic science. The Dallas Morning News 31 March 2003.
46. Dwyer J and S Saulny. Hair evidence in jogger case is discredited. The New York Times 25 October 2002.
47. Verma M, Pratt L, Ganesh C and Medina C. Hair-MAP: a prototype automated system for forensic hair comparison and analysis. Forensic Science International 2002; 129: 168-186.