A North Carolina crime laboratory is going to be examined by two former assistant directors of the FBI. More specifically, its operations in relation to cases dating back to the early 1990s are going to be reviewed. This is happening because recent revelations about practices there led to freedom for man who had wrongly been convicted of murder. The article does not specify what those revelations were, but explained about the case. Last month, Gregory F. Taylor was freed after a three judge panel found convincing evidence that he was innocent. His conviction was on the basis of flawed evidence and unreliable testimony. Taylor had served 16 years in prison before his release.
5 comments:
One part of this article that I really thought was interesting was that the FBI was being involved in the investigation of this crime lab. I did not know that the federal government would involve itself with things such as this. I would think that maybe a local police department would investigate this or maybe a state police unit. Another part that stood out to me was is that the cases that are being reviewed by these two former FBI assistant directors are from the 1990s and are not recent cases. A third part that I noticed was very interesting was that the man that was convicted by one of the crimes this lab reviewed was in prison for 16 years before he was found not guilty and let out of jail.
One suggestion that I have for this article is to possible go more into the case of Gregory F. Taylor and shows what crime he was thought to have committed and what evidence led to this conclusion. I also suggest that the article talk more about why the lab is being reviewed. Do they think that the lab may have tampered with the evidence to Mr. Taylor was convicted? I would also like to know why two former assistant directors of the FBI are reviewing this crime lab.
I learned form this article that while you may be innocent there is really no way of really telling other people that you are if you do not have evidence that proves it. Gregory F. Taylor was convicted based on poor evidence and a much spaced testimony. I feel that there should be a little more extensive way to tell if someone is guilty or not guilty. To hear that someone that was innocent spent 16 years of their life is prison is just something that people do not want to hear.
One thing i liked about this article was that these cases were not recent cases and they were being handled by FBI workers form the 1990s. Another thing I found interesting, was that a man was in prison for 16 years before the true verdict was discovered. Lastly, it was interesting because a lab that investigates crime was being investigated by the FBI for faults.
One think i found lacking, was the description of the actual case and crimes committed could have been elaborated. Also, I wondered why the FBI and a higher ranked bureau were not doing the investigation as two former workers were.
One thing i learned about in this article, was that someone can be convicted on little evidence and that in time as our technology has improved, case decisions are turning around.
One thing that i found interesting was that a man was in prison for 16 years before the true verdict was discovered. Another thing i found interesting was that the FBI was being involved in the investigation of this crime lab. Finally i found it interesting that these cases were not recent cases and they were being handled by FBI workers form the 1990s.
One thing I wanted to know was why the FBI and a higher ranked bureau were not doing the investigation as two former workers were. Another suggestion is to possibly go more into the case of Gregory F. Taylor and shows what crime he was thought to have committed.
Something that i learned was the despite the fact that someone was convicted on little evidence but as time goes on, and technology gets better new decisions on the case can be made.
This article was very intriguing, one prt of it that seemed most iteresting to me was that tese cases from the 90s were being reviewed by to former FBI assisstants now, and are not recent cases. Its interesting how this man went to prison 16 years peviously and they just recenly found ut the true verdict. It also seemed odd to me that this lab that would investigate crimes wasbeing invstigated by the FBI for flaws.
The artcle could hve ben ore laborate when describigth cases. It clearly lacked detail, and didnt een note wy the lab was beig investigated.
This artice helped me gain an understanding that itis pssible to betried wrongly and proved guiltywhen innocent. It i terrible that this man served 16 years in jail for because of a fauly sentancing.
What I found interesting about this article was that while there is always a certain amount of uncertainty when it comes to forensic investigation done in labs, most of it is usually used in a prosecution. This article however, brought to my attention that there could be flaws in the system and someone could be wrongly convicted of a crime due to a poor/flawed investigation. What I also found interesting was that due to these flaws, cases are being reopened, and rightfully so. It was also shocking to me that something as simple as distinguishing between human and animal blood was one of the flaws.
What I would like to have learned more about is how the courts are going about re-opening the case for there is limited amounts of forensic evidence that would have surivived years of decaying. I would also like to know if this has happened before with other forensic labs and how often it has happened if it has.
What I found particularly interesting was that a man was convicted for sixteen years even though there was not solid forensic evidence, also that the FBI was getting involved with forensic evidence, that the government was interested in small cases.
Post a Comment