Hair Evidence Vs Fiber Evidence

Words: 325
Pages: 2

After reviewing the facts of case, I do not believe the prosecution would have been able to secure a conviction without the fiber evidence. In addition to the fiber evidence, the prosecution also presented hair analysis evidence and witness testimonies (Polk, 2010). During the 1982 trial, DNA technology was in its infancy and it was not validated as a courtroom science, so scientists were only able to provide hair analysis testimony from what they observed underneath a microscope (Polk, 2010). Scientists from the FBI and Royal Canadian Mounted Police both testified that underneath a microscope the scalp hairs were consistent with those of Wayne Williams; however, the expert hair analysis conducted was considered a manner of judgment rather than exact science (Polk, …show more content…
Furthermore, even as DNA testing has become more advanced, the scalp hairs have never been conclusively linked to Wayne Williams, and the FBI attributes those results to incomplete samples (Polk, 2010). Additionally, Jack Mallard who was the Chief Prosecutor in the Williams case stated they knew the hair evidence was inconclusive, and it played a minor role in achieving the conviction (Rowson, 2015). Next, prosecutors relied witness testimonies to place Williams and the victims together before the murders occurred (FBI, 2014). Finally, after exanimating the evidence without the fiber analysis, I feel a good defense lawyer would have generated too much speculation in the prosecution evidence secure a conviction. Subsequently, if the hair analysis had played a substantial role in the conviction then I believe Williams should have been awarded another trial based upon the study conducted by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the FBI, the Innocence Project, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers