forensic science

Please respond to makayla with 150 words no plagairism, no ai no chat bots

Hair Evidence

How strong is hair comparison evidence without nuclear DNA in this case? Should it be considered corroborative or merely circumstantial?

Hair comparison evidence in this case is weak without any nuclear DNA. This is purely because there was only one hair collected from the scene, when in fact, multiple confirmed hair samples are needed to make a meaningful comparison. With this case, the single hair that was collected from the scene does not contain a follicular tag; one of the most important aspects of nuclear DNA that could pinpoint the perpetrator. One hair, containing no conclusive DNA, found at the crime scene is not enough substantial hair evidence to make a confident comparison of the hair obtained and the hair of the detained suspect. Furthermore, without the hoodie even containing conclusive mitochondrial DNA, any evidence procured would be merely circumstantial.

2. What risks of confirmation bias exist once investigators know the suspect lives nearby and has a criminal history?

Because the suspect lives nearby and has a relevant criminal history to the crime being investigated, a bias that can be formed is that this suspect doubtlessly committed the assault against the victim. The investigators of this case might be led to only observe evidence that is incriminating or even try to obtain evidence that would dictate this suspect as being the true perpetrator of the crime at hand. Additionally, this bias can make it harder to view evidence from a broader perspective. If one gets it in their head that an individual did something without a doubt, it is easy to overlook factors that would prove their innocence. All these elements can lead to the biggest risk that comes with having a confirmation bias; an individual being convicted of a crime they did not commit and being served with consequences that do not belong to them all while the real perpetrator roams free.

3. Should microscopic hair comparison be admitted in court today? Why or why not, given past issues with overstated forensic conclusions?

Microscopic hair evidence comparison should not be admitted in court today. However, in the case that it is admitted, it should be made aware to the jury that hair evidence does not generally serve much relevance if nuclear DNA is not found within a hair sample. Given past issues with overstated forensic conclusions, it has been deduced that all microscopic hair comparisons must be valued as presumptive in nature, and any positive confirmations must be backed with DNA. Given there was only one strand of hair containing no DNA evidence collected from the crime scene, a confident comparison of standard/reference samples cannot be made. These factors would make for a futile argument on the persecutions part unless given to the jury as a form of background knowledge.

4. If you were the defense attorney, how would you challenge the hair evidence during cross-examination?

If I were the defense attorney in this case, during cross examination I would challenge nearly every aspect of the hair evidence presented. To start, the hair embedded in the hoodie only contains class evidence; the color, thickness and medullae patterns do not write off the possibility of the suspect being innocent. This is especially evident as there is no nuclear DNA to be found on the strand or any conclusive mitochondrial DNA. Hair evidence in this case would only be relevant in finding similarities between the suspect and the hair found at the crime. It must be stressed that hair evidence without DNA backing is only relevant in terms of finding similarities between hair samples. Even then, a strong comparison can only be made when more than one hair is being subjected to comparison; this is not the case with the evidence collected from the crime scene.

5. What are at least two innocent ways the suspect’s hair (or a similar hair) could have ended up on the hoodie?

Two innocent ways that the suspects hair, or a similar hair, could have ended up on the hoodie are 1. If the suspects hoodie was stolen by the true perpetrator and 2. This similar hoodie has been mass produced in the area in which the suspect and victim reside. Discussing the first point, it would make sense for the suspects hair to be embedded in the hoodie if it belonged to them but was stolen and then left at the scene. Equally important, it is expected that one would shop in the same center that their neighbors and community would. It is very likely that the suspect, the perpetrator, and even the victim would share similar garments of clothing made up of the same mass-produced fibers. Considering the hair evidence found does not have any individual characteristics, the similarities in the evidence and the suspect’s own hair could stem from the suspect and perpetrator being of the same race and/or ethnicity; or are from the same general area due to any chemical fingerprints left on the hair made by the drinking/use of the local water. So, if the hoodies are similar because of the fibers in which they are made of and the hair embedded has no individual characteristics, these factors could possibly make a question of the suspect detained.