Mary Jane Burton Hair Analysis Essay

On August 3, 1979, a female was assaulted and raped in her apartment. Victor Burnette, 19 years old, was brought in as a suspect and the female said that he was the perpetrator. Burnette was convicted based on pubic hairs found at the scene. He spent seven years in prison and was released on parole in ’87. Two decades later, Burnette asked to have his case reworked using DNA analysis and was found to be not guilty. The serologist who worked his case was Mary Jane Burton. By the time Burnette cleared his name, at least five other people had been exonerated from their convictions due to Burton’s evidence. (“Victor”) Hair analysis has been a part of forensic science since the beginning. However, some have begun to question the reliability of

using these results in court. While hair analysis can aid the investigation, it generally cannot help make a conviction.
Hair is able to give a lot of information during analysis. It can tell us if a hair is from a human or non-human source and it can tell us the part of the body it came from. Pubic hair has very different characteristics than head hairs. Sometimes, hair can even give us a general idea of the ancestry of the person it came from, although this can be difficult if the person is multi-racial. It is also possible to see how the hair was removed from the head if the roots and/or follicle are still attached. If the root is stretched, then it is highly probable that this hair was removed by force. If the follicle is still intact, it is likely that the hair fell out naturally. (Houck and Siegel 287-293)
Proper collection of hairs is very important because it could lose credibility if it is incorrectly documented or processed. It is also possible to contaminate the hairs so evidence collectors and hair analysts should have care when handling any hairs. If possible, it is important to bring larger items with hairs on them to be processed in the lab to reduce the risk of contamination. There are a couple ways to safely collect hairs: using tape, and using tweezers. Each method works best in different ways; taping works well with a large grouping of hairs or with hairs on dark or rough textured items. Using tweezers is useful when the hairs are easily seen. (Robertson, 7.3)
Another way to improve credibility and usefulness in court is to ensure that the analysts are well-trained and qualified. When this is true, false convictions are far less likely to occur. As an analyst gains experience, they learn to use “pattern recognition techniques” to compare two samples of hairs. It is also a good idea to have a second analyst look at the evidence and results. Sometimes, there can be problems with hair analysis, especially since it is a very subjective process. (Robertson, 7.4) Some studies have shown that an examiner can change his description of the same hair on a day to day basis. To remedy this, it is important that hair analysts compare samples when their mind is fresh and they can focus on their work. (Robertson, 7.54)
It is possible to get certain DNA from hairs depending on what parts of the hair are attached. Nuclear DNA can only be found in the root of the hair. This DNA is unique to each individual, and it is possible to make a valid conviction from this information. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) can be found in the rest of the hair. MtDNA can be linked back to the maternal lineage of the individual, but not to a specific person. Because of this reason, a sample containing only mtDNA cannot aid in a case, but only provide some information on the perpetrator.
Almost all hair comparisons are done using a comparison microscope, at anywhere from 40x to 250x magnification. In order to properly compare two samples of hair, a known sample and the unknown sample is required. A known sample consists of 50-100 hairs from multiple portions of the area. The unknown sample must contain hairs from the same body area. It is not possible to compare head hairs to pubic hairs and get any valid result. In order to conclude that hairs are similar, they must have similar traits and similar variations. It is important to remember that hair analysis almost never results in a positive identification. Hair analysis can only tell us if it is a possible match, impossible match or inconclusive. (Houck and Siegel 295-298)
Even though hairs could be found at the scene of a case, analysts and evidence collectors must make a decision on whether it is sufficient evidence or not.

Just because a hair is found at the scene doesn’t mean that it belongs to the perpetrator. It is important to take Locard’s Principle into account, “The microscopic debris that cover our bodies are the mute witnesses... of all our movements and all our encounters.” (Robertson, 7.2) When you come into contact with something or someone, there is always a transfer, even if it isn’t noticeable. There are different types of transferring, primary and secondary. Primary transfer is when something transfers from you to another source. When someone comes into contact with that source, there is a chance that your hair or fiber transfers onto the other person. This is secondary transfer. Because humans shed hair frequently, it is easy for hair to go through secondary transfer and end up somewhere that the individual had never been. Hair can remain on a source for a couple hours without being transferred and it does not break down very easily, so this can remain in place for a long time. (Robertson,

7.2)

Although most legal positions hold hair analysis admissible in court, it “is generally only valuable when used in conjunction with other evidence.” (Robertson, 7.5.3, 7.5.5) A study took 137 trials that wrongfully convicted individuals and found that “60% of testimony given by forensic analysts for the prosecution…was invalid.” This study concluded that most invalid testimony stemmed from “overstating the precision or inculpatory nature of the results obtained.” (Eastwood and Caldwell, p.1523) It is important that hair analysts and other forensic science experts show care when presenting evidence in court, especially if there is not an absolute certainty in their work.
Not all of the blame can be set on hair analysis or analysts. Part of the issue is the fact that common people and jurors do not know very much forensic science. “… [J]urors tend to be influenced strongly by forensic evidence within criminal trials.” They also struggle to discern valid research from invalid. (Eastwood and Caldwell, p. 1523) In an attempt to research the effects of educating jurors through judges and expert witnesses, Joseph Eastwood and Jiana Caldwell set up a study with 155 participants. This study found that judicial instructions made virtually zero difference when countering against an expert witness, even if the expert witness’s research was flawed. This shows that an expert witness’ testimony “is one of the most powerful pieces of evidence in court.” (Eastwood and Caldwell, p. 1523; 1527)
While hair analysis can rarely be used to make a conviction in court, it still can give plenty of good information. When it is properly processed by a qualified examiner, these results can be a very reliable piece of evidence. If the public is prepped with the skills to judge research’s validity, and our analysts are educated well, we will see a decrease in wrongful convictions.