LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND STATISTICS IN A COURT OF LAW!!

One of the most heinous racial crimes that ever took place in the United States occurred on October 17, 1981. A young black male was abducted in downtown Mobile, Alabama and taken to a site across Mobile Bay where he was beaten and murdered. The murder was in apparent revenge for the mistrial of a black man accused of killing a white Birmingham, Alabama police officer. Two Ku Klux Klan members, Francis Hays and James “Tiger” Knowles, were apprehended and charged with the murder. A third individual, Benjamin Cox, was also charged as an accomplice. The three were tried and convicted and Hays was ultimately executed at Holman Prison in 2000; Knowles is serving a life sentence and the third co-defendant (Cox) is serving a 99 year prison sentence. It is ironic to note, however, that the three defendants were successful in having evidence tying them to the crime scene completely discredited in court. Statistical evidence offered by the prosecution’s witness (a chemist) directed toward showing similarities in soil samples found on the victim’s clothing, the defendant’s shoes, and the crime scene was totally invalidated because inappropriate (and incorrect) statistical tests were used. The prosecution’s witness was also shown to have little knowledge of both soil mineralogy and chemical variability associated with soils. While excellent evidence could have been offered by the prosecution had they chosen to use either the heavy mineral and/or clay mineral “fingerprint” of the soils, the prosecution instead attempted to show “similarities” in the chemistry of the soils. The defense witness was able to identify numerous mistakes made in interpreting the evidence and to invalidate the entire testimony offered by the prosecution’s witness. Fortunately, the adage “there is no honor among thieves” was evidenced and two of the co-defendants, to avoid a possible death sentence, admitted their guilt and testified that Hays was the chief conspirator. Following completion of the trial, the expert witness for the defense was contacted by the district attorney and asked whether more appropriate tests could have been offered (so as to avoid possible errors in the future). He was able to take solace by learning that both geological and statistical evidence had been there all along. It simply had not been reviewed by someone who possessed the proper expertise to do so.