A man who was jailed on the fantasy evidence of a single hair

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/fbi-evidence-single-hair-kirk-odom

by ghosh • 11 years ago

249 173 11 years ago

"Having performed thousands of similar hair examinations over the previous 10 years, the FBI agent told the court, there had been only eight or 10 times when hairs from two different people were so similar that he could not tell them apart"

At worst this is a 1% error rate, at best 0.1%. Scientific validity aside, I find it unbelievable this was not considered reasonable doubt.

no_gravity• 11 years ago

At worst this is a 1% error rate

If those 1000 pairs of hairs really were from different, randomly choosen people. But we don't know the quality of that sample. Maybe the examiner looked at 1000 pairs of hairs, 10 looked similar to him and those 10 were from different heads, while the 990 that looked different were from the same head. That would give an error rate of 100%.

Even if we assume there were no errors in the sample, then we still don't know anything about the correlation between the judgement of the examiner and reality. Maybe he randomly considers one in 100 pairs of hairs to look similar. So while yes, the error rate would be 1%, his judgement would have absolutely no informative value. It would be as good as throwing dice.

rogeryu• 11 years ago

So take two people, take two hairs of each, pick two random hairs of those two, and compare them. I guess this could work out quite well. Do this for 1000 pairs of two different people, and 10 will fail, so that is 1%.

This is how I understand it now. It's not that he says that he compares one hair to those 1000, and then still was sure to be able to keep them apart. That was how I first read it.

For a good comparison, he should have used a line-up. Take one hair from 100 persons with similar hair color and use that as test sample. If he was still able to tell which was from the same person, he would have a case.

mbroshi• 11 years ago

Kirk Odom notwithstanding, presumably they were only doing hair anlysis of suspects that were already presumed guilty. This is not a random sample.

notahacker2• 11 years ago

The comments section adds an interesting counterpoint to the Guardian's spin: he was also jailed on the evidence of the victim identifying his photograph, picking him out of an identity parade based on appearance and voice and testifying against him in court.

Whilst DNA evidence has subsequently exonerated him, there were pretty good reasons for the jury at the time to consider the case proven beyond reasonable doubt that didn't involve placing too much faith in dubious "expert witness" testimony about hairs.

ptaipale• 11 years ago

Interesting that you get downvoted for saying that.

There are good grounds to be somewhat suspicious of forensic evidence; however, my understanding is that technical evidence like this is usually far, far more reliable than e.g. eyewitness statements. Those are horribly unreliable, and experienced investigators (or should we say "investigators") are able to convince their witnesses of having seen things that did not really happen at all.

saint_fiasco• 11 years ago

Isn't eye witness testimony even more dubious?

It's possible the jury wouldn't have convicted him on eye witness testimony alone, but the fact that the physical "scientific" evidence agreed made it seem more legitimate.

fnordfnordfnord6• 11 years ago

The victim had seen her assailant only fleetingly and in the dark, and the composite drawing that had been based on her description – the one that the police officer had thought looked just like him – referred to a black male of “medium complexion” when Odom’s skin is very dark.

marrs• 11 years ago

Well, scientists are like priests: their word is gospel to the unwashed masses. I suppose the defendant didn't have a scientist on his side who could identify and challenge the bullshit.

rhino369• 11 years ago

1% chance a person is innocent is probably roughly around the reasonable doubt standard.

The problem is courts often misapply statistics. Prosecutors will often say in a case like this that there is a 100:1 chance that he did it because of the error rate.

But they aren't applying Bayes Theorem.

JupiterMoon• 11 years ago

I wonder if DNA evidence will prove to be subject to the same kind of over-interpretation?

Marazan• 11 years ago

"Low copy number" DNA analysis has had a degree of controversy swirling over it.

SixSigma• 11 years ago

I like how they say "the chances of a match with a random chosen person and not the defendant is X"

But people who are genetically related are not randomly distributed.

jessaustin• 11 years ago

Also if DNA is the only thing linking the suspect to the crime, it's possible that something like a national DNA database just becomes a way to convict people for having been in places where crimes later occurred. If you have DNA, it's going to "match" some set of people.

avodonosov7• 11 years ago

Yes, I wonder that too.

BlackFly• 11 years ago

I do like how they double down on the pseudoscience and had Odom performing regular lie detector tests.

RVuRnvbM2e• 11 years ago

The US is a world leader in bureaucratic use of pseudoscience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Usage

I was astounded to learn how widely the Polygraph is used in the US, despite it being described as only about "90% reliable" by its proponents!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Validity

JoeAltmaier8• 11 years ago

Tests are never perfect. And false positives are not critical in many applications. For instance, filtering folks for a job - you can reject extra candidates if you have plenty of candidates or a strict criterion that must not be violated.

superuser2• 11 years ago

Polygraph interviews have at least 2 important functions.

1) The polygraph is a pretty decent prop. At least some people become more truthful, or at least worse liars, when they believe lie detection is happening.

2) Even if the truth of something cannot be ascertained at the time, if it ever comes out later, you have a very simple path to firing/imprisoning/otherwise destroying the person: they lied to a federal agent. This is a sigificantly easier bar to clear than actually proving they committed a crime. For this the polygraph is not actually important, but the interview itself is.

harry82• 11 years ago

Wow the FBI really do act like they still call their headquarters the J. Edgar Hoover building. Celebrating one of the worst american criminals of the 20th century. Is the FBI beyond reform? Should it just be shut down entirely and a wholly new agency set up. The more you find out about what they actually do the worse it gets. It's dumbfounding.

theandrewbailey• 11 years ago

Wow the FBI really do act like they still call their headquarters the J. Edgar Hoover building.

Don't all of us?

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/hq

harry82• 11 years ago

No I don't think all of us celebrate that kind of criminal or want the FBI to be a criminal organisation. At the point you're faking evidence to get convictions on an institutional basis, yeah, it's more than one person agreeing to commit a crime. When it's their policy to repeatedly do so and to abuse whistleblowers, it really is organised crime.

Beyond salvation? Clearly a large number of people at the FBI need to be in jail for breaking very serious laws.

Falsifying evidence "to get convinctions" of the innocent. Yeah. Anyone doing that need to defending their actions in court as the accused.

gurtwo• 11 years ago

So what are the real success/failure figures of the technique?

RobAley• 11 years ago

Well that's the problem, no body has studied it so no body knows. And with DNA matching now available, there's little point wasting time and money studying it now. Future cases can use DNA matching, as can historical cases (and if the hair samples are no longer available, even if the technique were studied and found to be valid there is no way to verify that it was applied properly in the first place).

junto• 11 years ago

That's so sad. He missed his child growing up on the whim of a police officer and a prosecutor.

rayiner3• 11 years ago

The National Academy of Sciences report mentioned in the article is pretty damning about the whole field of "forensic science." https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf.

Pretty much only DNA analysis rises above shamanism,[1] and juries and judges have incorrect perceptions about the accuracy of those tests. While the often-quoted false random match probability is astronomically low, that error rate is dominated by lab error, which can rise to 1-2%.

As an aside, the Innocence Project has a better description of the details of what happened: http://www.innocenceproject.org/cases-false-imprisonment/kir...

s_kilk• 11 years ago

Forensic Science is basically a fiction, one which unfortunately has great power to ruin the lives of the people it touches.

jackreichert• 11 years ago

The glorification and exaggeration of the CSI television franchise doesn't help the matter either.

Tloewald• 11 years ago

The biggest scandals are fingerprint analysis and eyewitness testimony. The New Yorker had a big article on fingerprint analysis years ago and little has improved.

In essence, FBI and other "experts" have frequently attested to partial matches being reliable when they're pretty much subjective. Similarly, the FBI would claim matches based on far fewer points than other countries deem acceptable.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/05/27/do-fingerprints...

Meanwhile, the unreliability of eyewitness testimony is legion, and it falsely convicts more people than anything else.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-i...

abecedarius• 11 years ago

That report's really long. Is there any suggestion that, besides using validated techniques, the forensic investigators themselves be cross-validated -- where they don't know if they're getting cases from the "training set" or the "test set"? (And neither do the people they're directly in contact with.)

If it's justified for machine learning for ad systems, I fancy that sort of check is justified for justice, too.

avodonosov7• 11 years ago

Do you think this "expert" should get 22 years in prison? And maybe his boss too

mfoy_• 11 years ago

I'd rather see his expression if he ever found himself face to face with someone his false testimony put away for a couple decades... the majority of the prime of someone's life gone in a flash because of such incompetence... it's hard to fathom.

visarga• 11 years ago

The FBI expert doesn't want to accept the truth, preferring to see himself as the victim of false scientific claims. He says:

about the nationwide inquiry that is under way into the FBI’s use of hair analysis: “It’s all a bunch of baloney,” he said. “It’s all a bunch of poppycock.

His bosses too.

A senior manager from the FBI laboratory, Harold Deadman, told his global partners: “We are believers in hair comparisons.”

They are BELIEVERS. You can't challenge men of faith.

spacemanmatt8• 11 years ago

I'd rather see his expression if he ever found himself maliciously prosecuted and placed behind bars based on his own specious arguments.

mirimir4• 11 years ago

They should all be tried for perjury.

Edit: And it's too bad that civil suits aren't an option.

avodonosov7• 11 years ago

Yes, perjury should be considered in the first place. He testified it's very very unlikely for hairs of two people to be so similar, which (according to the article) is false.

For convenience, here is a quote from the article, describing what the expert said:

  Having performed thousands of similar hair examinations
  over the previous 10 years, the FBI agent told the court,
  there had been only eight or 10 times when hairs from two
  different people were so similar that he could not tell
  them apart – suggesting the firm probability that the
  rapist’s hair and Odom’s hair had come from the same scalp.

I think it's worth to address the

  suggesting the firm probability that the
  rapist’s hair and Odom’s hair had come from the same scalp.

as a lie. He said this is supported by thousands of experiments, but didn't give enough information to the court about the methodology of the experiments, so we address only this conclusion he provided. He should not escape by saying - "I told the court the numbers and they should have calculated probability themselves".

But in addition it's worth asking about those thousands of experiments. Did he really perform the experiments? What was the methodology? And if the experiments were organized so that they obviously do _not_ support his conclusion, then it's an additional evidence of lie - he knew these experiments do not suggest any firm probability.

Also, was he instructed by his superiors to testify in that form?

avodonosov7• 11 years ago

Why civil suites aren't an option?

mavdi6• 11 years ago

Thankfully not as severe as this, but a few years police came to my door and arrested me on suspicion of robbery. I was told they had a forensic evidence that I was involved in it.

As part of UK Visa procedures, I had to provide my biometric details. They had found my finger prints on a phone book and concluded that I must have done the robbery. They had no other evidence, they hadn't done any background checks or found a motive. The phone book was one of the ones my mom was distributing in her small van. I had helped her loading them up the van. I explained this, they checked with the distribution company and I was freed. But the thought that I had been incredibly lucky to have an explanation never left me. Just imagine a situation like this, maybe you go into a shop, pick up an item and put it back. Someone somewhere gets killed and your forensic information is left on an item in the murder scene.

What happened to this guy is terrifying. And I'm sure there are thousands of innocent people in jails because since the introduction of forensics, law enforcements and the courts have become too lazy to analyse the situation. "Evidence is there, must be guilty" mentality.

cmdkeen3• 11 years ago

But that is how arresting in England and Wales is supposed to work. The standard of suspicion to arrest someone is pretty low because it affords the police time to question a suspect, obtain DNA and fingerprint samples, search your house etc.

The problem we have is when the investigating officer gets focused on a suspect thanks to forensic evidence to the exclusion of other suspects. The CSI effect is real and strong, in reality in many cases there is little to no useful forensic evidence at all.

jbattle• 11 years ago

How long can they hold you while fishing for evidence?

dmd• 11 years ago

See: http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis/

kw713• 11 years ago

It sounds like you would have been saved a lot of stress, indignation and hassle if they had simply asked you, and spent five minutes checking up on your answer, before arresting you.

Considering the number of fingers that may have touched a telephone book during its manufacture and distribution (surely the cops have phone books and knew they weren't sent in the post, or if they had found a post worker's fingerprints on a piece of mail they wouldn't have arrested the postal worker) it seems to me that they may have been reckless in their conclusion.

mavdi6• 11 years ago

I was surprised by their conclusion. The only item with finger prints on it was the phone book. So I asked them, would a burglar go about stealing things, then just as he's about to leave the home, he takes off his gloves and checks out a phonebook? And then puts the gloves back on to open the door to leave?

NoMoreNicksLeft3• 11 years ago

This happens because the police aren't intelligent people.

In a Sherlock Holmes story, the protagonist uses forensic evidence but he thinks about what the evidence means.

The police, on the other hand, want a magic oracle device that spits out names and current addresses, and they treat forensics like it was such.

In the United States, having a valid explanation for why your fingerprints were on some object wouldn't necessarily get you freed, it wouldn't necessarily prevent prosecution. Some asshole DAs here would take that to trial (or extort you into a plea bargain, at least).

phkahler• 11 years ago

> Considering the number of fingers that may have touched a telephone book during its manufacture and distribution (surely the cops have phone books and knew they weren't sent in the post, or if they had found a post worker's fingerprints on a piece of mail they wouldn't have arrested the postal worker) it seems to me that they may have been reckless in their conclusion.

That's why such evidence is supposed to be supportive of a larger case. Of course there will be a fingerprint on almost any given item. If you have a complete biometric database of every person in the country you will be able to match it, but that doesn't mean anything at all. If the person matched happens to be local it still doesn't mean anything by itself. In this case there was a plausible innocent explanation of how it got there, but in most cases people won't know how they spread their prints or DNA.

crimsoneer• 11 years ago

At which point he could have disposed of evidence, refused to be interviewed, etc etc.

This is exactly how the legal system in the UK works - you arrest people at a relatively low burden of proof, and that gives you the power to detain them for a few hours while you question them, search for evidence, etc. You can't do any of that if you go over and "ask"

talmand4• 11 years ago

Did they actually tell you they had concluded you conducted the robbery? Or did they simply treat you as a suspect or person of interest and wanted to discuss it with you?

That's two different things.

Seems the system worked in your case. You had a plausible reason for the existence of your fingerprint at the scene of the crime. I would imagine they also ran your background information without bothering to inform you and regular police officers don't care about motive. Detectives do when investigating a case but street cops showing up at your door (assuming that's what happened) probably don't. You apparently didn't even have to go to court to explain all this and be set free.

Curious, do you know if they caught who actually committed the robbery?

mavdi6• 11 years ago

They were suited up detectives. They arrested me on suspicion of robbery. One of them was about to handcuff me but I kindly asked that he shouldn't and he accepted. They then transported me to the police station while my neighbours watched. Standard police stuff then on...

alexanderh• 11 years ago

How did they have your fingerprints to cross reference in the first place?

lsmod• 11 years ago

"As part of UK Visa procedures, I had to provide my biometric details."

DanBC• 11 years ago

Lsmod answers your question, but on top of that the English police force has an extensive fingerprint and DNA database. People who are arressted will have their fingerprints and DNA taken and that's held on file even if the case does not go to court (or goes to court and the defendant is found not guilty).

pdeuchler2• 11 years ago

I'm glad things ended well for you, but please realize that you were freed thanks to luck and not because you were actually innocent.

Don't ever talk to police. DON'T EVER TALK TO POLICE.

Call a lawyer and allow him to explain the mistake. There's just as much chance that the police could have used your explanation against you if they thought you were lying and you would be in jail right now, wrongfully convicted because you misremembered a small detail in your story.

DON'T EVER TALK TO POLICE, ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE BEEN EXPLICITLY CHARGED WITH A CRIME.

tim3332• 11 years ago

I think you may be thinking of the US? In the UK it's pretty rare to prosecute the innocent. If anything things are a bit lenient with a quite a few criminals getting off free.

dang2• 11 years ago

"Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

lifeformed• 11 years ago

Honest question: is everyone supposed to have a lawyer on standby? Who exactly am I supposed to call if I need one in this kind of emergency situation? Do I just look in a phone book for "lawyers"?

bsder• 11 years ago

How can you say this, and not include a link to the video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

This video explains perfectly why even if you are innocent, you should not talk to the police.

Might want to edit your post.

avodonosov7• 11 years ago

A happy-end story to dilute the sore: http://goo.gl/raZTTm

vermontdevil• 11 years ago

In the American south - bite marks are becoming discredited now.

http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/8b3bd7ebee8c4ae...

Hopefully now all other forensic techniques are going to be heavily scrutinized as it should be. It can be a great tool but it should be carefully used.

kw713• 11 years ago

I have never been on a list for consideration to sit in a jury, but my impression of the process is not very high: I am led to believe that successful, intelligent people more likely to be excused by virtue of having something to do (my family/business depends on me being productive and not in court) but also that anyone with relevant experience related to the matters at issue will be excused on the basis that they are not 'impartial.' With the recent popularity of stories about false convictions and bad evidence, I wonder how it would be different if we could make sure that a jury included a scientist, medical doctor or lab technician in cases where someone from those professions was to be asked for his conclusions in court. I would be surprised if my view that winning a jury trial is all about showmanship is in the minority.

dragonwriter• 11 years ago

Both of your impressions are generally wrong. Having something important to do with very few narrow exceptions justified, at least in California, a deferral of service to a specified future date, not an excuse; relevant experience usually doesn't justify a for-cause challenge, but may be the basis for a peremptory challenge. Though, even there, I think it's a lot less so than popular, entertainment media driven, perceptions would suggest.

Your view may or may not be in the minority, but even if it isn't that doesn't make it correct, just popular.

JoblessWonder• 11 years ago

I wish he would see your response, because you are 100% correct (at least in California.) I've been called for jury duty in two different counties and every time we get into a courtroom the people who have flimsy "sob" stories are usually told to buck up and aren't excused.

venomsnake2• 11 years ago

You have the power of jury nullification. That alone is a good reason to attend if given the opportunity.

BJBBB• 11 years ago

Juror nullification not permitted in many states. In California, you will be found in contempt of court for doing so, or at best be removed from the jury for misconduct. Also, essentially zero federal judges will permit any open discussion of law nullification.

LordKano5• 11 years ago

Precisely.

Fortunately, I am paid a salary. If I get jury duty, I still get paid. I wouldn't try to avoid it for financial reasons.

The state has the power to take someone's freedom, their assets and their life. The only mitigation of this is the jury. Never cede that power to anyone for any reason.

sliverstorm2• 11 years ago

My opinion of juries did take a bit of a nosedive when I was dismissed from a jury pool after sharing only my age, residence, name, and profession (engineer). In favor of other jurors who had glaringly obvious conflict-of-interest risks, like the juror whose entire family was police officers, for a case that had significant police testimony.

sliverstorm2• 11 years ago

(sorry I think I meant moral hazards, not conflict of interest)

hondo772• 11 years ago

So, you haven't actually been on a jury but you know all about the people on juries? Must be nice to be psychic.

kw713• 11 years ago

I've talked to many people who have sat on a jury, supported a girlfriend through law school, and have a few practicing attorneys in my social circle. So I haven't formed my opinions from Hollywood or even news/magazine articles where the topic is a miscarriage of justice. Wrt this article, it seems like the jury was fed a big steamy plate of you know what and they ate it up.

spacemanmatt8• 11 years ago

It's not actually unreasonable to learn about things that you have not personally experienced.

fennecfoxen• 11 years ago

Could be more ridiculous. Keith Brown (a UK citizen) was arrested in Dubai on allegations that the authorities had found 0.003 grams of marijuana on the sole of his shoe, and threatened with four years of jail. (Eventually they just shipped him back, though.)

rwmj• 11 years ago

And the Swiss guy who according to the story served 4 years for poppy seeds on his clothes. My conclusion from this is that I never wish to go to Dubai.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7234786.stm

spacemanmatt8• 11 years ago

Eating the wrong bagel can put a probationer in the states back in jail. Their drug tests are ridiculous, sometimes.

LordKano5• 11 years ago

People make jokes about the Libertarian practice of repeating "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" when questioned by a police officer but it would have done this man a lot of good.

I see this as being just as much about the power of police officers to steer an investigation, regardless of where the evidence points as it is about the reliance on pseudoscience and the CSI effect.

Someone1234• 11 years ago

People make jokes about the Libertarian practice of repeating "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" when questioned by a police officer but it would have done this man a lot of good.

People should very much remember their rights and the distinction between being detained and "voluntarily" cooperating.

The reason why libertarians get made fun of is because they just keep shouting the same thing over and over, even after an answer in the affirmative has been given ("Am I being detained?" "Yes" "Am I being detained?"). They sound like a toddler who thinks they have a get out of jail/trouble free card if they just keep shouting the same phase over and over.

But, sure, teach people their rights and their right to remain silent (and to have a lawyer). But also remind them that shouting some phase over and over again doesn't provide them legal cover or help situations de-escalate. And, yes, they will be made fun of for acting like an idiot.

LordKano5• 11 years ago

How is one to know for certain if they are being detained if one does not ask?

The questions are repeated when a noncommittal response is given or when the answer is incongruous with the behavior of the officer(s). For example "I just want to ask you some questions." or "No, you're not being detained. Can you come over here and let me ask you some questions?"

It's done, not because of some belief that it will allow the guilty to go free but because they want to expose the coercive nature of certain police interactions.

Am I being detained? Am I free to go? Am I under arrest?

Police officers only have to give the Miranda warning when someone has been arrested. Any statements made before an arrest are assumed to be voluntary. If an officer has probable cause, they're going to arrest you. Making it clear that you have no interest in cooperating is in your best interest.

There is one phrase that can be stated that does give some legal cover, depending on circumstance. "I do not consent to any searches" will require an officer to prove that he had reasonable suspicion or probable cause to conduct a search as he or she will not be able to claim that the search was with the consent of the suspect.

Crito6• 11 years ago

"The reason why libertarians get made fun of is because they just keep shouting the same thing over and over, even after an answer in the affirmative has been given ("Am I being detained?" "Yes" "Am I being detained?"). They sound like a toddler who thinks they have a get out of jail/trouble free card if they just keep shouting the same phase over and over."

From what I've seen, that is more a sovereign citizen thing.

People make fun of libertarians for things that sovereigns and anarchists say, because hey, why not? Politics is dirty; if the shit sticks, throw it.

advael• 11 years ago

A lot of stories like this are coming out, and it really leads me to wonder: Why do the FBI, the courts, and prosecutors have such strong incentives to convict someone?

This story elucidates a lot of problems: Poor standards on the part of the FBI for determining what kind of test produces accurate results, poor scientific literacy and critical thinking skills on the part of the jury, a belief in forensic technology that treats it as basically voodoo magic.

But what strikes me as most problematic is that it seems like people in this story, prosecutors, the investigator, etc., simply need to convict someone more than they need to find the truth, and face no consequences for getting it wrong, even though it ruins lives in a really serious way.

Whether it's a systemic career incentive or simply confirmation bias for the first suspect they get combined a desire to see "justice served", something about the way crimes are prosecuted is horribly broken, and bad science being used to justify locking people up is just a symptom.

dmitrygr• 11 years ago

Because the number of convictions is a simple metric and superiors love simple metrics to evaluate their inferiors on.

It is much simpler than admitting that performance in a job is a multi-faceted thing and cannot be dumbed down to a single number...

danschumann• 11 years ago

Rand Paul is the strongest candidate regarding the much needed criminal justice reforms. He's also the one best at his current job, senator.

__z• 11 years ago

Hair comparison seems questionable on the surface. I can pull two hairs out of my head that look very different. I have some sections of hair that are very fine and lighter and some sections that are thick and darker. My hair has also changed texture over the years which seems common for my family.

Here is another sad story of a man put to death based on pseudoscience

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire

There is also the partial print of the Madrid bomber fiasco... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield

frogpelt• 11 years ago

    Did he heck.

I know we are in a different age of journalism. But about two-thirds through the article, a paragraph starts with the above sentence. How does The Guardian let something like this slip by?

limeyx• 11 years ago

Absolutely repulsive. The people giving this "evidence" should be put in jail and the key thrown away.

A man who was jailed on the fantasy evidence of a single hair

Related Stories