Until 2005, one of the most important law enforcement agencies in the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), relied heavily on lead bullet analysis to link suspects to crime scenes. This use of this technique was used throughout law enforcement and spanned decades, from the 1960s to the early 2000s. Law enforcement and many throughout the criminal legal system thought it to be reliable evidence. The idea was simple: if a bullet found at a crime scene matched bullets from a suspect’s box of ammunition, it meant the person was involved and likely guilty of a crime. However, research has now shown this technique to be one of the most unreliable forensic sciences.
In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences intervened. Their investigation revealed a shocking truth: the science behind lead bullet analysis was deeply flawed. We know now that bullets from the same box didn’t always have the same chemical makeup, and bullets from different boxes could be identical. This meant that relying on this method to link suspects to crimes was like building a house on quicksand.
In 2005, the FBI officially discontinued the use of lead bullet analysis. But the damage was already done. Over the years, this flawed science was used to convict thousands of people. Can you imagine being wrongly accused because the FBI presented evidence later proven to be completely unreliable?
In 2007, an eye-opening report by the Washington Post and CBS’ 60 Minutes revealed even more. The FBI had known about the issues with lead bullet analysis since the early ’90s but continued to use it anyway. They even conducted a study that showed inconsistencies in bullet composition, but analysts ignored the warning signs.
To make matters worse, a retired FBI scientist also concluded the science was unreliable after performing his own tests. The retired scientist started testifying for the defense in cases where the FBI’s “bullet matching” theory was used against suspects.
The most devastating part of the use of this unreliable testing was that it was used against innocent people who were wrongfully convicted because of this evidence. Imagine spending years in prison for a crime you didn’t commit, all because of the misuse of science.
This story teaches us an important lesson: science isn’t infallible. It’s crucial to keep questioning and researching to ensure the methods we use are reliable. Otherwise, innocent lives could be ruined, and justice might never be served.
