Radley Balko Finds The Truth. The Ugly, Ugly Truth.

Radley Balko, yeoman truth-searcher, has a new feature piece at Reason. WARNING: NO SERIOUSLY, WARNING: it’s some horrifying stuff.

In the piece, Balko releases a video clip from an autopsy examination of a 23 month old drowning victim. The forensic doctors in charge of the autopsy, Michael West and Stephen Hayne, have long been considered corrupt and lousy experts. Of course, that doesn’t stop the police from using Hayne and West’s testimony in thousands of court cases each year.

Anyway, Balko investigated a case the two scientists handled back in 1993, where their testimony put a man, Jimmy Duncan, on death row. Hayne and West filmed their examination of the little girl, but then the defense lawyers grabbed a copy. What did they see?

The video shows bite marks mysteriously appearing on the toddler's face during the time she was in the custody of Hayne and West. It then shows West repeatedly and methodically pressing and scraping a dental mold of a man's teeth on the dead girl's skin. Forensic scientists who have viewed the footage say the video reveals not only medical malpractice, but criminal evidence tampering.

BAM! INNOCENT MAN FOUND GUILTY AT TRIAL BASED ON “EXPERT TESTIMONY”! THERE’S SOME QUICK LOOZIANA JUSTICE FER YA!

I’m writing in faux/snarky hysterics because I think if I actually take the time to think about this case, I’ll get so angry that I’ll lose control of my body and do something I regret. Like drink a whole bottle of moonshine in a single setting, or go throw rocks at squirrels. This is disgusting.

For those who don’t quite see all the fuss, allow me to lay out what happened: Hayne (the chief forensics expert), would get a hint that the police wanted the autopsy to point in a certain direction. He would then discover “possible bite marks” on the body that other experts hadn’t noticed in their own examinations. This, of course, means that the police are required to take dental molds of suspects teeth. Hayne brings in his expert on teeth, West, and the two of them would use the freshly-acquired molds to physically desecrate the corpse and make the necessary marks on the victim. Their subsequent testimony re: the bite marks would oftentimes be sufficient for a guilty verdict.

Don’t get it twisted: if Jimmy Duncan had been executed for this crime (he’s still on death row), Hayne and West would have been murderers, straight up.

Some say that “The State has the right to execute guilty criminals.” Perhaps so. I tend to think not, but whatevs. But even if one is granted this claim, though, the claim does not allow for the State to have “the right to execute every convicted criminal and a few extra innocent citizens on the side in order to make sure the we get all the bad guys.” The hoary truism about “better 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be in prison” is still a true and good value for society, despite its hoariness. Therefore, if the veracity of the word “guilty” in our initial statement is at all in question, the State’s according power should be just as much in doubt. This awful story is proof enough that empowering the State and her bureaucrats to execute convicted criminals is a foolhardy and dangerous position. One is placing far more trust in the competency of the State to determine guilt than the evidence warrants.

Read The Whole Thing Only If You Want To Learn The Truth But Become Really Really Angry. WARNING AGAIN, THO: GRAPHIC AND DISTURBING VIDEO.