U.S. Department of Justice

 

Federal Bureau of Investigation

 

Washington, DC, 20535-0001

MICROSCOPIC HAIR COMPARISON ANALYSIS
RESULT OF REVIEW

Date: August 05, 2014

To: Innocence Project
Microscopic Hair Comparison Analysis Review Team

From: Federal Bureau of Investigation
Microscopic Hair Comparison Analysis Review Team

FBI File Number: 95-HQ-269368

Criminal Docket Number: 85-5415-18, 20, 25
Defendant: Perrot, George

Victim: Prekop, Mary A. (FBI: 51226011)

A Trial Plea Stipulation
i Transcript enclosed
Lab Report enclosed

Pursuant to the Letter of Agreement between our organizations, this letter serves to provide your office
with the results from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Microscopic Hair Comparison Analysis Review
regarding the analysis of testimony and lab reports provided in the above-referenced case. Please notify the FBI,
within 14 days of receipt of this letter, as to whether or not the Innocence Project (IP) agrees with the 

conclusions.
The FBI has conducted its review of the report issued in this case and found it to contain:
i Appropriate Statements Inappropriate Statements

The FBI has conducted its review of the FBI testimony transcript and/or stipulation in accordance with the
November 9, 2012 agreed upon scientific standards between the IP and FBI with the following results:

Error Type 1: The examiner stated or implied that the evidentiary hair could be associated with a specific

individual to the exclusion of all others. This type of testimony exceeds the limits of the science.

Error Type 2: The examiner assigned to the positive association a statistical weight or probability or provided a
likelihood that the questioned hair originated from a particular source, or an opinion as to the likelihood or
rareness of the positive association that could lead the jury to believe that valid statistical weight can be assigned
to a microscopic hair association. This type of testimony exceeds the limits of the science.

Error Type 3: The examiner cites the number of cases or hair analyses worked in the lab and the number of samples
from different individuals that could not be distinguished from one another as a predictive value to bolster the conclusion
that a hair belongs to a specific individual. This type of testimony exceeds the limits of the science.

Appropriate

This document may contain information protected by the Privacy Act of I 9'74 and is provided by the FBI to your agency solely for authorized law
enforcement purposes. The infonnation contained herein may not be further disclosed or disseminated without the express consent of the FBI.

Response Sheet

Please send completed form within 1 4 days to:

Cherise B. Dreyfus

FBI Laboratory

2501 Forensic Way

Quantico, VA 22135

Fax: 703?632?77 14

Email: FBICaseReview2@ic.fbi.gov (please include in the subject line response? and the name of
the defendant)

Referenced FBI Case Number: 95-Hg-269368

Court Docket Number: 85-5415-18 20 25

 

Subject(s)/ Defendant(s): Perrot. George

Findings of the Innocence Project (IP):

The IP concurs with the conclusion reached by the FBI Microscopic Hair Comparison
Analysis Review, or

The IP disagrees with the conclusion reached by the FBI Microscopic Hair Comparison
Analysis Review for the following reasons:

Error 1
Error 2
Error 3
Appropriate

The IP would like to meet with the FBI (in person or by phone) to discuss the differing
opinions regarding the appropriateness of FBI testimony and/or lab reports.

This document may contain information protected by the Privacy Act of 1974 and is provided by the FBI to your agency solely for authorized law
enforcement purposes The infonnation contained herein may not be ?thher disclosed or disseminated without the express consent of the FBI.