Driskell Case: An example of the Wrongly Accused Freed by Hair and Fiber Evidence
- James Driskell, sat in prison for 12 years until a DNA test of a hair proved his innocence. In 1989, police found stolen goods in a garage in St. Boniface that was rented by Perry Harder. Harder connected both himself and Jim Driskell to the stolen goods found in the garage.
 |
| Perry Harder |
Perry Harder went missing the following year in 1990, prior to the preliminary hearing in June. The common thought was that Jim Driskell killed Perry to prevent him from testifying against him at the preliminary hearing.
 |
| Confusion over actual facts of the case |
Driskell was found guilty due to testifiers claiming a hair in the van owned by Driskell, associated with the murder during investigation, matched consistently to hair of Perry Harder. This evidence was based solely on visual observation because DNA testing was not yet used. Driskell was then sent to prison.
The Association for the Wrongfully Accused launched an investigation into the procedure of the case only to discover the majority of witnesses had been threatened into testifying against Driskell and that one of the key testifiers was being paid for his testimony! Later, the Association of the Wrongfully Convicted sent the hairs found in Driskell’s van for DNA testing in England. The results determined the hairs did not belong to the deceased Perry Dean Harder and Driskell had been wrongfully convicted.
 |
| Association of the Wrongfully Convicted logo |
On June 3, 2003, the Association for the Defense of the Wrongfully Convicted asked the Federal Minister of Justice to review his murder conviction. After extensive trial processes, James Driskell was released.
This is compelling proof of this technique's value.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what Jon was trying to say but this case proves the impact of hair and fiber evidence. Justice is always served in an investigation is done right.
ReplyDeleteIt definately does prove the importance of hair and fiber evidence. As far as you comment about investigations, some criminals can still go free if the jury has any reason to doubt the reliability of a piece of evidence presented by the prosecution.
ReplyDelete