An influential state commission said the blood-spatter analysis used to convict a former Texas high school principal of murdering his wife in 1985 was “not accurate or scientifically supported” and the expert who testified was “entirely wrong.”
Joe Bryan has spent the past three decades in prison for the murder of his wife, a crime he claims he didn’t commit. His conviction rested largely on ‘bloodstain-pattern analysis’ — a technique still in use throughout the criminal-justice system, despite concerns about its reliability. Should this type of forensic science remain in the courtroom?
When Mickey Bryan, a fourth-grade teacher, was murdered one night in 1985, her small-town Texas neighbors were shocked. When her husband, Joe, the beloved high school principal, was charged with murder, they were stunned. Could he possibly have done it, they wondered, or had there been a terrible mistake? Is Joe Bryan an innocent man, wrongfully imprisoned for the past 30 years on the basis of faulty forensic science?