Timothy Bridges

The Crime

On May 14, 1989, an 83-year-old woman was found severely beaten in her home in Charlotte, North Carolina. She was badly injured, but still alive.

The Investigation

Despite the victim’s denial, a physician concluded that she had been raped. The victim described her assailant as having shoulder-length wavy blonde hair on several occasions, but in at least two other instances, she described him as having brown hair. At times, the victim described the assailant as being tall, but at other times she described him as being short. 

In March 1990, the police arrested Timothy Bridges, who was 22-years-old at the time of the crime and had shoulder-length wavy blonde hair. The police remarked that three informants had reported that Mr. Bridges had admitted to the crime. Mr. Bridges was charged with first-degree rape, assault with a deadly weapon, and burglary. In August 1990, the victim passed away.

While investigating the crime scene, a technician found a bloody palm print on a wall at the back of the bedroom, next to a light switch. The technician also collected hair samples. 

The Trial

Mr. Bridges went to trial in Mecklenburg County Superior Court in January 1991. Three witnesses testified that Mr. Bridges had confessed to them that he had committed the attack and rape. The informants denied having received any benefits for their testimonies and a police officer also denied that any benefits were offered or conferred for the testimonies.

Elinos Whitlock III, a state crime laboratory analyst who had been trained in hair analysis by the FBI, testified about the methodology of analyzing hair samples. He stated that “it is possible for two individuals to have hairs which are consistent with each other; that hair is not as unique and identifying as a fingerprint.”

Mr. Whitlock further testified that he was familiar with two studies on hair comparison, both of which indicated a very low chance of hair matching between two individuals. One of these studies, however, had been widely criticized by other experts. Mr. Whitlock also mentioned that, although he had examined between 2,000 and 3,000 hairs throughout his career, he had never personally conducted any statistical analyses on hair matching. Still, he testified that he could make a “strong identification” that the hair at the scene belonged to Mr. Bridges, and opined that there was only a 1 in 1,000 chance that two Caucasian people would have indistinguishable head hair.

Although the victim had denied that she had been raped, a physician who examined her stated that she had found bruising consistent with rape. Even though there was a rape kit prepared, there was no indication that it had been tested at the time.

The attorney for Mr. Bridges argued that the bloody palm print found on a wall in the victim’s home was left by the perpetrator. Mr. Bridges and the victim were excluded as the source of the print. 

On Feb. 2, 1991, the jury convicted Mr. Bridges of all charges. He was sentenced to life in prison.

In October 1992, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina, in a divided opinion, upheld Mr. Bridges’ convictions. One of the judges dissented, contending that the admission of Mr. Whitlock’s testimony that the mathematical odds of finding two people whose hairs have the same microscopic characteristics are 1 in 1000 should not have been allowed and that its admission warranted a new trial.

The Exoneration

In 2013, after three men who had been convicted on the basis of improper FBI testimony about hair analysis were exonerated by DNA, the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers convinced the FBI to audit cases where FBI agents had testified about or conducted microscopic hair analysis.

In 2015, the FBI identified 268 cases in which FBI agents linked defendants to crimes through hair analysis and 257 of those cases — or 96% — involved scientifically invalid testimony, such as inaccurately confirming that hairs were a positive match or giving unsupported mathematical odds of a match. Twenty-seven of 29 analysts either gave faulty testimony or submitted erroneous reports.

In April 2015, the Washington Post reported that flawed testimony by either FBI agents or crime lab analysts trained by the FBI likely affected as many as 2,500 cases across the country.

Mr. Bridges’ case was one of the first to be examined that involved an FBI-trained analyst rather than an actual FBI agent. Lauren Miller, an attorney at North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, had investigated Mr. Bridges’ case for years and had been told by Mecklenburg County authorities that any physical evidence in the case no longer existed. 

In October 2014, Ms. Miller filed a motion seeking to vacate Mr. Bridges’ conviction.

Shortly after that, Innocence Project attorneys Chris Fabricant and Dana Delger joined the case as co-counsel. In October 2015, after reviewing the case, Mecklenburg District Attorney Andrew Murray agreed to vacate Mr. Bridges’ conviction. 

At the time, Mr. Murray said, “The criminal justice system is constantly evolving with advances in science, and any time the D.A.’s Office is made aware of cases in which inappropriate scientific testimony contributed to a conviction, prosecutors have an obligation to act.” 

Mr. Bridges was released on bond on Oct. 1, 2015. 

Although the hairs and rape kit had long been destroyed, a jacket that had been near the victim at the time of the crime was soon discovered. The jacket was then submitted for DNA testing and semen was identified. A DNA profile from the semen excluded Mr. Bridges as the source. 

Moreover, a review of the police files revealed that the investigators had threatened to bring charges against some of the informants who had testified against Mr. Bridges, and had offered to give those informants breaks in their own prosecutions or payments of money in exchange for testimony. None of this evidence had been disclosed to Mr. Bridges’ defense at his 1991 trial.

On Feb. 16, 2016, Mr. Bridges’ convictions were vacated and the prosecution dismissed the charges.

In August 2016, Mr. Bridges filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city of Charlotte. In November 2016, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory granted Mr. Bridges a pardon based on actual innocence. In December 2017, the city of Charlotte agreed to settle the lawsuit for $9.5 million. Mr. Bridges was also awarded $750,000 in state compensation.