An oilspill, alcohol and the captain: A possible misapplication of forensic science

Abstract

Good scientific principles, and the results of otherwise valid research, sometimes can be misused in forensic investigations. The case history of the EXXON VALDEZ tanker disaster illustrates this problem. In March 1989, the vessel left Alaska under the command of Captain Joseph Hazelwood; about 3 h later, it was aground on Bligh Reef and leaking oil. Emergency procedures were instituted but the spill was extensive; indeed, environmental cleanup is not yet complete. Attempts were made to identify those responsible for the accident. The ship's master was almost immediately charged with negligence and, later, intoxication. He was discharged and ultimately tried but acquitted (of intoxication) in an Alaska court. Independently, the U.S. National Transportation and Safety Board issued a report wherein three teams of specialists judged Captain Hazelwood to be intoxicated at the time of the accident. They did so by analyzing samples of his (transmitted) speech. Yet, individuals who were with him during that period testified that he was not intoxicated. Whether he was or was not, is not the primary issue here. Rather, the question to be asked relates to the possibility that the NTSB groups misapplied otherwise good scientific procedures in reaching their opinion.