The story of Wilton Dedge begins on the evening of December 8th, 1981, where a young, 20-year-old Mr. Dedge was in New Smyrna Beach, Florida working mechanical odd jobs in a garage. He was a recent high school drop-out, and still not sure of what do in his future, until the State stripped that freedom of choice from him for twenty-two years. That same day, Jane Smith had returned to her home in Canaveral Groves, Florida, from cosmetology school. Located approximately forty-seven miles from Mr. Dedge’s location at the time, Ms. Smith came home to an empty household, as her family members had not arrived yet. At this time, around four o’clock in the afternoon, Ms. Smith’s house was broken into while she was changing, raped, and was attacked with a razor blade. According to her description, she had witnessed an over 6 foot tall man, weighing in the field between 160 and 200 pounds. She also described this man as having fair skin, a receding hairline, long, blonde hair, hazel eyes, as well as being physically large and powerful. This description was the first red flag in this case, since Wilton Dedge was 5’5” at the time, and weighed closer to 125 pounds; a complete opposite picture that was painted by the victim. However, Wilton did have long, blonde hair just like the suspect’s description given by Jane Smith (Merjian, 2009). This would later prove fatal for Mr. Dedge’s freedom.

A few days after the rape and burglary were committed on Ms. Smith and her home, she had driven to a close town with her sister, and stopped at a small store to get drinks. It was in this store that Ms. Smith had claimed to have witnessed her attacker, which she then told her sister. After she decided not to contact police, Ms. Smith went back to the same convenience store with her sister and saw the same man again, and then chose to contact authorities. On January 6th, Ms. Smith met with a detective, and her sister claimed she knew the man from elementary school, and had identified him as “Walter Hedge” (Merjian, 2009). Just a couple of days later on January 8th, 1982, the brother of Wilton Dedge, Walter Dedge, was arrested by Brevard County police.

Once a photo lineup was presented to Ms. Smith, she had then selected Wilton Dedge, thus clearing his brother from the crime. Upon his detaining, Mr. Dedge had constantly claimed his innocence, in which he felt his clean record and lack of prior, violent behavior as evidence of such. During the time of his processing, he had continued to be confident that the justice system would clear his name; he did not commit this violent crime, and believed he would be cleared quickly (Merjian, 2009). Unfortunately, this was not the case. The investigation soon began, and without DNA analysis, it would be a tough path for Wilton Dedge to maintain his innocence.

Detectives had discovered two pubic hairs on Jane Smith’s bed, which was then sent to a forensic expert. It was shown that one of these hairs actually belonged to Ms. Smith, while the other hair was compared to a sample given by Mr. Dedge. The forensic expert had then concluded that there were not enough differences in the two hairs to completely eliminate Wilton Dedge as a suspect. Unsatisfied by the results, the police had returned to the crime scene three months after the incident, and utilized a scent dog. In order to familiarize Mr. Dedge’s scent to the canine, Mr. Dedge had soaked his hands at the county’s courthouse restroom, dried them with paper towels, and proceeded to give these samples to an investigator, who collected it in a paper bag. Over a full week later, the scent dog sniffed the dried paper towels within this paper bag, and then had sniffed a lineup of five sheets, one being from Jane Smith’s bed, and the other four being from other prison inmates; all of the sheets in this lineup were untouched by Wilton Dedge. The canine paused at Ms. Smith’s sheets after a second pass, which indicated a positive match according to the investigator. This was later used in trial. Even with six witnesses in the courtroom confirming his alibi, in September of 1982, Wilton Dedge was declared guilty of burglary and rape, and sentenced to thirty years in prison (Merjian, 2009).

Outraged, the family tried all they can for the next couple of years to financially prepare for the oncoming legal battle. In August of 1984, the second trial commenced, along with an entirely new defensive legal team. The lawyers pointed out inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the scent dog and his owner. With a case that is now in the favor of Wilton Dedge, a known snitch, Clarence Zacke, was presented by prosecutors. Mr. Zacke had dishonestly claimed that Mr. Dedge admitted to the violent crime while in a prison van with him. The jury decided to side with the false testimony, thus, the judge declared Wilton Dedge guilty, with an increased sentencing to life imprisonment (Merjian, 2009).

After almost twenty years behind bars, in June of 2001, Wilton Dedge was able to use DNA testing to prove that the pubic hair was not his. However, even after being proven innocent through scientific analysis, the State Attorney’s Office denied the appeal, and claimed that it was too late for the DNA results to be admissible. After three more years of ensuing legislative combat, the State surprisingly requested the semen samples from the rape kit be DNA tested. Upon being cleared a second time, Wilton Dedge was finally released on August 12th, 2004 (Merjian, 2009).

Mr. Dedge did not receive any compensation from the State, even after the State admitted in court that they would not allow Dedge be free even if they were aware that he was innocent. Eventually in 2005, after another year of back and forth arguments in the courtroom, Wilton Dedge was awarded two million dollars by Florida, which at the time, was a first for the State in its 160-year history (“National Registry of Exonerations”, 2012).

The case of Wilton Dedge is a classic example of the factors surrounding the psychology of wrongful convictions. The three, main, erroneous aspects that originally landed Mr. Dedge in prison was eyewitness misidentification, improper analysis by a forensic expert, and the lineup misidentification by the scent dog (Merjian, 2009). All three of these methods of prosecuting alleged criminals have mistakenly incarcerated hundreds, and potentially thousands of innocent individuals. In fact, it is approximated that 75% of cases involving DNA exonerees are due to false identifications (Wells, 2014). The misidentifications are usually made by eyewitnesses who are not very confident in their choice, and lab studies have indicated that a confidence-accuracy relation is rather helpful in figuring out when an eyewitness is accurate or mistaken (Smalarz & Wells, 2015). Although, variables that would alter testimony can be highly controlled in a laboratory environment, but in real-life scenarios, the amount of variables that can contaminate testimony are borderline impossible to control. This adds a layer of difficulty towards identifying truthful, mistaken, or deceitful eyewitnesses.

An example of a variable that can be highly challenging to control for, was the sister of Jane Smith. Ms. Smith had come across Wilton Dedge’s brother in a convenience store, which she assumed was her attacker. After being falsely identified by Ms. Smith’s sister, they had returned to the convenience store with a new amount of confidence she did not have originally, as made evident by the original decision to not contact the police. Authorities were called after the second visit to the store, indicating a bias had occurred between Ms. Smith and her sister.

The second factor that attributed to Wilton Dedge’s false imprisonment was the role of forensic bias. The most egregious example of forensic bias occurred during the 2004 Madrid bombings, in which Brandon Mayfield was mistakenly detained as a suspect based upon an incorrect fingerprint analysis conducted by FBI forensic experts. While he was in the process of defending his freedom, Spanish investigators had matched the fingerprints to the actual bomber: Ouhnane Daoud (Kassin, Dror, & Kukucka, 2013). In a stark contrast to the Wilton Dedge case, the FBI quickly apologized and awarded Brandon Mayfield two million dollars as compensation.

Similarly to the aforementioned forensic bias case, Wilton Dedge was also subjected to the unfortunate result of confirmation bias. The forensic expert on the case had stated that the single pubic hair that helped incriminate Mr. Dedge could not be matched via frequencies or consistencies, and also claimed “it would not be a million white people” who had hair like the single strand found at the crime scene (“National Registry of Exonerations”, 2012). This would indicate a severe confirmation bias at the hands of the single examiner that was on the case. The reason for this is because the U.S. National Academy of Sciences published a report in 2009 that explicitly stated the lack of proper scientific procedure in classic, forensic analysis techniques (Giannelli, 2012). Some of these included blood splatter patterns, fingerprinting, crime scene reconstruction, and hair comparisons. These were all considered subjective, and susceptible to confirmation bias (Giannelli, 2012).

Perhaps one of the most debunked methods of forensic science, yet still used to this day, is the utilization of scent dogs as admissible evidence (Brisbin, Austad, & Jacobson, 2000). Just ten years ago, dog scent evidence had been involved in around 50% of the 240 wrongful convictions that were later exonerated at that time (“Scent Lineups and Unvalidated Science”, 2009). For Wilton Dedge, he was one of the unfortunate victims of this invalid method of obtaining evidence. The reliance of subjective determination by a biased dog owner and trainer would later prove to be especially useless in the eyes of the State, when Mr. Dedge was finally cleared of all crimes in 2004. Besides the unproven science, the most gleaming reason for the dismissal of this evidence was due to the dog owner himself: John Preston.

Used by prosecutors for dozens of cases in Florida, John Preston had claimed that his canine, Harass II, had smelling abilities that were completely unfathomable. Some of the claims included the ability to rack scents several years after the source, tracking scents through water, and able to track a scent just after a hurricane, which were all eventually dismissed in court (Maxwell, 2009). However, the damage was already dealt, and John Preston and his canine were responsible for the wrongful convictions of four individuals, potentially more, including Wilton Dedge (Maxwell, 2009). The years lost total close to a century.

To conclude, the case of Wilton Dedge is one out of hundreds of cases across the United States of America that involve the complete fumbling of proper prosecuting procedure. Mr. Dedge was subjected to twenty-two years of torture, agony, and unspeakable horror by the State of Florida, based upon mishandling and misinterpretation of supposed evidence used against him. From eyewitness misidentifications, to biased interpretations of subjective details made by examiners, and even the reliance on the debunked science that is scent canines, this legal system failed Wilton Dedge. Not all is so dim, though. DNA testing technology has been improving remarkably since the turn of the century, along with new and improved police investigation techniques, eyewitness identification advancements, scientifically-based lineup procedures, and the dismissal of methods that are prone to subjectivity. As time goes on, police departments and investigative agencies are adopting these newly developed methods for use in their own bureaus. Fortunately after Mr. Dedge’s case, the State of Florida introduced a bill in 2008 that required post-release compensation for the exonerees of false imprisonment. The time lost is irreplaceable, but with organizations such as the Innocence Project constantly examining new cases for the wrongfully convicted, the future of this justice system has a bright light that will eventually be seen by those who are stuck in the dark.

References

Brisbin, I. L., Austad, S., & Jacobson, S. K. (2000). Canine detectives: the nose knows--or does it?. Science, 290(5494), 1093-1093.

Giannelli, P. C. (2012). The 2009 NAS forensic science report: a literature review.

Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of applied research in memory and cognition, 2(1), 42-52.

Maxwell, S. (2009, July 16). Did magical dog jail a 4th innocent man? Retrieved from https://www.chicagotribune.com/orl-asecorl-maxwell-preston-062409062409jun24-column.html

Merjian, A. H. (2009). Anatomy of a Wrongful Conviction: State V. Dedge and what it tells us about our Flawed Criminal Justice System. U. Pa. JL & Soc. Change, 13, 137.

Scent Lineups and Unvalidated Science. (2009, June 30). Retrieved from https://www.innocenceproject.org/scent-lineups-and-unvalidated-science/

Smalarz, L., & Wells, G. L. (2015). Contamination of eyewitness self-reports and the mistaken-identification problem. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2), 120-124.

The National Registry of Exonerations. (2012, June). Retrieved from https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3167

Wells, G. L. (2014). Eyewitness identification: Probative value, criterion shifts, and policy regarding the sequential lineup. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 11-16.

In “What Does It All Mean?” by Thomas Nagel, the veteran philosopher examines and dissects three major concepts that have been deeply floating in the human mind since the onset of our existence: Is reality, well, even real? Do we truly have a choice in what we do? What is the point of me being productive today? These are the questions that world-renowned philosophers have been endlessly thinking about, and have caused plenty of college-age teenagers banging their head on their desk. Nagel does a great job in simplifying the complex theories, bringing forth counter-arguments to the table, and, of course, displaying his own personal opinion on various, transcendental matters.

    His main approach in analyzing the questions is including other people’s ideologies and arguments into the equation. In doing this, he shows just how many branches and roots there are on the giant tree of life that is philosophy. It is what makes this particularly subject so mentally stressful, yet rewarding when it comes to getting closer to solving the non-existent, absolute truth. It is a series of borderline incomprehensible paradoxes, oxymorons, and creative analogies that are the product of advanced, critical thought.    

I will first discuss Nagel’s view and description of the question, “How do we know anything?” In this chapter, he questions if what we see, feel, think, smell, and taste are all even real or not. Next, I will dive into his idea of determinism, and give my take on what the concept of what free will is. Nagel takes a strong approach in this chapter, and provides strong arguments, but overall I feel differently towards the subject. Finally, I will go deep into Nagel’s thoughts on what the meaning of life is. There are only so many various theories and ideas on what can possibly be the true reasoning why we evolved to his certain point of time.

The Conscious Conscience

What exactly is happening to you right now? Who is the voice in your head narrating these very words? Remember your first kiss? Recall the feeling of that hug from a lost loved one? Something interesting just happened. You revisited specific moments in time that no longer exist except in the comfort of your own imagination. In the moment, these memories were essentially real. You probably remember every scent, sight, and other sequences quite vividly. However, is it real now? Is your memory of that event considered reality? Is it possible that your brain’s interior is just as real, or unreal, as what reality it perceives as its exterior? Nagel and I have a few theories about this intricate issue.

“If you think about it, the inside of your own mind is the only thing you can be sure of.” (Nagel 7) Indubitably so, Dr. Nagel. What he means by this is that everything you see around you in your environment, everything you believe in, every connection you have made, and all other items in your life that you personally experience are all but a projection created by endless amounts of neurons, cells, atoms and DNA all working together to plug the video and audio cables into the brain. Your idea of your current self is nothing but that: an idea. An unseen, insensible collection of mental molecules is what you consider your reality. How does that make you feel?

As a student of the mind, I am instinctively inclined to ask this question. Your reaction to this knowledge can give you a rough draft of your view on life. Some may be scared, some may feel alone, while others may feel comforted, and possibly excited. For me, I just appreciate the fact that the brain is even capable of doing this. Our minds have the unique ability of transforming a dream into a reality, and that reality into a dream. With this in mind, would this mean that our dreams are just as real as our reality, and vice versa? Maybe, as some may argue that reality is only what we can feel, taste, touch, smell, or see. This counter-argument is valid because it is true to the people that want it to be true. Although, as stated before, absolute truths are paradoxical, so it is untrue for me. Your brain is doing the work of providing your senses to you. It is constantly sending electrical pings all over the body to provide the experience you call the present. The reality that you interact with as soon as you wake up is called the phaneron, as coined by Charles Sanders Peirce. He states, “By the phaneron, I mean the collective total of all that is in any way or in any sense present to the mind, quite regardless of whether it corresponds to any real thing or not.” (CSP) This is the sum of your brain’s processes.

We will never experience true, objective reality. This is due to the fact there are two separate realities occurring at the same time. One of these is considered the ‘real world’; the world that will always have a sunrise and a sunset, clocks will perpetually tick, and life just carries on no matter the circumstance. However, the other reality is the one that you have the freedom to do whatever you want with it, because you are in control, for the most part. This is the reality that creates who you currently are today. It is the one that decides what to wear in the morning, who you love, and why you think of the thoughts in your head.

To add onto Nagel’s ideologies, take into account the altered sense of reality of those with mental disorders. Schizophrenic patients sincerely believe those voices are real, PTSD sufferers actually think those loud sounds are explosions, and people with synesthesia can physically see sounds. Of course, it is all in their head, but if that is what their brain is perceiving as real, then how is any less real than what you are experiencing? It is, and always will be, an endless circle of paradoxical thoughts, but that is exactly the point of the brain trying to understand what reality truly is.  

To conclude this chapter analysis, I believe Nagel accurately hit certain points that support this complexity of two separate realities that are equally existent. You have the phaneron (what your brain determines as real via the senses), and the real world. You are what you think you are in your reality, but the real world is an ever-changing variable that will always affect your perception of that reality.

Did I Do That?

The cake and the peach. Beginning in Chapter 6, Dr. Nagel uses these two antonymous words as an allegory to the theory of what a free will is. In his example, he writes:

“You hesitate between a peach and a big wedge of chocolate cake with creamy icing. The cake looks good, but you know it's fattening. Still, you take it and eat it with pleasure. The next day you look in the mirror or get on the scale and think, I wish I hadn't eaten that chocolate cake. I could have had a peach instead." (Nagel 46)

Nagel then attempts to search for the possible meaning behind the decision that makes you say “I could have, I should have, I would have.” Is that other outcome that you ‘missed’ out on even true? Did that ‘Plan B’ scenario depend on your feelings and desires at the moment of the decision, or was it already determined beforehand by other events in the past? Do you truly have full control of your actions? Nagel brings out interesting points and views on this multiplex topic.

    The first area we should focus on is figuring out what a free will entails. By definition, a free will is “a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.” (O’Connor) In short, this means the ability to make a decision based on two, or more alternatives presented to you. You choose what you do, and how you do it. You have full responsibility of your actions. Nagel brings up the possibility that our responsibilities become quaint if determinism is true. (Nagel 56) His meaning is that if our decisions are all based on our previous decisions before that one and so forth, then our responsibility, or free will, becomes useless and virtually non-existent. This concept is called “determinism”.  

    There is one major obstacle in this ideology that I feel I should clarify on: nature, the constant, eternal cycle of evolution in progress, has no preset actions or goals. It has no rules or procedures to follow. Yet, at the same time, nature creates miniscule connections that are created by random events. The word ‘paradoxical’ comes to mind, yet again. Of course, the concept I am presenting to this determinism discussion is Chaos Theory, also known as the butterfly effect. This means that, by law of nature, matter that is out of control. The study of non-linear dynamics aims to find connections and patterns behind these events. The film, Mr. Nobody, did a brilliant job in exploring this theory. “Before he was unable to make a choice because he didn't know what would happen. Now that he knows what will happen, he is unable to make a choice.” (Nemo Nobody, Mr. Nobody) This sums up the paradox that is in the attempt to figure out whether nature is in control, or if you are in control.

    In conclusion of chapter six, free will is a circular concept that can regarded as true and/or untrue, depending on the subjective mind of the human in question. The environment around us is forever in change. It will never occur the exact same way twice, like snowflakes, lightning strikes, or hurricanes. However, we do, and hopefully always, will have the ability to choose what our next decision may encompass. Nature does not know its next move, but that does not mean we should lose our curiosity to know ours. It is only fair that we work hard to partake in making everything around us the best it can possibly be.

Yin and Yang

    With all of this cognitive information from the analyses up above, you might be ready to formulate what you believe is the reasoning behind your microscopic existence on this (in?)finite timeline of the cosmos. Do you really matter in the grand scheme of things? Is your vital to the continuation of the human race? Is there a higher power pulling the strings? Nagel poses these familiar questions during his summarization of meaning behind life.

The universe is gargantuan, perhaps even incomprehensibly so. With this in mind, it seems that our tiny bundle of molecules and particles is just that; a collection of matter, ideas, and energy that is inhabiting a floating rock in the unconceivable, empty space that we call the universe. It is quite easy to fall into the idea that everything you do in this life is absolutely pointless. Fortunately, you do matter, on a very, very, small scale.

“If life is not real, life is not earnest, and the grave is its goal, perhaps it's ridiculous to take ourselves so seriously,” as stated by Nagel. (101) What exactly is Dr. Nagel saying here? If you do not have any reason to live, then you should not take yourself so seriously. People may find this ideology thrilling, or possibly just downright saddening. On the bright side, you have the mental freedom to think in the now, and free from constant self-examination and critique. On the contrary, you will be careless, and possibly numb to things that may not matter to you, but definitely matter to someone else. The idea that nothing matters benefits only the person that believes in this idea.

Nagel then states his counter, “If we can't help taking ourselves so seriously, perhaps we just have to put up with being ridiculous.” (Nagel 101) This point of view means the precise opposite of his previous concept. If life does actually matter, this means that we would be inclined to take life seriously. We would have to continually focus on the next task, the next goal, and the next accomplishment. While this can benefit society as a whole, but, contrary to the last point, it can be detrimental to the sole, subjective mind. This is due to caring too much, and dwelling on events that were out of user control. If you consider your life meaningful, then that would mean you will be disappointed in your failures, and will constantly try to improve. Although, this may not necessarily be a bad thing, it can lead to perfectionism: the chase of a status that does not exist.

Taking life too seriously can be detrimental, but so can taking life too carelessly. So, what now? Well, in the way that I look at it, we have a simple task that is called balancing. This involves utilizing your ability to choose, and determining what reality truly is for you, as discussed in the previous analyses. As humans, we have an important ability that no other being has evolved to acquire yet. This is the ability to use our cognitive functions for more than just the mundane, instinctual task of surviving. We have the ability create our own reality that we believe as authentic. That alone is more than enough evidence for me that we have a purpose in this existence.

To finalize Nagel’s last chapter, with every decision we make, we close the door on different outcomes we could experience, but we also gain multiple doors of a new choice, in order to refresh the unique process of our free will. Life does have meaning, but it is up to you, and only you, to give it that meaning. It does not have to be a search, or a quest. We cannot just theoretically reach the endgame to the question of whether the validity as a species exists or not. The decision is yours to make light of why we are here, and be passionate behind your own existence. Anyways, if we really do not matter, then why bother adding my personal opinion on life? We need a purpose in order to maintain our desire to find a purpose. Choose wisely.

Conclusion

    Nagel constructed and deconstructed many theories in his book, “What Does It All Mean?” These included the authenticity of reality, the idea of free will, and the meaning of life. What you think is real only exists inside of your cranium, but that does not make it less real than anyone else. If it is real for you, then that is all that matters. Your choices may be influenced by the natural world around you, however, the ultimate power of deciding your choice is all on you. Life only has meaning if you decide to give it meaning. Acquiring the different ideas and opinions submitted by a long trail of human thought will only help you in your journey of life. After all, knowledge is power.

References

M. Bergman & S. Paavola (Eds.). “Phaneron”. The Commens Dictionary: Peirce's Terms in His    Own Words. Commens, 2014.

Nobody, Nemo. Mr. Nobody. Dir. Jaco Van Dormael, Perf. Jared Leto. Wild Bunch, 2009. Film.

Nagel, Thomas. “How Do We Know Anything”. What Does It All Mean? p. 7. USA: Oxford University, 1989. Print.

Nagel, Thomas. “Free Will”. What Does It All Mean? p. 46, 56. USA: Oxford University, 1989. Print.

Nagel, Thomas. “The Meaning of Life”. What Does It All Mean? p. 101. USA: Oxford University, 1989. Print.

O'Connor, Timothy. "Free Will". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition). Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Web. 10 Oct. 2015.