Well well. Here’s a real time example of what’s going on in courts about the battle about what’s “standard” DNA report writing. as usual, the opposing attorneys take diametrically opposed positions on some very important DNA evidence.
A multiple murder case with varying degrees of pros vs defense battling about “who matches what” regarding multiple “hits. There’s a bit about Brady violation occurring about whether an “uninterpretable” [“unable to explain”] Florida crime lab result was hidden. The labber says “not” in court her court testimony. Something said about “science” rather than the rules of the legal system being controlling regarding discovery compliance. Very weird statement. Ive never heard that explanation used before.
Here’s a short quote.
“FDLE’s Tallahassee-based Chief of Forensic Services Karen Martin testified today. She denied hiding the DNA results and testified they were ruled “uninterpretable” [ not able to be explained ] because they did not meet FDLE’s minimum standards for comparison.
Martin said the decision not to turn over the FBI’s findings to TPD and the state was a decision based on science, not investigative aspects.
“The state contends the convicted drug trafficker named as a potential match by the FBI wasn’t even in the country at the time of the murders. The defense disputes that too.”
It’s not only pattern analysis that can be fallible – how about DNA? Its mostly about DNA mixtures, stat protocols and inconsistency of multiple analysts. via @ForensicOdont
A commercial lab’s technical paper has more on this. “Mixture interpretation. Why is it sometimes so hard?
And the politicians use it to promote their own agendas. The latest on the Washington DC now-police managed crime lab. Head DC prosecutor signs long-term contract with girl-friend’s DNA company.