Crime labs’ reputations and credibility questions continue to be deliberated in the US and the international press.
Writers seldom have substantial knowledge of forensic science, but they have little problem using data from FOIA demands and other public information to energize doubts about current forensic practices. The leaders of the North Carolina crime lab are posing a critique of a news report casting doubts in their direction. They have the challenge of acknowledging past misdeeds, (none leading to wrongful convictions), while explaining substantial improvements.
They might start taking a consistent higher profile in publishing these accomplishments.
“First, you apply the word “corrupt” to the lab. Not only is this deeply offensive to hundreds of dedicated, hard-working and honest laboratory workers, but it is entirely false.”
“Contrary to your version of events, the N.C. Department of Justice initiated an independent audit of the lab which concluded with an August 2010, report. This Report makes clear that the “16 years” mentioned in your editorial ended in 2003, 12 years ago. The report emphasized that “no issues were identified . that would call into question the proficiency of analysts, quality control protocols or the adequacy of the testing procedures,” and that “no one should conclude that someone has been wrongfully convicted.”
