Putting innocent crime victims in jail crosses the moral line into the grotesque Inquistorial traditions of torture and victim humiliation.
Plus the judge is not very happy. Ouch. In a double murder case in South Africa. The cross examination on her voir dire left alot of criticism to her creds and behavior on the case. It appears she only got a small snapshot on the case due to “dwindling resources.” That probably means the defense ran out of money to pay her hourly rate.
False eyewitness testimony put him in prison.
The DA said original case lacked evidence that now is available.
Intentional tampering cases in forensic drug case going beyond the original few hundred originally published.
She said: ‘The organisation concerned held accreditation to the appropriate quality standard, but the malpractice was not discovered by the usual quality checks.
‘This raises a number of questions, including: a, whether or not malpractice is more widespread than at one organisation; and b, whether or not the quality standards need to be strengthened.’
Steve Lund and Hari Iyer are stat guys from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. They bring forth a broader look at the ever popular use of “likelihood ratios” to support personal and scientific opinions of “match” probabilities.
Worth a look. A forensic pathologist present AT THE CRIME SCENE testifies in a murder trial on his use of tell-tale bits of info from the death scene. Smart cops called him into the investigation. I can’t wait to see the defense version of the facts
A twitter stream narrative of more of his testimony. Definitely a candidate for Crime Scene 101.
Locard’s Principle comes into play in this interview with a noted DNA analyst and author. Things like “transference,” and “persistence” of these little molecules create obstacles and pitfalls for their unfettered use in courtrooms and police stations. It is not just criminals who leave their DNA everywhere, it is all of us.
Here is an article talking about the UK judicial utilization of its multi-million pound national database. Homicide cases come in as the highest users of DNA info at 8%. Sexual assault cases are barely a blip.
The AAAS, (the American Association for the Advancement of Science) maybe the upcoming opposition to the now Trump-run DOJ forensic “commission.” They released a report that latent print examination producing testimonial certainties as to one person identity gets the gong. The DAs, like this dude, predictably ignore this type of non-cop-alligned empirical effort.
Their study group agrees that latents (i..e. crime scence derived) are:
….report makes clear that while latent fingerprint examiners can successfully rule out most of the population from being the source of a latent fingerprint based on observed features, insufficient data exist to determine how unique fingerprint features really are, thus making it scientifically baseless to claim that an analysis has enabled examiners to narrow the pool of sources to a single person.