Another crime lab scandal arises from Virginia : Old school blood-typing failures

Posted on May 12, 2016 by csidds

On the heels of Keith Allen Harward’s 33 years of wrongful incarceration, Virginia is now tackling hundreds of cases over the decades containing more questionable forensic “science.” Harward’s erroneous identification from a bitemark is only the beginning.

“The Innocence Project said the same former serologist, David A. Pomposini, who worked for the department from 1981 to 2012, also did blood typing in the case of Troy Webb, wrongfully convicted of a Virginia Beach rape, imprisoned in 1988 and cleared by DNA in 1996.

Brandon Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law who has studied wrongful convictions, said Pomposini also failed to exclude Webb, who should have been excluded, as the perpetrator in that case.”

Full article

Posted in Crime lab scandal, criminal justice, criminal justice reform | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Taking a look at forensic science fakery – The Country Dentist

Posted on May 10, 2016 by csidds

Lets get real, the connection between rigorous multiple studies in forensic science and what is done “in the field” can be described as inconsistently applied. Ive been exposed to a single Journal of Forensic Science article from 1984 that was touted for 30 years as the linchpin for the uniqueness of the human dentition relevant to bitemark injuries.

The following is an anecdotal sample of two contrasting reveals on science:

Here is a 20 minute monologue from @The DailyShow’s John Oliver talking about science in regards to less than rigorous proofs and sometimes completely misleading press releases promoting some ridiculous conclusions for the public’s consumption.

 

Now lets look at the forensic marvel Dr. Michael West fabricating his own “proofs’ in an actual forensic case that sent Leigh Stubbs to MS prison for 44 years.

Further explanation and context comes from this Huffington Post expose. 

 

 

Posted in AAFS, criminal justice reform, CSI, Dr. Michael West, Forensic Science, forensic testimony, junk forensic science | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

MS Court hears substantial testimony about why bitemark conviction from 1992 was flawed

Posted on May 9, 2016 by csidds

 

The following May 5th, 2016 newspaper article from the Columbus MS Dispatch outlines the dynamics of last week’s hearing in which Superior Court Judge Howard accepted voluminous evidence requested by the MS Supreme Court regarding bitemark and DNA evidence relevant to death row inmate Eddie Lee Howard’s case. This information came from both MS State Attorney General’s Jason Davis and Howard’s attorneys from the Innocence Projects in MS and New York (pictured above).

On Wednesday, Professor Iain Pretty from the the UK gave substantial support for the argument towards the consideration that bitemark experts’ opinion of identification was lacking basic empirical testing since the time of their nation-wide acceptance in 1975.

On Friday the 8th, the court heard Dr. Michael West, the State’s bitemark expert, expound on his copious experience as an elected county coroner, the innovator of”alternate light” photography in forensic science and current rebirth as a resounding advocate of banning bitemark evidence from the courts.

The court’s record will also reveal Dr. West’s opinions declaring conspirators are attacking forensic scientists and their methods, sociopathic defense lawyers were present in the courtroom with him, bitemarks’ similarity to fingerprints, and the court system’s unrealistic demands for forensic accuracy.

The court adjourned at 4:30 pm with Dr. West still on the stand. The hearing will continue at a date to be determined later.

Eddie Lee Howard also went back to death row at Parchman prison.

The Dispatch

 

Posted in AAFS, ABFO, Bite Marks, Bitemarks, criminal justice reform, Dr. Michael West, junk forensic science | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

A rather chilling example of public drug-testing bills racing past forensic testing

Posted on May 2, 2016 by csidds

A decidedly poor application of  “forensic science” in the courts strikes again.

Its obvious that legalizing pot in some states has taken criminalizing pot possession off their books and created a less than measured approach dealing with DUI stops. Multiple legislatures are adopting various applications of a commercial marijuana test that really has nothing to back up what pot intoxication does when combined with alcohol. Read about the validity testing that’s used to sell the product.

Full article from Vermont

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Upgraded FBI dental system used to discover identities of missing persons @AmerDentalAssn

Posted on May 2, 2016 by csidds

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Somewhat maligned prior to 2004, the dental ID portion of the NCIC (CJIS) Missing and Unidentified program was revamped to a much simpler data entry protocol and search parameters.  Integral to finding names of unknown deceased persons, law enforcement investigators must acquire extensive medical/dental and personal information of adults and children considered “missing” and coroners need to order proper post-mortem dental exams with oral-facial imaging capture.

Consistent and proper post-mortem examinations are under peril due to financial strains on the locally funded medico-legal systems in the United States. Read about one jurisdiction in particular.   Read about my jurisdiction as well.

This FBI case report tells a better story. It reveals the agency players involved in achieving a coordinated investigation (agency links are highlighted in bold) that (eventually) was successful. Clearly, consistent data management and inter-agency data sharing are paramount. Gaps do exist.  An indicator of  another challenge: California has a “missing” list in excess of 27,000 persons. Unidentified persons are 1,800.

NCIC’s Dental Matching Program Plays Key Role
in Solving Cold Case

On Friday, October 11, 2013, a Forensic Odontologist with the Missing and Unidentified Persons Unit (MUPU) of the Washington State Patrol (WSP) positively identified remains recovered more than 21 years ago by matching them to the dental records of a missing person.

The remains of the man were discovered in the Columbia River in Multnomah County, Oregon, in April 1992. The man was wearing a ski mask and had suffered a gunshot wound to his head. Information, including dental coding for the unidentified man, was entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) but produced no immediate results. 

Twenty years later, the Cold Case Unit at the Tacoma (Washington) Police Department pulled the missing persons report for John W. Nolen, who was reported missing by his mother in March 1992. Investigators discovered that he was still a missing person, but his record had been mistakenly removed from the NCIC several years earlier. Investigators reentered Nolen’s record and staff from the MUPU added the dental information from the records collected from his dentist in 1992. (Coincidently, the NCIC’s system of comparing the dental information of missing, wanted, and unidentified persons was upgraded in April 2004.)

The NCIC automatically generated a dental cross match report, also known as a $M Report, and the information was sent to the MUPU, the Tacoma Police Department, and the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office. The report provided a ranked list of records with possible matches to dental characteristics that have been coded and entered into the NCIC. The first record was for an unidentified person, located less than a month after Nolen was last seen in Tacoma. The physical description of the unidentified person was similar to Nolen, and the dental coding was nearly the same.

The MUPU checked the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs), which is an Internet site that serves as a repository and resource center for records of missing and unidentified deceased persons. The MUPU staff located an entry for the unidentified man that included dental information, including X-rays. The X-rays were e-mailed to the Forensic Odontologist with the MUPU, who made the positive identification. The MUPU immediately notified the Tacoma Police Department and the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office of the match.

Thanks to the work of the departments involved and NCIC’s dental matching capabilities, two cold cases found progress through identifying the remains of a man who─unknown to authorities─had also been reported missing. For law enforcement agencies with questions about the dental matching capabilities in the NCIC, contact the FBI’s CJIS Training and Advisory Process Unit at (877) FBI-NCIC or (877) 324‑6242.

============================================================

A shout out to Dr. Gary Bell at MUPU! Great job buddy. You have always led the way.

And another for Drs. Rich Scanlon and John Fillippi along with their volunteer dentists at NAMUS.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Back and forth in court about raising technical instrumentation ballistic standards

Posted on April 29, 2016 by csidds

 

Does this picture have J. Edgar Hoover and Shirley Temple doing a bullet comp?

A prosecutor takes exception to a defense ballistics guy saying higher definition imaging improves accuracy in bullet and rifling comparisons. The guy states that crime labs have not adopted newer tech and still rely on 1930’s comparison microscopy. He also admits he knows of no one who has validated his claims of higher accuracy. Note: The term “unique” gets heavily used by the prosecution’s expert. Hmm. Any validation for that Mr. Prosecutor?

Are any of these suppositions true? Or false?

In a lawyer-like critique, lawyers gotta remember it takes more than just the expert’s favorable opinion about your case. The bitemark crowd banked on opinion only for decades and see where THAT got them. The expert needs (or at least should in a perfect legal world having trained “gatekeepers”) data and empirical testing as foundations. It’s telling that the DA is using a cross-ex thread that often is used against prosecution experts. This case generates some other questions.

What is the standard of care for doing these side-by-side 2D observations? Does it vary across the world? What’s the minimum equipment and presentation testimony? What are the limits? Are there documented cases of false positives (Type 1 error) and false negatives (Type II error?)?

A newer version but still just a visible light scope. Also…….

Aren’t bullets cylindrical? Courtroom exhibits are always flat. What’s the rest of the patterns look like when compared? Here’s a “100” per center compared to a maybe “0” percenter?

 

Full article: No 1.

Full article: No 2. 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

What it takes an innocent inmate to get accepted by the Illinois Innocence Project

Posted on April 27, 2016 by csidds

Illinois Innocence Project Cover Photo

The following acceptance guidelines are illuminating as to the factors that enter into an inmate being accepted as a client. It is a daunting list. Preeminent are 1) the inmate must have a history of claiming innocence throughout his/her criminal history, 2) the extraordinary time required to accomplish successful litigation (up to 8 years ) and 3) case-types that are excluded from the program.

Before reading, here is a short video about what the IIP can accomplish.

Primary Guidelines

• Inmate maintains a history of actual innocence

The inmate must be seeking to establish his or her actual innocence of the crime(s) for which he or she is incarcerated. More specifically, we take those cases in which there appears to be a significant chance that substantial evidence can be found to prove one innocent. Further, once we have agreed to work on a case, we reserve the right to withdraw for any reason, including an inability to prove a claim of actual innocence

• Crime committed in Illinois

The inmate was convicted of a felony crime committed in Illinois.

• At least 8 years remaining on sentence

In most instances, the inmate must be incarcerated and have at least 8 years remaining on his or her sentence. The substantial amount of time involved in investigation and follow-up activity makes it impractical to provide assistance on cases where the remaining prison time is less than that.

• Case is not pending appeal and the inmate is not represented by another innocence organization or attorney

The IIP only takes cases where the inmate has completed the appeal process and is not currently represented by legal counsel.

Other considerations

Finally, the Project does not provide assistance to individuals who are awaiting trial or whose only claim is that their rights were violated. The program usually cannot help in the following situations:

(1) where a defendant admits to killing or assaulting someone, but claims that it was done in self-defense;
(2) where a defendant admits to sexual contact with a person, but claims that the person consented to the contact;
(3) where a defendant was convicted as an accessory (or as a party-to-the-crime) and seeks to show that he or she did not play a major role in the crime.

Factors used in case evaluation

In deciding whether a case meets the requirement that there be a strong likelihood that the inmate is actually innocent of the crime for which he or she has been convicted, project staff will exam such factors as the following:

  • The absence of physical evidence linking the inmate to the crime.
  • Problems with the reliability of eye witnesses.
  • Lack of credibility of an inmate’s confession.
  • The inconsistency of the nature of the crime as compared to the background of the inmate.
  • The identification of alternative suspects.
  • The availability of DNA evidence that might exonerate the inmate.
  • The availability of new evidence exonerating the inmate.
  • Police or prosecutorial misconduct.
  • The length of time and consistency of the inmate’s claim of innocence.

An inmate may submit a request for assistance to the project via mail. Letters should clearly indicate the crime for which the inmate is incarcerated, the county of the offense, time remaining on the sentence and appropriate contact information for the inmate.

An attorney who believes his or her inmate’s case meets all of these guidelines and would like to seek the assistance of the Illinois Innocence Project can request assistance by completing the Attorney Case Referral Form (pdf) and returning it to us.

Requests for assistance and referral forms can be emailed or sent to this address:

Illinois Innocence Project
Institute for Legal and Policy Studies
University of Illinois Springfield
One University Plaza, MS PAC 451
Springfield, IL  62703-5407

After we have received an attorney request, we will get back in touch as quickly as we can. Be aware however that because the project is working at capacity, it may be awhile before new cases can be accepted.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Ignoring the scandal of erroneous forensic testimony by dentists @AmerDentalAssn

Posted on April 26, 2016 by csidds

Notable in these archives of bite mark involved convictions, later overturned, is the lack of oversight and investigation into the causes of these tragedies by both the dental examiners’ professional organizations, the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

Not a peep.

The National Registry of Exonerations. 

The Innocence Project Bite Mark Exonerations and Arrests (.pdf)

Posted in AAFS, ABFO | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Inside Exoneration litigation in Mississippi – At Times it’s Utter Frustration #ELHoward

Posted on April 25, 2016 by csidds

 

In 2016, Texas determined that dental bitemark experts should not be admitted in court. What’s now happening in Mississippi (MS) is a classic legal and forensic science example of continuing that agenda.

1993. A bitemark ID was achieved in MS from apparently uniquely manufactured denture teeth (from a removable dental appliance) biting a victim. The bite was “recovered” via an exhumation after her homicidal death.  Cause of death: knife wounds.

1994. Eddie Lee Howard is convicted for rape, arson, and murder. He has been sentenced to death twice. His convictions contain doubtful and clearly fake forensic evidence. Remember the”Making a Murder” similar assertions? Howard’s case is more rock-solid when compared to Avery’s. Google is filled with dozens of links about Howard’s decades-old case.

There are two “characters of interest” then (now ex ) Mississippi’s 16th District DA Forrest Allgood used at Howard’s multiple trials.

Drs. Steven Hayne (he did the victim’s autopsy) and his colleague Michael West (bitemark dentist).

Allgood’s history of wrongful convictions ( 3 ) may have played heavily in his lost re-election attempt. All these overturned convictions relied on medical and dental experts.

MS Attorney General Jim Hood has also continued to defend this duo and ignore tackling junk forensics issues over the last 22 years. His relationship with ex DA Allgood is substantial.

2010. All is explained in “Killed on a Technicality” at Reason Magazine . The take-away is that, in 2016, MS Attorney General Jim Hood still wants to execute Howard.

2012 Dr. Hayne develops an antagonistic relationship with the IP.

2014. Dr. West admits that bitemark IDs are unreliable to MS Innocence director Tucker Carrington during a deposition related to Howard.

2015. The MS Supreme Court allows post-conviction relief for Howard which creates the 2016 event  in Howard’s appellate journey. See another excellent article by UK Prof Iain Pretty. 

2016.

NY and Mississippi Innocence Projects co-counsels, veteran MS Office of Post-Conviction Counsel Capital Defense Executive Director attorney Vanzetta Williams, along with an international cast of forensic experts, will be doing more anti-bitemark and pro-DNA litigation next week at Howard’s relief evidence hearing in Columbus, MS.

The pro bono publico expert panel (all members of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences) planning to present in favor of Howard’s innocence litigation are:

CBrzozowski

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Cynthia Brzozowzski is from Garden City, New York. Among other professional affiliations, she is  member of the bitemark certifying ABFO and also on its Board of Directors. She is an advocate of forensic science reform in the field of forensic odontology.

 

 

 

 

 

Professor Iain Pretty is from University of Manchester, UK. a Public Dental Health researcher and extensively published in the field of forensic odontology.

Peter and Dr. Mary Bush  are researchers at the University of Buffalo in the fields of human identification and pattern skin injury analysis.

I will also be attending the hearing on May 3 til May 5th, 2016  and will stream pics with comments on Twitter at #ELHoward.

Posted in AAFS, ABFO, costs of wrongful convictions, death penalty, forensic science reform, junk forensic science | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Forensic Saga: Raising past bitemark convictions – 1987

Posted on April 23, 2016 by csidds

The realm of gleaning forensic science fact from fiction is an ongoing chapter in the larger subject of scientific progress. Empirical testing and re-testing are the cornerstone of how science evolves. But, what about practices that have had no legitimate testing at all?

Welcome to the world of bitemark identification. The Texas Forensic Science Commission recommended  banning it from courts. 

Here’s a description of common testimony in homicide trials when the prosecution and defense hire their own experts to review and postulate testimony on the origins of skin injury patterns on victims of violent crime.

Note: this is an actual case that has NOT resulted in an exoneration.

“Dr. John Kenney and Dr. Lowell Thomas Johnson testified as experts for the State that certain marks on the victim’s body were bite marks inflicted by defendant. However, Dr. Larry Pierce and Dr. E. Stephen Smith testified as experts for the defense that the marks were not bite marks and that they were not inflicted by defendant. It is clear that all of these witnesses were qualified to testify as bite mark experts.”

The jury deliberated on the effects of such diverse testimony. All these experts were vetted by the trial judge as being members of the appropriate “scientific community” and as such, were allowed to use their favorite methods. If you are wondering what “favorite” entails. At the time of this trial, there were no published guidelines determined by the American Board of Forensic Odontology. Bitemark guidelines and standards were not formulated until 1995. This later evolution did not reject “identification of one human being” from a scant collection of bruises and abrasions.  Bitemark identification of a singular person was taken off the books in a 2013 rewrite. Lesser conclusions are still allowed by this small AAFS group although they can’t scientifically prove that their methods are valid and reliable (reproducible between multiple examiners).

Other cases of the quoted prosecution experts that HAVE resulted in full exonerations are:

Stinson, Hill, and Young

This saga will continue….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment