Forensics: Forensic Pathology study on skin injury patterns shows lack of agreement

Posted on April 18, 2016 by csidds

Published in the Apr 15 2016 Journal of Forensic Sciences, this paper are the results of a NAME (US medical examiners) online study of human skin injury pattern diagnostic categories ( the basics of “blunt,” “sharp,” and “source” identification) undertaken by some of its members.  It’s significantly better than the bitemark group’s testing of bitemark patterns.”

Remember though, that the forensic contexts are different. Sharp vs blunt disagreement does not lead to a mis-identification of a innocent defendant.

One also might wonder what other patterns “patterns” where these folks don’t strongly agree. There are diagnostic patterns in Shaken Baby Syndrome, called the SBS “triad” that are at the center of a raging debate in and out of courtrooms and the media.

Get a.pdf of Forensic Pathologist Consensus in the Interpretation of Photographs of Patterned Injuries of the Skin here.

Abstract

Forensic pathologists are commonly asked to evaluate injuries on the basis of photographs. Members of the National Association of Medical Examiners were asked to participate in an online survey in which they were presented with 68 patterned injuries of the skin and asked to make a diagnosis ranging from very general (e.g., “blunt” vs. “sharp”) to specific (e.g., “baton blow”). This was not the case. Consensus for general diagnosis averaged 0.77 and 0.72 for specific diagnosis. While there was a strong correlation between consensus and confidence in aggregate, individual correlations were poor. Consensus diagnosis was inversely correlated with age, and positively correlated with jurisdictional size, medical degree, and whether or not the respondent was actively performing autopsies as a job function. A subsequent survey is exploring possible reasons for lack of consensus in low-consensus questions. The high correlation between confidence and consensus at the aggregate level and low correlation at the individual level may have implications for quality assurance protocols.

 

Posted in AAFS, CSI, expert testimony | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The American Dental Association needs to act on members still practicing bitemarks

Posted on April 17, 2016 by csidds

Most of the US bitemark group, the American Board of Forensic Odontology, are also members of the ADA. In fact some of the ABFO are “vaunted” as fighting crime through their “success” in criminal court convictions.  Here’s a 2015 link to a California dental journal exceeding praiseworthy of the bitemark crew.

So far “”success” has resulted in 25 innocent men being convicted. Keith Allen Harward being the latest.

“The Innocence Project hopes Harward’s exoneration leads to a national review of old bite-mark cases comparable to one underway by the FBI, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and others of old microscopic hair analysis, another forensic technique that has contributed to wrongful convictions.

A similar bite-mark effort, however, would require support of forensic dentists, also known as forensic odontologists. So far, that support has been missing.”

Full article

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

The latest bitemark exoneration in VA raises the issue of what to do with other bitemark convictions

Posted on April 16, 2016 by csidds

This editorial article speaks volumes about the the damage done to one man ( in his own words) and expands public concern about other criminal defendants in our Criminal Justice system during the 50 years of “judicially accepted” bitemark opinions aiding convictions.

This VA Harward case is the 25 exon victory litigated by the NY Innocence Project and local defense counsels which overcame prosecution experts certified by the American Board of Forensic Odontology.

The ABFO’s current president, Dr. Adam Freeman, has publicly stated that his org has “a responsibility” to review all its members’ casework.

From my experience as a past member of this group (1989 – 2011), the number of bitemark cases that needing review exceed one thousand.

So, ABFO, what is your next step? I know that some members have warned the membership that any efforts at critiquing their casework will bring consequences.

Here is what the Innocence Blog has to say about the Harward case.

The Fredericksburg Free Lance Star ran an editorial Friday urging Virginia courts to show more skepticism with regard to bite mark evidence in criminal cases.

Using the recent exoneration of Innocence Project client Keith Harward as an example, the editorial board cautioned courts in the state to consider the proven unreliability of bite marks as evidence.

Harward was released and exonerated last week after spending 33 years in prison for a rape and murder, which DNA evidence proves he did not commit. Harward was convicted primarily on the testimony of two forensic dentists who said that Harward’s teeth matched marks left on the rape victim.

“If the courts were to show more skepticism about bite-mark evidence, they would find allies in the very organization that accredits and certifies forensic odontologists,” writes the editorial board. Recent exonerations such as Harward’s have led the American Board of Forensic Odontology to issue new guidelines regarding expert testimony on bite mark evidence.

“The courts should show at least as much concern about the evidence as the board that accredits the experts,” the editorial board wrote.

 

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

Ad Hoc Forensic “research’ by FBI reveals how junk gets into court – #MakingAMurder

Posted on April 15, 2016 by csidds

FOUR EXPERTS EXPLAIN WHY FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF CRIME SCENES IS NOT AS RELIABLE AS YOU MIGHT THINK

The deep media and the public’s viral response to Steven Avery’s multiple convictions for murder has developed some valuable insight into the lengths LEO forensic types will go to support a prosecution. This is a replay of what the 2009 NAS Report said about the weaknesses in forensic science applications in the US court system.

Its blood and bullets.

I’m calling what the experts reveal as the “Ad Hoc” (done for a particular purpose) Syndrome which is endemic in many crime lab disciplines and certainly present in every bitemark case I have ever seen.  AHS is the scenario imbued with forensic types knowing what the police want (a conviction) to find BEFORE they run their tests.

An article from the Rolling Stone gets into a rewrite of the Pittsburgh Gazette’s publishing four experts’ review of evidence brought into the prosecutions of Avery that clearly falls short of what the experts clearly define as true research.

It is enlightening to read about what I have seen in numerous cases involving pattern evidence such as blood spatter, toolmark and bitemark experts doing to “prove” their conclusions with mini-experiments they concoct in their police managed labs as being research. It ain’t no such thing.

Some takeaways from these experts are: (this makes the article a must read: my comments in parens)

  1. There is a saying among scientists that absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence, and that appears to be the case here.
  2. we wonder whether this “battle of experts” left the jury with an inadequate appreciation of the underlying scientific and statistical uncertainties. (this also applies to the judge)
  3. Another common problem in forensic science is contextual bias — the tendency for forensic scientists to be influenced inappropriately by nonscientific aspects of a case. (The “garage bullet” DNA expert in Making A Murder completely explains this category)

Shout out to @ctmccartney for the link.

 

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

Forensics: The role of social media as a watchdog on abuse of power and and imperfect science

Posted on April 15, 2016 by csidds

I have significant experience listening (especially at the last AAFS meeting) and reading snide comments from mostly volunteering participants (commonly defensive) in the “forensic science reform” debate demeaning the “blog” aspect of journalistic reporting. My vocal response at the AAFS to the debasement of “bloggishness” (sic) has been to say…

“Well, the public wants to learn about forensic science successes, mishaps, misconceptions, examiner negligence, criminality, stupidity, and worse.”

Try this conviction and recent release for crime lab malfeasance in Massachusetts for example.

Mainstream journalism, which is increasing dependent on the digital “internet newspaper” format, might be confused as “bloggery” or “just” social media by some readers, but I hardly think it is impossible to tell the difference. Let’s take a “traditional look” at forensic science news.

1) Go the meetings and catch-up on the gossip. No way this works anymore.

2) Maybe the Journal of Forensic Sciences? Not so much. There are various “AAFS News” posts on its site but subjects are mostly organizational. It is posting about its consortium aiding in human rights investigations.

In regards to its journal,  it takes two years to get a professional article (it rarely contains replication of previously published “pattern evidence” methods) through peer review process and then into print. It is not a hotbed of forensic-science-law arguments and sometimes even the letters to the JFS editor seem to be a vehicle of professional snark (these two researchers, Mary and Peter Bush have been targeted via the JFS by a pod of bitemark believers). On a positive side, an excellent and notable group-think 2011 law review paper on how forensic science must and can create a “research culture for the forensic sciences” should be required reading for certain members of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

But the forensic sci lit is generally a slow go for “News.”

3) Onto the 21st Century of Forensic Science on the Internet

How about the Crime Lab Report? This subscription blog (somewhat stale at this point) has taken the pompous road by “auditing” the efforts of the Innocence Project and connects readers to “Science 2.0” and “Keeping the Gate” (?) has an unbalanced DA POV but is informative about certain aspects of the Steven Avery “Making a Murder” public uproar.

Here is the framework about what a journalist goes through to inform the public about BOTH sides of news reporting hot topics that deal with criminal justice, policing reform, interacting with our society’s exploding interest in community racial stressors.

Radley Balko at The Watch

Looking at Google and Twitter for Forensic News.

Google?

Here’s some compilations of forensic science and related topic blogs (all from a Google search “forensic science blogs”).  Most are from technicians, litigators, non-profit and for-profit forensic orgs, societies, and forensic training resources. It’s sketchy regarding how current these lists really are as some links are stale. “Top 50 Forensic Science Blogs” and “Top 50 Forensic SciencTIST Blogs” and “20 Cool CSI & Forensic Blogs” (I’m in this one). I would recommend that Google be used for specific subject matter searches about forensic news.

Twitter?

This somewhat maligned public media posting application is much better for getting late breaking news about forensics, criminal justice, the interface of crime labs and criminal cases, wrongful convictions and so forth. Mainstreamer news from Science, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, The Dallas News, The Wall Street Journal, and all news services post to Twitter. There also are some very dedicated tweeters that daily post news links to the forensic news stream. Some are full time journalists, law profs, criminal investigators, defense attorneys, justice reformists, whistleblowers, and forensic examiners. Funny, I can only find a couple of local prosecutors in this universe. There are a few states’ Attorneys General on Twitter. Like California’s @KamalaHarris

It will take some time to develop a list of Twitter accounts to “follow,” but the information is worth it. Just search for “forensic science” and your other related interests. Plus there are some forensic newsletters (NL) in this bunch.

Some of my best Twitter picks:

@alicsesperi @JeSuisTC @Grits4Breakfast (NL) @ishinews @innocenceblog @MaddydeLone @ErinMurphysLaw @CrimBarrister@FunkCSI @CeliaGivens (NL) @theintercept @forensicscience @chronic_jordan @davidakaye @missvebee @latimes @PursuitMag @KentForensics @ForensicMag @SGinvestigation @pdxlawgrrrl @drjudymekinek @csiguy01 @LegalAidNYC @OJPNIJ @maxmhouck @jmookin @BarryAJFisher @WrongConvBlog @ctmccartney @TeeUniCSS @AnthonyFalsetti @brandonlgarrett @LilianaSegura @JennyPAndrews @BayouWho @WPTheWatch @Vidocq_CC @UoDCAHID @forensictoxguy @AustinChronicle @ForensicOdont @TexasTribune @washingtonpost @WSJ @ABACJS @TheCrimeReport @nytimes @DallasDailyNews ForensicCOE@rti.org (NL),

 

 

 

Posted in AAFS, criminal justice, CSI, Forensic Science | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian chief forensic expert shot in retaliation for MH 17 recovery efforts

Posted on April 14, 2016 by csidds

Two Dutch passports lie in a field among the MH17 wreckage. Suspect arrested over attempted assassination of chief forensic expert in MH17 crash investigation.

Chilling news. A suspect has been arrested.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2987484/suspect-arrested-over-attempted-assassination-of-chief-forensic-expert-in-mh17-crash-investigation/

Posted in Forensic Science | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Junk forensic science appeals largely hit a dead end because of appeal exhaustion.

Posted on April 13, 2016 by csidds

Individuals convicted largely due to junk science face challenges finding legal remedies

  • In the wake of last year’s FBI hair analysis error scandal, Arkansas defense attorneys are asking the state supreme court to grant clients convicted by the junk science new trials: “The problem, as state attorneys have pointed out in legal arguments, is [the defendants] have exhausted their appeals, and there is no mechanism for sending a case back to trial because evidence was discovered to be faulty.” (Arkansas Online)
  • Meanwhile in Texas, after the state passed the first junk science law in 2013, defendants convicted because of shoddy science will finally have their cases reviewed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (PBS)

Shout out to the DNA Newsletter @CeliaGivens

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

Harward’s exoneration from a 33 year old bitemark conviction brings out comments from DA expert.

Posted on April 12, 2016 by csidds

“In a statement, Levine said he was upset and disturbed at the result, given that the case produced wide agreement among examiners who had access to more information than is often available. “This case should persuade all my colleagues to agree with the need for more scientific research and investigation,”

Levine said……..at the time of the original trial……

“…… “a very, very, very high degree of probability those teeth left that bite mark,” referring to Harward, and said a coincidental match to another person was a “practical impossibility.” ”

Read a very, very comprehensive article on Keith Harward’s release from prison this last Friday published at  The Washington Post. 

A few years ago, Dr. Levine gave this video interview to CNN.

And of course, this all concurs with the data that these experts never agree what a bitemark should look even look like. 

And the Harward tragedy is only one in a litany (the number stands at 25 exonerations with other defendants languishing in prison) of questionable opinions and flawed testimony brought forth by Dr. Levine’s colleagues from the American Board of Forensic Odontology. Read about the Kunco case and others in this Radley Balko 4th part in his 2015 series on the subject of junk forensic dentistry in the US courts.

 

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

TX and CA: How Prosecutors ignore the effects of junk forensic science on their convictions.

Posted on April 11, 2016 by csidds

Jordan copy

CSI forensics seems to be infallible on TV. Not as much in the real world.

Try reading”Bitten by Experts” from Jordan Smith at The Intercept. Its all about the junk.

In the same vein, this article gives a closeup on where the 2013 Forensic Junk Science law in Texas falls short in allowing “new trials” but no “exoneration” in the few cases finally arriving back in appellate court.

The TX legislator who authored the new law explains the political climate that prevented a broader approach which could have permitted findings of “actual innocence” and later compensation for wrongful convictions.

An ex-attorney for the Tx Innocence Project says as a critique of the law:

“The worst thing under this law is that now prosecutors get off easy. They have an excuse and they can say, “Well, I guess it was just those creeps in the lab coats that did it to us this time. Sorry.” That prevents us from ever understanding what really goes on in these cases.”

The attitude of a local DA to this story of Sonia Cacy’s request for a new trial echoes what has been frequently used by prosecutors responding to the junk-in-forensics scandal.

“The current district attorney of the county where Cacy was tried stands by her conviction, rejects her arguments about the scientific evidence, and says there is considerable circumstantial evidence that still points to her guilt.”

Back to “Bitten by Experts.” California is no exception to the “still guilty” claims of NIMBY prosecutors. Its recent forensic junk science law will be tested before the CA Supreme Court on May 3 as the California Innocence Project takes on Attorney General Kamala Harris on the William Richard’s 1997 conviction.

 

 

 

Posted in AAFS, costs of wrongful convictions, Crime lab scandal, criminal justice reform, CSI | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

UK Forensic Witchhunt: Cops targeted Waney Squier for money?

Posted on April 8, 2016 by csidds

 

2011 journalist reporting from the UK’s Daily Mail brought me up to date with the ad hominem pillorying brought against paediatric neuropathology physician Waney Squier over the last decade. Plus there are a few more newsworthy facts.

Squier was recently “delicensed”  by a cobbled up medical administrative court for speaking her scientific mind (described in the ruling as being “derisive”). She predicted in 2011 that the cops were out to get her. The main perp seems to have been the Met Police Child Abuse Investigation Command.

Today, Dr. Squier received a much deserved INNOCENCE NETWORK award for her body of research and promotion of updated critical scientific investigation into Shaken Baby Syndrome.

squier copy

She has intelligently and empirically debunked the “triad” of the 1980’s adamantly supported by some in the Metropolitan Police Service. The cops pushed back in the following: See the BBC News from 2011.

Here is an excerpt: (There is alot more personal invective towards Squier contained in the article.)

In this speech, DI (Colin) Welsh ( note: at the time a Met police Detective Investigator ) referred to a meeting in 2008 attended by representatives of the police, medical experts and CPS officials at which the “impact and effect of contradictory expert evidence” was discussed. The Met has confirmed the meeting took place but said it was standard procedure following an acquittal in a court case.

According to a note by a Seattle-based lawyer called Heather Kirkwood, DI Welsh talked about the failure of a number of high profile Shaken Baby prosecutions and stated the number one problem as “defence expert testimony”.

The following may just be pure coincidence. But………its worth mentioning.

Welsh copy

Colin Welsh (taken from Google Images)

Welsh’s private sector career after MPS retirement apparently is with Safeguarding Systems Ltd. (the website loading may be a bit sketchy) which says he is “unrivaled” and speaks before health care providers world-wide. This company provides training to persons and groups (up to 15 attendees) interested in protecting ” Children and Vulnerable Adults” costing on the average US$250 an hour.

What is also alarming are these efforts to silence her and a few critical-thinking doubters of the SBS “triad” have been made in the public forum by some who could be lecturing professional health care audiences on the “judicial inexperience” inhibiting their version of judicial justice. 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment