Forensic Error Rates: This is Scary about FBI facial recog database: 20% error rate

Deepface-facebook

The article says the feds 547 million foto archive has had some successes. This writer throws this out this tidbit about facial “uniqueness.” Hope the feds have your portrait quality snaps. Some testing, however, indicates the fed system has a 20% error rate.

“Just as no two people have the same fingerprints, no two people have the same face. The technology essentially measures minute distances in a person’s face and logs the information. While these methods are still in their infancy, FBI officials say biometric technologies could help law enforcement locate and identify a suspect using surveillance videos, mug shots — or even photos taken from Facebook and Twitter.”

Concerns about this are clearly described:

the Globe noted: “Some of those people are guilty of nothing more than looking like someone else.”

 

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/fbi-now-has-largest-biometric-database-world-will-it-lead-more-surveillance-2345062

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

Thrifty Scot government looking for new customers for its spanking new crime lab

Taking a look at next year’s budget, and a $75M crime lab investment, the Scottish police chiefs are looking to offer their forensic services to other jurisdictions and customers.

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/police-chiefs-keen-share-forensic-services-other-agencies-boost-income

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

“Those damn bite marks, if his parents had just got him orthodontia he wouldn’t be in this predicament.”

Defense attorney from 1986 murder trial says bite-mark evidence was persuasive to jury. Both prosecution bitemark experts belonged to the ABFO. The defense bitemark expert believed that the method was real “science.”

http://www.richmond.com/news/article_e87446cc-3e5e-51b2-99fd-bdbb963b8ee3.html#.VwVIf_NKQ7o.twitter

 

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

Forensics 101: The backlash of being a defense expert “for” OJ: from Michael Baden

This is a recent audio interview of Michael Baden who critiqued the prosecution’s pathology evidence in the OJ trial. Getting the cold-shoulder from police and colleagues is just one aspect of the toolkit of forensic “scientists” disliking debate regarding their methods.

Interview with Baden

 

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

Putting the bone puzzle back together in a murder case.

This report has an excellent vid.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2611799/expert-forensic-anthropologist-testifies-in-ryan-lane-murder-trial/

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Flawed forensic testing has no boundaries: Long term testing scandal in Canada

“Sick Kids” is the nom-de-plume of the hospital providing chemical testing of drug and hair evidence.

Somehow this report uses “clinical testing” as a substitute, rather than “forensic testing.” For years this hospital lab’s customers have been law enforcement related agencies. Souns rather “forensic” to me.

http://www.darkdaily.com/systemic-errors-at-canadian-forensic-laboratory-motherisk-make-national-news-and-provide-another-example-of-consumer-interest-in-accuracy-of-clinical-laboratory-testing-401#axzz44bKXlRhX

Related story from 2015:

“We deeply regret that the practices in the Motherisk drug testing laboratory didn’t meet the high standard of excellence that we have here at Sick Kids, and we extend our sincere apologies to children, families and organizations who feel that they may have been impacted in some negative way,” Dr. Michael Apkon, CEO at the Hospital for Sick Children, told the Star.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/10/16/sickkids-apologizes-for-drug-test-failings-of-its-motherisk-lab.html

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

Forensics: Improvements to the #AAFS Ethics bylaws may prevent future abuse of its power

Something new has occurred since previous posts on my 2013, 2014 and 2015 experiences with the bitemark believers’ attempts to run me off the rails and attack my credibility by hijacking the American Academy of Forensic Sciences‘ Code of Ethics.

The AAFS has promulgated a new set of rules that may protect others (and maybe the AAFS itself) from being maimed by unfounded accusations driven by self-styled psuedo scientific experts trying to shut out legitimate discourse within the AAFS’ scope of influence.

See what Texas says about them. (From the Wall Street Journal, Feb 2016).

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

Article II. CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT SECTION 1 – THE CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT: As a means to promote the highest quality of professional and personal conduct of its members and affiliates, the following constitutes the Code of Ethics and Conduct which is endorsed by all members and affiliates of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences:

a. Every member and affiliate of the Academy shall refrain from exercising professional or personal conduct adverse to the best interests and objectives of the Academy. The objectives stated in the Preamble to these bylaws shall be to promote professionalism, integrity, and competency in the membership’s actions and associated activities; to promote education for and research in the forensic sciences; to encourage the study, improve the practice, elevate the standards and advance the cause of the forensic sciences; to promote interdisciplinary communications; and to plan, organize and administer meetings, reports and other projects for the stimulation and advancement of these and related purposes.

b. No member or affiliate of the Academy shall materially misrepresent his or her education, training, experience, area of expertise, or membership status within the Academy.

c. No member or affiliate of the Academy shall materially misrepresent data or scientific principles upon which his or her conclusion or professional opinion is based. d. No member or affiliate of the Academy shall issue public statements that appear to represent the position of the Academy without first obtaining specific authority from the Board of Directors.

SECTION 2 – MEMBER AND AFFILIATE LIABILITY: Any member or affiliate of the Academy who has violated any of the provisions of the Code of Ethics and Conduct (Article II, Section 1) within the preceding five (5) years may be liable to formal or informal discipline, to include reprimand, censure, suspension, or expulsion by action of the Board of Directors.

SECTION 3 – SANCTIONS: If the Board of Directors finds that a member or affiliate has committed a violation of the Code of Ethics and Conduct, the Board may sanction the member or affiliate based on the nature of the violation as follows:

a. If the Board finds that a member or affiliate has committed a minor violation of the Code of Ethics and Conduct, the member or affiliate may be censured with a confidential “Letter of Reprimand” or a non-confidential “Letter of Censure.”

b. If the Board finds that a member or affiliate has committed a serious violation of the Code of Ethics and Conduct, the Board may suspend the AAFS membership of the member or affiliate for a specific period of time.

c. If the Board finds that a member or affiliate has committed an egregious violation of the Code of Ethics and Conduct, the Board may expel the member or affiliate from the membership of AAFS.

d. In determining whether a violation of the Code of Ethics and Conduct is “minor,” “serious,” or “egregious” and appropriate level of sanction to be imposed, the Board of Directors shall consider the following non-exclusive factors:

1. Whether the violation was an isolated incident or a pattern of misconduct;

2. Whether the violation was knowing and intentional;

3. Whether the violation included prevarication, fabrication, deception, or falsification;

4. Whether accused has acknowledged the ethical violation, taken remedial measures, and/or expressed remorse for the conduct;

5. Whether the violation resulted in actual harm or the potential for serious harm to the justice system and/or an individual;

6. Whether the accused has previously been sanctioned for an ethical violation.

AAFS Code of Ethics Bylaws. 

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

UK Forensics : Waney Squier subjected to diabolical mind control orchestrated by legal licensing board

Pro prosecution ardor within the criminal justice system is alive and unwell in the UK. Here’s what happens when prosecutors and “four senior  judges” roll out the rack to ruin legitimate scientific progress within their kingdom. Dangerous stuff, progress.  Within the first link listed below,  one quoter states that it is “a dark day for science – and justice.”

The British medical-legal curiae ( doctors, lawyers and laymen) ordered that a physician permanently shut her mouth about her reasonable doubts that certain clinical autopsy findings during infant deaths are pathognomonic of a specific cause. Of course this is has to do with………

Shaken Baby Syndrome ( see the ongoing and most recent cinematic debate on SBS at this site). Further info below contains the SBS arguments ongoing in the US.

This is a chart of some of the differential diagnostic alternatives that oppose the UK declaration that SBS characteristics are solely present in criminal investigations of infant homicide. (taken from the same site’s trailer of The Syndrome documentary)

SBSDiffDiag

Here is a telling response to this “striking off” of Dr. Waney Squier from any further practice of medicine.

“It is illogical to condemn Dr Squier for “cherrypicking” facts that are inconsistent with an unproven theory: if there are findings that call SBS into question, then that obviously casts doubt on the theory. And it is equally unrealistic to accuse her of lacking sufficient expertise in SBS: the very nature of forensic science (if it is science at all) is that experts do not spend their time training in anti-science.”

Full article with this response.

Another recent article has the chief of the General Medical Counsel (GMC) spouting boilerplate platitudes regarding its role as “keeper” of highest standards for experts before the judiciary. This is a tribunal and NOT a scientific medical board. He doesn’t really care and in fact he uses it as a shield. Clever guy. This bunch is the originator of the “cherrypicking” charge against Dr. Waney. Here’s an example of his doublespeak.

“First, the GMC is not and has no intention of being the arbiter of scientific opinion – the allegations we brought against Dr Squier did not rest on the validity of her scientific theory but upon her competence and conduct in presenting her evidence to the courts.”

Right. He is a keeper of  Competence and Conduct and Presentation. He also seems to be a guardian of Decorum and Legalistic Status Quo cloaked as legal regulation. There are no rules governing the advancement of science within the British or US legal systems that are authored by scientists, as Squier’s case clearly shows. Adaptation by this system regarding forensic change, or “reform” as some of us call it, is a battle field. Squier’s fate with the GMC is a serious skirmish because this type of personal attack is indicative of previous convictions on SBS being suspect if her rhetoric is not quashed. Anything works to discredit an expert when its cloaked in officialdom. Even puerile chastisement. As some readers may know, this is the same guy who charged Squier with the crime of “distain” for her peers. Very dangerous stuff to the starched shirt crowd. Here is the site showing his  “vetted” wisdom (after all he is on the GMC), The site includes some folks arguing in strong and logical opposition.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/22/why-the-shaken-baby-syndrome-tribunal-led-to-dr-waney-squier-being-struck-off

In closing for this post:

From the above site, here is a US comment regarding Squier’s administrative crucifixion from Susan Goldsmith. It contains some serious irony about Squier’s status in the world of pathology.

“What has happened to Dr Waney Squier is appalling, and fits with a well-established theme here in the US of attempting to silence critics of shaken baby syndrome through prosecutions, censures, professional ridicule and threats. I am a career investigative reporter with a documentary film (to be released 15 April) all about this. It is called The Syndrome and it is the culmination of eight years of my research. I also happen to be a career reporter who has gotten laws passed in the US to help abused and neglected children (see my bio on website). The attempt to eliminate the opposition in shaken baby syndrome cases is sickening and undemocratic. Dr Squier is a world-renowned neuropathologist whose work and courage should be celebrated. In fact, she is being celebrated, at the very same time that she is being stripped of her medical licence. In early April, Dr Squier will receive a Champion of Justice Award at the National Innocence Network conference in Texas. What the GMC has done is clear. It has sent a message to all who dare question this dogma: speak up and we will ruin your career. The world is watching.
Susan Goldsmith
Writer/producer, The Syndrome

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bitemark president still wants bitemark brethren to go to court

Despite lacking any scientific bases to what they profess to be “scientific,” the new boss of the ABFO bitemark bunch waxes nostalgic about “standing with giants, ” gives lip service to the Tx Forensic Commission and then leaves his membership with this blather about “doing good work.” Talk about missing the point of the “worst year of forensics” for this group.

His wish list: (with some responses to the ABFO membership)

  • To restrict ourselves to only bitemarks of the highest evidentiary value. (you can’t even agree on what is a bitemark)
  • To be blinded of suspect(s) when doing comparisons. (see supra)
  • The same investigator should not document patterned injuries and take suspected biter information. (see supra)
  • We need blinded second opinions- not just technical reviews. (see supra)
  • We need to be vigilant about bias and do everything in our power to mitigate it. (then shut up about bitemark opinions being admissible in court as “scientific”)
  • We need bitemark proficiency testing. ( not: you need validation studies first; and so far you have flunked 3 proficiency studies since 1986 )
  • We need to change the requirement that a potential ABFO certification candidate be the primary investigator in a bitemark case in order to satisfy the requirements to become certified. (ABFO candidates still need to “do” 6 bitemark cases to be ABFO eligible. Imagine the damage THAT can produce to defendants and the public’s belief in “justice for all” )

Full message to the ABFO  by its president.

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

Interview with bitemark expert on his testimony in a 1986 conviction case approaching recantation?

Science marches on. So do opinions of forensic experts. In this case, the original trial transcripts are asserted to be proof of now debunked bitemark identifications being used to aid a murder and rape conviction from decades ago. One dentist of two bitemark dentists is now swimming upstream against what he said 30 years ago at trial.

Notably, he stands by his work and offers an explanation.  Here’s his quote:

“Shown his testimony, Kagey said some could interpret that he was excluding all others as the biter.”

“But that would not be my interpretation,” he said. “I could never say that this person did it, to the exclusion of everyone else.”

The Innocence Project along with co-counsel pro bono defense firms have been successful in over 24 cases involving similar prosecutorial use of matching bitemark bruising to a specific person.

 

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