Huh? This article is so poorly written, I’m not sure that happened. Either the reference sample of the murder victim was incorrect, or the cops sent the wrong body.
“The DNA report from Mohali-based forensic laboratory has confirmed that the body flown to London by police was not of UK-based NRI Ranjit Singh Powar who was allegedly murdered last year, it is learnt.”
Some were glad, others were sad, and others were mad at this year’s AAFS. A few were defensive.
These two veteran investigative reporters for The Intercept, Liliana Segura and Jordan Smith, entered the annual realm of the “crime fighting” American Academy of Forensics Sciences and came away with some impressions. They found that emotions are flowing for many experts of the “old police” sciences. They roasted a few folks deserving of it, but gave kudos to those who are taking the higher road towards protecting the public from specious “forensic” types.
The editors write:
“This special issue of Science shows that forensic analysts are trying to do better. Many fields are taking a critical look at the value of evidence, testing the accuracy of their methods, and developing new ones that are more science-based. Meanwhile, some scientists are developing the forensic tools of tomorrow.”
“Hair analysis is only one of many flawed forensic fields: A 2009 report from the National Research Council found that the analysis of many types of evidence—from footprints and tire tracks to bullet marks and blood splatters—lacks a solid foundation. Even DNA evidence, seen as the gold standard, can land innocent people in jail, now that new technologies can detect minuscule amounts of genetic material.”
And it continues with mostly non-novel reportage, and does include some “police sciences,” throwing in hair (promising its new “adjusted uses’ in court), microbes for ageing postmortem intervals, making a bacterial “fingerprint” from live bodies, “fuzzy” fingerprints, DNA gone bad, how statisticians will save the day, and something about incinerated bodies and energy calculations in the Mexican 43 dead student case.
Nothing in the magazine about the cover picture showing bullets.
The prosecution claims “overwhelming” evidence exists even if an arson inspector’s opinions of this defendant’s guilt is no longer supported. The upcoming new trial will prove or disprove that theory.
One glaring similarity of this case with Todd Willingham’s conviction in Texas (he was executed despite appeals to the state governor Rick Perry) is that both fire “experts” profiled the suspects as to whether they 1) showed sufficient remorse or anguish at the fire scene (Wallingham) and 2) the rescue attempt by Dougherty (in Penn) should have been supported by him having burns and smoke inhalation.
Spilsbury in his lab.
A bunch of stuffed medical shirts demand their respect at all costs to public safety and claim “ipse dixit” expertise to those who submit to their “peer” review. “Disdainers” beware. Respect your betters in science or else.
This is truly chilling
One of the reasons for Squier, a respected physician, dismissal and being “struck off the list” was:
“The decision added that her attitude to her colleagues was “shocking, openly displaying your disdain for their expertise and opinions.”
It’s as if these medical blokes want to rewrite history for themselves. The legal introduction and centuries of proceedings of expert witness testimony in English Common Law and later accepted in the US is a panorama of diverse and adversarial opinions from technical experts. Full story with past articles on this.
Read this abstract to Squier’s upcoming chapter on Shaken Baby Syndrome to help determine her POV, rather than her accused and now condemned “disdain.” Its clear she expects higher standards of medical-based interpretation on the subject matter. The entire chapter will be published later this year by Academic Press (Elsevier) and will be titled “Forensic Science Reform : Research, Cases and Changing Paradigms in the Courts.” The book is co-edited by Wendy Koen and myself.
The chapter begins by analyzing the conviction and exoneration of Kenneth Marsh. Then, as the chapter explains current medical understanding of shaken baby syndrome (SBS), it becomes clear that we have lost sight of previously known facts concerning infant intracranial pathology and anatomy, and that natural conditions have been mischaracterized as the result of inflicted trauma. Research has discredited each of the indicators of SBS. Specifically, thin film subdural hemorrhage (bleeding in the membrane surrounding the brain) has not been demonstrated to be the result of traumatic rupture of bridging veins caused by shaking but is more likely to originate as a function of immaturity. Encephalopathy (disease, damage or malfunction of the brain) is not due to traumatic shearing of the nerve fibers of the brain but is due to a secondary cascade of events including brain swelling and lack of blood and oxygen supply and is not specific for trauma and certainly not for abuse. Retinal hemorrhages (bleeding in the retina) occur in normal births and have many other natural causes in infants, one being part of the same secondary cascade. In addition, biomechanics have shown that shaking produces less acceleration than a short fall, supporting the alternative explanation often given by defendants: the infant was injured by a short fall. Though doctors, including the leading advocates of SBS, are shifting their views, in several jurisdictions internationally, defendants still face prosecution and conviction based on the old SBS tenets, and attorneys and courts must be aware of current science in order to ensure fair trials and just verdicts.
=========================================================
A bit of British history on forensic pathology
From a different era and a different set of moral compasses, there was a different outcome in similar circumstances of medical disagreements.
Modern scientific pathology was helped to develop by a Brit. Sir Bernard Spilsbury took a hammer to many of his medical colleagues in and outside of court. He became the “peoples’ pathologist through his acceptance by the UK courts in sensational homicide casework. Some of his colleagues were sloppy and over-confident. He debunked them many times over his 40 year career. Doesn’t the “Sir” mean that he became a Knight of the Crown” or something for his contributions?
Here’s a paper about the same guy who made many of his medical forensic colleagues shake in their boots when they opposed him.
Here is a book titled “Lethal Witness” about Spilsbury.
Assistant DOJ director Sally Yates takes the high road in the direction of vetting closed criminal cases using other “police forensic sciences” involving “patterns.” Her statements indicates concerns about examiners “overstating” their conclusions in court. That bypasses whether the methods themselves are properly validated. However, this is progress.
“Yates announced plans last month to audit samples of testimony that came from FBI units handling pattern-based evidence, without saying which disciplines, or forensic techniques. Such techniques include tracing the impressions that guns leave on bullets, shoe treads, fibers, soil and other crime-scene evidence. The FBI and other crime labs nationwide conduct more than 100,000 such examinations each year.”
Well, its not really a compendium, just some links about general crime scene opinions at the end. Not surprisingly, the resources are really anecdotal and little to none show empirical investigation. Hey, this is forensic “police science,” not CSI, right?
A local spousal-murder case in my town has brought up the vagaries of experts brought in to determine 1) whether the dead husband’s body “was moved” and conversely, 2) how the bleeding from multiple close-range headshots from a .22 cal Ruger revolver indicate that the man’s remains were not moved.
As of this date, no one agrees. Voila!
The issue of body movement at the murder scene seems to be important for the defense, although they readily admit the man’s wife was the shooter. “Why” it’s important seems to be a bit more difficult to determine from newspaper reports of the ongoing testimony from the pros and def experts. I think its got to do with……… I really do not know.
I have read the paper’s reporting of testimony about head wounds “bleeding against gravity,” wounds “first bleeding one direction and then another,” “projected blood from exhaling,” and even “a glancing gunshot throwing scalp tissue onto a trash can.”
One thing for sure, none of these witnesses could confirm how they knew if the victim was capable of bleeding, or exhaling, after being shot 5 (or 6) times in the head in quick succession.
All of this expertizing comes from looking at autopsy and crime scene photos. Amazing stuff of criminal investigation. Most of the experts never went to the backyard patio crime scene. “Testing” inquires from both defense and prosecution counsels came up empty for most.
All experts either work for government labs or used to.
A quick look via Google:
A case’s news report where the blood stain expert talks about all sorts of things like blood flow, blood stain and physical injuries which indicate “staging.” He is a true multi-disciplinary Sherlockian.
The author talks about “red flags” and the FBI’s 1992 Violent crime manual on the subject is referenced.
1996 article from noted forensic author Vernon Geberth using “case histories” as substantiation.
Someone selling their 2015 book on crime staging.
An interesting ballistics and firearm article about staging a shooting.
Obviously not the same, but its aggravating and sad that Prosecutors are pro on the cracking of IPhone codes but are defending the DNA software guy in order to protect his “proprietary interests.”
The US Fifth Circuit turns its back on a huge forensics scandal in Mississippi
I have spent nearly 20 years investigating cases from this state involving death penalty cases and life sentences related to the errant pathology and “science” experts running amok in its courts. Prior to that, as a student at the University of Southern California, I helped register voters in Fayette, MS and Lake Charles LA. in 1970. At that time, I also photographed the segregated high school for Fayette’s newly elected mayor Charles Evers, the first post-Reconstruction African-American mayor in Mississippi. He is the brother of Medgar Evers who was murdered in 1963 in Jackson, MS.
Nothing has burned deeper in my consciousness than the region’s judicial apathy to arbitrary, speculative, one-sided and outright junk expert opines which are repeatedly found acceptable by “gatekeepers” of justice in appellate litigation proceedings. Judges do have legal mechanisms available for turning things around. The brave do and the US Fifth Circuit Court (MS, Texas, LA) brethren have chosen not to. Again. There are 17 judges and 7 senior judges located in the John Minor Wisdom Courthouse in New Orleans.
John Minor Wisdom Courthouse
The experts, of course, are eagerly hired and supported by elected prosecutors (and allied colleagues) bent on getting what they want at all costs. The ex-prosecutors become judges and the judges run up the judicial food chain.
For a bit of context, meet Carl Stewart, the 5th’s Chief Judge of “the nation’s most divisive, controversial and conservative appeals court.” A man of considerable acumen in a decidedly “mean-spirited” panel. (taken from the above link).
Skepticism regarding the “scales of MS justice” resounds in many true crime, fictional, literary and mass media environments exists for a reason. It is real and thriving as a systemic problem with little oversight or counter balance most people assume is available in the US criminal justice system.
Here is the version of forensic facts and events that are not far from the 1964 ‘Mississippi Burning’ atrocity. This is real-life. The “game” in play within the state is one of self-righteous, self interest, personal gain and crude cronyism that runs throughout its boundaries.
Read on………..from Radley Balko
“With a curt, three-page ruling late last month, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the post-conviction petition of Tavares Flaggs, a Mississippi man currently serving a life sentence for murder.
Flaggs was convicted in large part because of the testimony of Steven Hayne, a medical examiner who for about two decades was able to monopolize the autopsy business inMississippi. This story should really be one of the bigger criminal justice scandals in recent U.S. history. It potentially affects thousands of cases, both criminal and civil. It involves wrongful convictions, and people let off who should be behind bars. Several of the people convicted based on flawed testimony from Hayne are still on death row, in both Mississippi and in Louisiana. Flaggs’ petition, filed by the Mississippi Innocence Project, was the most comprehensive summary of what happened in Mississippi yet to get before a federal court. The Fifth Circuit panel brushed it aside in just four paragraphs.”
Full article from the Washington Post
The American Board of Forensic Odontology just lost its’ a face-off with the Texas Forensic Science Commission. The TFSC recommended a moratorium ( Texas Panel Calls for an End to Criminal IDs via Bitemarks ) on biting evidence after a seven-month investigation of this AAFS sponsored dental group’s inadequate to non-existent scientific underpinnings. Significantly, a core objection from the Commission was ABFO members’ participation in over 24 exoneration cases exposed by New York’s Innocence Project’s relentless litigation against unreliable forensic methods and its experts. You can see below that this list may be increasing. In fact, the TFSC decision was based on the Texas exoneration of Steve Chaney from a bitemark ID aided conviction 28 years ago. Here’s another bitemark case approaching a final decision.
DNA proves man innocent of 1982 rape and murder in famous ‘bitemark case’ lawyers say.
This latest exoneration litigation has recently gone viral in the news.
As is usual, these exoneration cases always lead with the DNA evidence, obtained after conviction, being argued as the foundation for “actual innocence.”
“Lawyers with the Washington firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, along with the New York-based Innocence Project, filed a petition for a writ of actual innocence on March 4, citing testing performed by the Virginia Department of Forensic Science that failed to find Harward’s DNA on sperm left by the perpetrator.”
And here are the bitemark opinions used against Harward at his conviction trial. (taken from the above Richmond Times-Dispatch link)
“Two forensic odontologists testified his teeth matched those of the bites on the rape victim. One expert testified, “with reasonable scientific certainty,” that Harward’s teeth caused the bite marks, while the other testified it was not possible that someone other than Harward could have bitten the woman.”
“The evidence apparently was persuasive. In dismissing Harward’s appeal in 1988, the Virginia Court of Appeals noted: “both forensic dentists testified that all gross characteristics of spacing, width, and alignment of Harward’s teeth ‘fit on the money’ the photographs of bite marks.”
Well, maybe the “fit” was is just another example of a false positive? The ABFO’s three attempts at reliability (1986, 1999, 2015 ) testing have all been failures due to dental examiner disagreement.
FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends 