Double autopsies from Egypt and Italians forensic authorities indicate the extent of the student’s horrific injuries. Egypt security forces deny involvement despite reports the victim was taken into custody by the police. Remember that the Egyptian Forensic Institute has been harassed by police last year.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-egypt-italian-idUSKCN0VM0SN
An opinion about the EDTA “planted” blood evidence from the second Avery conviction.
The US Constitution may have alot to say about Bill Richard’s right to fair trial, including any forensic evidence. It wasn’t always that way.
Here is Virginia law professor Brandon Garrett providing a very complete look at the blend of trending Constitutional issues that directly impact forensic science in the US.
http://forensicsforum.net/2016/02/13/the-constitutional-regulation-of-forensic-evidence/
The connect between the “advance” of science versus judicial interpretations of that science ( especially when its not science) is something that I have brought forward in various bitemark identification trials, appeals and exonerations over the years. I even wrote about it here: Bowers_Op-Ed-William Richards . This man’s case will the next target for the California Innocence Project (CIP) repeat presentation to the CA Supremes about the injustice in Bill’s incarceration (1991) bitemark conviction (1997), exoneration (2008) and unexoneration (2009) effected by CA Attorney General Kamala Harris.
After the recent success of Texas recommending a ban on bitemark identifications and a review of all such cases within the state, CIP is fully prepared to use this as a compelling precedent to once again, exonerate him. See this 2015 Los Angeles Times article on the case.
This result goes on a very short list of ex-DAs who get punishment for cheating during their prosecution cases. The flip side is that most state Bar associations and Attorney Generals have ignored pursuing charges against lawyers who judges have censured for misconduct. The Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Connick v. Thompson added almost unlimited protections for DAs. Here a review of Thompson from the Innocence Project.
Here is the recent disbarment from Texas.
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Disbarment-of-Texas-prosecutor-of-ex-death-row-6817491.php
Today (Friday) the Texas Forensic Sci Panel will bring out their final position on bitemarks in the state. Here are some of their reasons why it will not be positive for the bitemarkers. The article misleads the scope of the Commission as “banning,” when it is really merely recommending.
Not surprisingly, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences accreditation board (FSAB) will soon be taking on a review of the “approved” status of the bitemarker’s recalcitrant non-science group the ABFO.
Note: the challenge in all this is to influence 50 state courts to wake up about the damage created by forensic flim-flam experts.
Texas Forensic Science Commission to recommend a moratorium on bite mark evidence
by Radley Balko
An influential Texas scientific panel recommended on Thursday that bite-mark analysis not be admissible as evidence in courts, a decision experts said could lead judicial systems in other states to exclude it too.
The Texas Forensic Science Commission panel recommended a moratorium on bite-mark evidence until there is science to support its admissibility. The decision will go to the full body as early as Friday, where it will likely be approved . . .
Texas has one of the best-funded forensic science commissions in the United States, and its findings are often cited in criminal cases nationwide.
The panel recommended bite-mark analysis be put on hold until there are scientific standards to determine what is a bite mark and proficiency testing of individuals who analyze them.
It also recommended a review of cases where convictions were largely based on bite mark evidence. There was no indication on how many cases that might be.
It’s in the hundreds. This is a definitely good news. However, while the commission’s findings may (and should) influence the courts, they aren’t binding on them. And as we’ve seen over the past 10 to 15 years, there have been other warnings from whistleblowers, scientists and even the National Academy of Sciences about the dubiousness of bite mark evidence. Yet so far, no court in the country has upheld a challenge to its admissibility. If I had to guess, I think there’s a good chance this will nudge Texas’s courts to come around, but I’d be surprised if it persuaded other state courts to do the same. The criminal justice system just isn’t very good at admitting it got something wrong. And the bigger and more impactful the wrong, the harder it is to get a concession. To do so means persuading the people whose very authority rests on the integrity of the system (appellate court judges) to agree that the system’s integrity is suspect. That’s a tall order. Of course, clinging to bad science to preserve bad convictions for the purpose of finality and appearances does far more violence to the integrity of the system than admitting that the courts got something wrong. The challenge is getting these judges to see that.
You can check out my four-part series on bite mark evidence here.
The Cardiff School of Law Innocence Project students and their faculty took on the very basic and POPULAR “police science” of GSR and turned it (now improved expertise) on its head via misuse in an 17 year old conviction.
For educational purposes only
This copyrighted Wall St Journal article gives us what the Texas Forensic Sci Commission is up to regarding bitemark cases. What’s notable are some quotes from the bitemark advocates. They never say something like “we don’t have any science to support our probability opinions.” They substitute this with the illiterative (sic) “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.” This issue of their imagined “competency” always is mere bragging.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-agency-weighs-validity-of-bite-mark-evidence-1455186603
Texas Agency Weighs Validity of Bite-Mark Evidence – WSJ (pdf)
This is the second level argument in the toasty topic roaming forensic science hallways regarding DNA mixtures collected from crime scenes and crime victims. In this article, the judge (not the first to do this) misses the point of protecting a defendant’s right to analyze the data experts have used to help convict him. A commercial software guy gets to keep his proprietary secrets secret regardless of the 6A. Here’s the reason for such arguments.
“the software’s findings described the match as “5.7 billion times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated black person.”
“Until now, the EAAF (Team of Argentine Forensic Anthropology) has not found scientific evidence to establish any link between the remains recovered in the Cocula dump and the missing students,” the report said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-violence-idUSKCN0VJ00J
http://cops2point0.com/2016/02/mexicos-43-missing-students-not-incinerated-at-garbage-dump/
