Forensics : “Outsiders from New York causing problems” in Oklahama and elsewhere

Posted on November 4, 2015 by csidds

This is not a re run of “Anatomy of a Murder.” Law enforcement protectors in Tulsa are irate that 1) they recently had to pay out $8 million to a wrongly convicted African-American and 2) those damned exoneration litigators from NYC are messing up the balance of things in OK.

Here’s a quote from an official who is defending a crime lab tech who seems to have had trouble in 1995 knowing what bleached vs. non bleached hair looked like. Hardly a cutting-edge determination, even in 1995.

What’s rancorous in the following statement is that the entire discipline of micro hair analysis has been de-listed by the FBI. The news consistently says this has tainted thousands of cases across the US. They also trained hundreds if not thousands of state lab techs over decades

“She testified straight-forward. She testified to the truth, and she testified to the evidence within the scientific standards of the day,” Bender said. “What these attorneys from New York do is take the standards of 1995 in hair analysis and look at it in the microscope of 2015. That is totally unfair to all the individuals involved.”

He’s saying the lab tech was not negligent nor untruthful  in 1995.

Let’s just say that its “CYA” time in O-K-L-A-H-O-M-A. The real issue now are all the other cases the tech has analysed in the “hair and fiber” area since the 90’s.

The full story at the WaPo.

 

Posted in AAFS, costs of wrongful convictions, Crime lab scandal, criminal justice, CSI | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Grass roots effort to improve justice in 3 Mississippi Counties : Voters and Exoneration Documentary

Posted on November 3, 2015 by csidds

 

Carrington Op-ed From Mississippi The Dispatch

What the esteemed MS Law Professor and MS Innocence Project director Tucker Carrington (pictured above) does not say in his opinion piece urging voters to elect a new DA (long term Forrest Allgood is the incumbent and a tri-county DA since 1989) is that the overwhelming majority of the innocent Allgood convicted are African-American.

Tucker calls Allgood’s jurisdictions “some of the safest in the state” and “…are also a national ground zero for wrongful convictions and capital cases gone wrong.” Too see both in action click below.

SEE THE MOVIE: MISSISSIPPI INNOCENCE TRAILER ABOUT CARRINGTON AND ALLGOOD AND TWO EXONERATONS : Click on the Noxumbee Courthouse pic.

Noxumbee copy

 

 

 

Posted in ABFO, Bad Forensic Science, Bite Marks, Bitemarks, costs of wrongful convictions, Mass Disaster recovery | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Example of a sketchy relationship between a Medical Examiner and Insurance Companies

Posted on November 2, 2015 by csidds

Nothing raises doubts about a medical expert when he repeats one-off and repetitive causes of death opinions in civil or criminal cases. The Missoulian.

Complete CSI Forensic lab for sale. Only used once.  

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Innocence Project investigators uncover cache of bitemark cases suppressed by the bite-mark believers

Posted on October 31, 2015 by csidds

Image result for quack doctor

All this started about two months ago.

While denying scientific realities and protocols combined with a history of damaging the US criminal justice system, the AAFS/ABFO recently powered up to oppose Texas looking into their dental courtroom activities.

The Forensic Science Commission was made in 2013 by the TX legislature to cure wrongful convictions and execution of the innocent. Texas has the most exonerations in the US.

One of the requests from the FSC was to have ALL Teaxas cases involving bitemark experts be made available for public peer review. This was prefaced with some of the panel’s opening skepticism and outright discreditation (sic or maybe a new word) of  this group’s claims of “scientific” identification (they now “specialize” in non DNA available cases as seen in familial child death/abuse investigations).

The current ABFO officers and their small cadre of strident bitemark followers whipped-up a public response a few days later. Its president wrote a letter to the FSC declaring total cooperation and added a caveat that “no archive or database” recording of lab proceedures, testimony, and outcomes of his members was in existence.

My more recent blogs have gone over most of this. here and here. What clearly opened up in to view was that the real tenor of “cooperation” is cynical, smug, and……..not always trustworthy. 

There is a ABFO controlled archive of bitemark case work in play. Its been around for over 20 years and has moved to various sites in possession of various members and the AAFS in Colorado Springs. Now its in a museum which gives access to what the TFSC needs. (See link below).  Its now dedicated to provide information to legitimate parties involved in research. I hope the ABFO doesn’t get in there with a shredder.

And the TFSC just found about it 3 days ago.

Read the letter the Innocence Project’s Executive Director Maddy deLeon sent them. Innocence Project Retroactive Case Identification Letter 

The next TFSC bitemark committee meeting in Dallas is on Nov 16. One of the ABFO members (the other helped an innocent Calvin Washington into prison) allowed into this process has already resigned. I think he ran back to the absolute safety of the AAFS. Its getting too hot in the kitchen.  And……

It seems that his full-time boss is one of the TFSC members most critical of bitemarks. Oops.

 

 

Posted in AAFS, ABFO, Bite Marks, costs of wrongful convictions, criminal justice reform | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A hunt for bitemark cases in TX : Help the TX Forensic Sci Commission find the ABFO hidden casework

Posted on October 29, 2015 by csidds

OBFO Button,

This is a lapel button representing the”Ouija Board of Forensic Odontology” (from the Ray Krone Family). They are paroding the ABFO bitemark bunch.

The latest on the cynical attitude of some in the American Board of Forensic Odontology is here. (longggg read from WaPo. 

The public persona a smugness of these dental guys and gals that possesses a perfect pitch their courtroom nonsense and dumb-ass “we know better than than science.” attitudes.

Bring on Texas into this shoot out seen in the media.

The task of reviewing the “substance,” bases” and “practice” of the discredited bitemark crowd has fallen to the great state of Texas. Its Forensic Commission is in need of some help as the cases of these itinerant consultants within the state (all “bite-readers” are localized in medium to large cities ) claim they have no “database” or “archives” of their fully adjudicated ( or cases leading to pleas bargains) bitemark opinions. Some would have been defense experts (like me) but most are the prosecution’s experts. Some jurisidictions cannot afford to allow defense counsel any money to hire their own expert and the defendant gets the “bitemark is like a fingerprint  treatment.”

Well, its no surprise they claim “no nada,” their organization, the ABFO, refused this idea back when it was first suggested by some of us almost 20 years. The back hall response was based on a self-serving need to “protect” themselves from scrutiny. In fact, this happened even before DNA exonerations were even possible. By 2000 and the Krone case blowing up in the news, their need for secrecy ratcheted up ten-fold. They also didn’t like the “OBFO” buttons worn at their AAFS meetings.

These dentists not working as employees within and supervised by organized police crime labs certainly helps protect them. More often it takes appellate exoneration litigators (as involved in the Innocence Project’s  bitemark complaint to the FSI ) to ferret out what the bitemark advocates’ workproduct, court exhibits and court transcripts.

Its also most often that the bitemarker’s refuse to voluntarily open up past cases for review when I have asked them along the lines of “if you are so certain of your opinion, why won’t you open up the the materials so I can admire your work?”

Anyone can contact the FSC with leads for their investigation. Family, friends and inmate association help groups with knowledge of someone having enured a criminal trial which used bitemark experts can use this info.

Lynn Robitaille Garcia
General Counsel
Texas Forensic Science Commission
1700 North Congress, Suite 445
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 936-0649 (direct)
(512) 936-7986 (fax)

 

Posted in AAFS, ABFO, Bite Marks, Bitemarks, costs of wrongful convictions, Crime lab scandal, criminal justice reform | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Its time to de-qualify bitemark experts. Forensic “mistakes” revealed by DNA – A bitemark expert gets $50K to ID the wrong man -Twice

Posted on October 26, 2015 by csidds

The ABFO has records of each members’ casework activity. As usual the ABFO is not telling the  truth.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20151025-cases-based-on-discredited-bite-mark-evidence-will-be-tough-to-find.ece

Chris Fabricant, director of strategic litigation at the New York-based Innocence Project, pointed to a study the forensic odontologists board conducted last year that concluded many of the dentists in the group couldn’t even identify which injuries were bite marks.

“There is no basic or applied research that supports any claims that bite-mark experts routinely make,” Fabricant said. “It has no business in criminal court, period.”

csidds's avatarFORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends

Ray Krone speaking during a panel discussion at the James E. Rogers College of Law on Saturday, Sept. 26, 2015.

Ray Krone (pictured above at an innocence/forensic science reform seminar) spent 10 years in AZ prison. Part of it on death row. Then a retrial that gave him a life sentence. Dr Ray Rawson, once a notable bitemark prophet, received $50,000 to use a video camera in two separate trials to identify Krone as the killer of Kim Acona. Some say he reluctantly testified at the second trial. DNA later obtained by his defense team was used to identify the real killer. He wasn’t hard to find, as he was in the same arizona prison as Krone who later received a $2 million settlement from Maricopa County.

Bitemark believers still think bruises on skin can identify killers and rapists and child abusers. They deny that the 26 cases of bitemark misidentification indicates that bitemark analysis is a flawed methodology with no scientific support. Its merely “rogues” that caused the wrongful convictions…

View original post 183 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Its time to de-qualify bitemark experts. Forensic “mistakes” revealed by DNA – A bitemark expert gets $50K to ID the wrong man -Twice

Posted on October 26, 2015 by csidds

Ray Krone speaking during a panel discussion at the James E. Rogers College of Law on Saturday, Sept. 26, 2015.

Ray Krone (pictured above at an innocence/forensic science reform seminar) spent 10 years in AZ prison. Part of it on death row. Then a retrial that gave him a life sentence. Dr Ray Rawson, once a notable bitemark prophet, received $50,000 to use a video camera in two separate trials to identify Krone as the killer of Kim Acona. Some say he reluctantly testified at the second trial. DNA later obtained by his defense team was used to identify the real killer. He wasn’t hard to find, as he was in the same arizona prison as Krone who later received a $2 million settlement from Maricopa County.

Bitemark believers still think bruises on skin can identify killers and rapists and child abusers. They deny that the 26 cases of bitemark misidentification indicates that bitemark analysis is a flawed methodology with no scientific support. Its merely “rogues” that caused the wrongful convictions. One of those rogues is currently on the ABFO bitemark committee making up new terminology as a substitute for the empirical science which they lack. Its current president recently has promised new research is in the offing. You can be sure using a Thesaurus to spin more verbiage about bitemark opinions aint research.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission is continuing to hear bitemarkers’ supplications that they will soon “fix” the problem and deserve to continue to testify in the US court system. They promise a glorious resurrection from their past  “mistakes.”  The bite people are facing a moratorium on their activities. One of their upcoming pro bitemark speakers has a wrongful conviction of his own to admit to. I doubt anyone in the ABFO would call him a rogue. He’s a past president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

In my opinion, this small forensic bitemark clique is a danger to public safety and should be de-qualified from testifying.

Use DNA instead. Its been around for 25 years and has been amply verified by countless universities and governmental agencies around the world.

http://arizonasonoranewsservice.com/dna-sheds-light-past-mistakes/

Thanks to the Wrongful Conviction Blog.

 

 

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

FBI DNA software revamp falls onto each US state to review past convictions

Posted on October 26, 2015 by csidds

This article contains a broad spectrum of conflicting statements about how serious the “DNA software caused recount” will effect past cases. Of course, the law enforcement side estimate seems confident no major retrials will occur. That’s not what is happening in the Forensic Science Commission’s discussion on this same issue in TX when highly sensitive LCN mixtures are concerned. LCN testing commonly only uses a limited amount of information (i.e. alleles ) when used in criminal cases.

“This could be a huge issue, especially in cases where DNA evidence was a significant factor in the case,” Augusta defense attorney Walter McKee said recently in an email.

Lisa Marchese, head of the criminal division in the attorney general’s office, said Friday she’s “not expecting many, if any, convictions will be impacted.”

http://bangordailynews.com/2015/10/24/news/state/dna-based-convictions-in-maine-may-be-challenged-due-to-faulty-software/

Posted in Crime lab scandal, criminal justice, CSI, DNA mixtures, DNA profiling | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Forensic Science Announcement : ABFO Forensic Dentists now can identify alligators from their teeth

Posted on October 24, 2015 by csidds

Its common knowledge that most newspaper reporters usually have little to no scientific training, and this article is an example of how they create forensic science mythology in the public domain. Just like on TV.

The question police had for the medical examiner in a recent case was, “can someone identify the specific alligator which killed a 67 year old man swimming in FL?”

Scientifically stated, the question is “what is the source attribution of these injuries which killed this man?” This is a common request in un-witnessed animal predation of humans. Carnivorous species have characteristic dentition (teeth) that is the valid subject of “comparative” biological anatomy. But it’s not reliable for identifying a specific animal. No databases of species-specific dentitions exist to allow such a determination.

Nevertheless, according to the article, she called in  a local American Board of Forensic Odontology dentist and asked for background information. She got an earful. He apparently doesn’t need any data. Just like the ABFO claims to be unnecessary in their human bitemark beliefs. 

The case from Florida.

‘In a brief phone conversation Wednesday, Dr. Kenneth Cohrn, a forensic odontologist  in Lady Lake, indicated he was the expert helping the Volusia medical examiner. Cohrn had been called by The News-Journal to provide a general explanation of the process of identifying killer alligators by teeth marks.

On the Heritage Dental website where Cohrn is listed as a staff member, information on forensic odontology states that Cohrn specializes in animal bite forensics and contributed a chapter in a book on forensic odontology on animal bites.

The website claims Cohrn was involved in two Central Florida cases involving deaths by alligators. One case involved a young woman killed in the Ocala National Forest and the second case involved a teenage boy in Leesburg who died while swimming with friends.

“Using bite mark analysis, the alligators responsible were identified,” the website said. ”

The newspaper article.

Comment: Death investigations involving predatory animals should base the identification of the “perp” (i.e. the “source” ) on information obtained from a necropsy of the deceased animal’s stomach contents or DNA tissue comparisons. Whether its a alligator, crocodile, shark, minnow, brown bear, cougar, dog and so on.

Don’t call the bitemark experts for an identification.

Posted in AAFS, ABFO, Bad Forensic Science, Bite Marks, Bitemarks, DNA profiling | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Texas Forensic Sci Commission puts some pressure on the major National DNA crime lab qualification company

Posted on October 23, 2015 by csidds

The first is from the FSC putting demands on the American Society of Crime Lab Directors regarding their customer crime labs following proper standards for stats handling DNA samples from multiple sources (mixtures).

http://www.fsc.texas.gov/sites/default/files/L_fr%20DiMaio%20FINAL%20ASCLD%20Announcement%20DNA%20Mixture%2009302015.pdf

The second is from the ASCLD asking some questions about verification vs validation and raising the use of non-suspect relative databases ( private DNA companies like Ancestry.com giving the police access to their genealogy DNA).  The FSC deferred that subject to further discussion within the entire forensic community rather than just the State of Texas. I wonder why the ASCLD asked about private databases? Almost all  of its membership are ex crime lab directors and forensic science bureaucrats and have ties with law enforcement. Maybe it is probing to see if they have more challenges coming in their direction? The latest forensic news has these databases possessing their own issue problems.

The FSC answers to the ASCLD are included in the pdf below. The FSC re confirmed what they are concerned about (accuracy and reliable methods) which is contained in this image. The bold text is from the ASCLD.

fsc copy

http://www.fsc.texas.gov/sites/default/files/151020-ASCLD-LAB%20Response%20to%20TX%20Forensic%20Sci%20Comm[1].pdf

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment