The National Registry of Exons. When convictions go wrong, the price in human suffering can’t be ignored

Posted on July 28, 2015 by csidds

 

Read this excerpt first…..

“The registry receives four or five letters a week from prisoners who claim to be innocent. They’re heartbreaking. Most of the writers are probably guilty, but some undoubtedly are not. We tell them that we can’t help; we are a research project only, we don’t represent clients or investigate claims of innocence. Fair enough, I guess, but some innocent prisoners who have been exonerated wrote hundreds of these letters before anybody took notice. How many innocent defendants have I ignored?”

The staggering number of wrongful convictions in America

By Samuel R. Gross July 24

Samuel R. Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan, is the editor of the National Registry of Exonerations.

I edit the National Registry of Exonerations, which compiles stories and data about people who were convicted of crimes in the United States and later exonerated. The cases are fascinating and important, but they wear on me: So many of them are stories of destruction and defeat.

Full article at the Washington Post.

 

Posted in costs of wrongful convictions, criminal justice, National FOrensic Science Commission, prosecutorial misconduct | Leave a comment

Forensics : Sandra Bland Autopsy Report performed 7/22/2015 confirms hanging evidence

Posted on July 27, 2015 by csidds

Evidence of Injury - Sandra Bland copy

Full report by Dr. Sara N. Doyle AME Harris County, Texas.

Texas Tribune story.

 

 

Posted in forensic pathology, Forensic Science | Tagged , | 1 Comment

57 months in prison for Iowa State researcher

Posted on July 27, 2015 by csidds

US vaccine researcher sentenced to prison for fraud. Says he was covering for an earlier lab mistake.

The case of Dong-Pyou Han illustrates the uneven nature of penalties for scientific misconduct.

http://www.nature.com/news/us-vaccine-researcher-sentenced-to-prison-for-fraud-1.17660?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Forensics: SBS cases study leads to presence of uncommon number of confessions. Are MD’s really cops?

Posted on July 25, 2015 by csidds

The Child Abuse Pediatrician (CAP) – Just Another Term for Medical “Cop”

Washtenaw Watchdogs (Washtenaw County, MI) have just published an investigative report article on their website dealing with this very issue. It’s very powerful. See it HERE.

More info on this subject at The Wrongful Convictions Blog.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

US Forensic Odontology Program to provide debunked ABFO bitemark training?

Posted on July 24, 2015 by csidds

More on the UT Knoxville Forensic Anthro program which could give the upstarting UT Forensic Odontology program a big scientific boost. http://fac.utk.edu/

This dissemination of debunked bitemark techniques includes other “short course” programs put on by either the abfo itself during annual AAFS meetings or places like LSU, and UTexas in San Antonio. Curriculum transparency and best practices are paramount in forensics.

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

Skull-Ben-Francis-Optm.jpg

Photo credit: UT and Ben Francis.

Someone at the University of Tennessee needs to rethink this odontology curriculum. I’m sure that the non-ABFO faculty affiliated with this forensic dentistry program at UT haven’t a clue about what is going on about bitemarks. UT has a tremendous reputation for its Forensic Anthropology department’s development of its “Body Farm” originated by Emeritus Professor Bill Bass and ongoing research in human identification.

After all the flack and criticism in the scientific and legal communities about bitemarks, this course of study (sponsored by its AG dept) is described as the  “first of its kind in the US” via a 34 unit MS program in forensic odontology. The human body ID subject matter section should be exemplary for the students. The bitemark sections will be a rendition of the “elite” ABFO’s “science” or “non-science” (it varies among its few vocal members) which the White House Office of…

View original post 274 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Forensics: A BIG dust up in AUSTRALIA over 400 opines of a state Medical Examiner

Posted on July 24, 2015 by csidds

This all started with a recent judicial (last year) opinion on a 20 year-old case dealing with “murder in a bathtub.” The government’s path guy, Dr. Colin Manock, got clobbered in a book about this case and which seems to have brought to light “a miscarriage of justice” and “doubt” an “unreleased evidence ” assertions by a presiding justice.

Chilling words for any forensic expert. Apparently in the US, the justices of MS may get a chance of their own in the Howard case recently argued by the MS Innocence Project’s Tucker Carringtion. In the past, the target expert, dentist Michael West, had the court (with a different membership) rule that his “being wrong in one case, did not ” make another case of his suspect. So far, West has had four convictions overturned, in entirety or in part, by his brand of “ipse dixit” “I am a doctor” testimony.

The MS Supreme Court also showed some reasonableness by admitting junk forensic science actually exists. 

Full article

 

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

US Forensic Odontology Program to provide debunked ABFO bitemark training?

Posted on July 23, 2015 by csidds

Skull-Ben-Francis-Optm.jpg

Photo credit: UT and Ben Francis.

Someone at the University of Tennessee needs to rethink this odontology curriculum. I’m sure that the non-ABFO faculty affiliated with this forensic dentistry program at UT haven’t a clue about what is going on about bitemarks. UT has a tremendous reputation for its Forensic Anthropology department’s development of its “Body Farm” originated by Emeritus Professor Bill Bass and ongoing research in human identification.

After all the flack and criticism in the scientific and legal communities about bitemarks, this course of study (sponsored by its AG dept) is described as the  “first of its kind in the US” via a 34 unit MS program in forensic odontology. The human body ID subject matter section should be exemplary for the students. The bitemark sections will be a rendition of the “elite” ABFO’s “science” or “non-science” (it varies among its few vocal members) which the White House Office of Sci and Tech researcher now considers worthy of “eradication.”

Both program dentists are ABFO members, one of whom has criticized of the University of Buffalo’s groundbreaking odontology research. The 2 recommended odontology texts are from a bunch of ABFOers who publicly continue to scoff at the NAS 2009, ignore their own failed attempts at reliability testing, can’t validate what they do and so on.

A quote: ” The course of study is founded on the standards and guidelines established by the American Board of Forensic Odontology.” Oops.

Caveat Emptor. Too bad the world famous Anthropology department at UT isn’t in charge. Anthros LOVE research data to support their investigations. Dentists are less inclined.

Here is their PR statement:

Description, Scope, & Purpose

“The Forensic Odontology MS degree concentration in Comparative and Experimental Medicine is the first master’s degree of its kind in the United States. The course of study is founded on the standards and guidelines established by the American Board of Forensic Odontology (emphasis added) in the endeavors of human identification, bite mark investigation and analysis, dental age estimation, missing and unidentified persons, and mass fatality incident dental identification team
development.”

 

At the very bottom is this statement about the courses target audience: “……..and others wishing introduction and formalization of skills in the search, recovery, and collaborative identification of compromised human head and neck remains, and recognition (emphasis added) of human and non-human bite marks at autopsy.’

Could there be a sea change within the ABFO connected to this? As in teaching “bitemark” recognition and leaving the aforementioned “bitemark analysis” part out? Too bad the recent ABFO recognition testing proved to be a failure.

UT promotional article. 

 

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

More DNA PR on hair from Australia. Why don’t we hear about the data?

Posted on July 23, 2015 by csidds

Once more, we get  a university talking about “great breakthroughs” in forensic analysis. This one is abut collecting “trace” DNA from hair shafts (i.e “shed hair”) which “improves success rates” not seen using prior methods.

My main gripe is that these schools almost never reveal where the studies’ data has been peer reviewed and published. Sadly, that in itself generally takes one to two years to accomplish AFTER the results are obtained.

The PR writers always want the scoop.

Someone wiser than me has suggested that there be a professional archive that would allow the data to be available to competent researchers before a written paper gets in print. The Journal of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (sadly it only has an Impact Factor of 1.14) takes that long, even though they publish 6 journals per years.

Im sure the bio-medical journals would HATE that idea of a data archive.

Original news release.

Here is another example, although more descriptive, about 3D scanning impression evidence like tires and footwear. An added issue is its direct connection with commercial enterprise all in the same article. Some would expect a bit of conformation bias to be present.

Posted in criminal justice, CSI, Forensic Science, Forensic Science Bias, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Update: White House Report on Forensics Science: “Eradicate” the Use of Bitemarks

Posted on July 22, 2015 by csidds

Office of Science and Technology Policy

 

Update on the Update: More on this today (Wednesday July 22, 2015)  from Radley Balko at THE WATCH

On Tuesday, July 21, the White House OSTP issued an oral presentation by:

Jo Handelsman

“Dr. Jo Handelsman is the Associate Director for Science at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, appointed by President Obama and confirmed by the Senate in June of 2014. Dr. Handelsman helps to advise President Obama on the implications of science for the Nation, ways in which science can inform U.S. policy, and on Federal efforts in support of scientific research.”

Her remarks were presented at the International Symposium on Forensic Science Error Management – Detection, Measurement and Mitigation, Arlington, VA, July 20-24, 2015, organized by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

In its essence, she recommended the “eradication” of forensic science practices of the kind relied upon by bitemark identification — specifically using bitemark identification as the poster child for unacceptable, unscientific practices.

This is a continuation of TWO Congressional (by Senators Rockefeller and Leahy) studies launched by the US Congress and is independent of the NFSC/NIST/DOJ committee slowly churning its way towards their version of standards, best practices, and such within forensics (this was a NIST/DOJ run public meeting). It has a  bitemark group chaired and predominantly populated by practitioners of bitemark “identification” about whom Dr. Handlesman is  referring in her statements.

Her artful and concise comments started with this statement that a “quite disturbing” example of inadequate forensic science is  “still in operation” within the US criminal Justice system.  Quickly using the NAS 2009 report on “Strengthening Forensic Science in the US,”  she explained that standards and methods of a legitimate science required “highly consistent data” and methods” leading to ” a high degree of certainty in the results” when used to LINK a defendant to a crime scene or sample.

About 30 seconds into her speech, she starts explaining the much maligned mini-group of “bitemark-readers” use of bitemark “identification,” as a framework for what forensic failure means. This echoes the NAS detailed narrative on why bitemark opinions fail  to meet the required threshold of reliable science. In essence they have no data, have variable conclusions among it’s practitioners, and the more experienced have more disagreement than lesser experienced ones (“which goes the wrong way”) in determining whether a skin injury image 1) is a bitemark, 2) is it human or animal and 3) are the images suitable evidence for the courts.

The American Academy of Forensic Sciences continues to recognize and “certify” this group through its Forensic Science Accreditation Board. You must realize that the AAFS has some strange affinity in protecting  this bitemark board. It must be  internal politics.

In closing: Here is the avi recording of what Dr. Handlesman said.

Posted in AAFS, ABFO, Bad Forensic Science, Bite Marks, Bitemarks, criminal justice reform, CSI, Forensic Dentistry, junk forensic science | Tagged , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Forensics: From the New York Legal Aid Society’s DNA UNIT – The latest and the best news

Posted on July 22, 2015 by csidds

Connect with them @LegalAidNYC

 

A New York Trial Court precludes LCN and FST evidence after extensive Frye Hearing litigated by the Legal Aid Society’s DNA Unit (New York Law Journal)Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge Mark Dwyer issued a written decision precluding the use of the Forensic Statistical Tool and low-copy number DNA in two cases litigated by the Legal Aid Society’s DNA Unit.New director appointed to DFS following suspension of DNA testing (D.C. Mayor Press Release)

On Friday, July 17th D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser appointed Jenifer Smith as director of the Department of Forensic Science (DFS) following the politicized resignation of former director,Max M. Houck. Smith is a retired FBI special agent who “oversaw DNA analysis at the FBI laboratory, where she implemented numerous methods and testified in hundreds of cases.”
Related: Washington Post, MyFoxDC.com

Texas Court of Appeals puts death row inmate’s execution on hold, citing FBI population statistical errors (Washington Post)

Clifton Lamar Williams has been granted an indefinite reprieve from the Texas Court of Appeals after attorneys were notified that the FBI population statistics used to develop his DNA profile in court contained errors. In May, the FBI notified crime laboratories that the population database created and used to derive the likelihood of a DNA match were inaccurate due to clerical errors.

An Ohio Medical Examiner’s office has changed its reporting standards after a forensic chemist made “dozens of errors over a four-month span” (Cleveland.com)

The Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner’s Office in Cleveland, OH has implemented stricter reporting standards after an analyst was fired for failing to follow testing protocols in at least 27 cases. Forensic chemist Gagandeep Sran misreported results, ignored contamination protocols, and “cut corners by only testing one evidence sample from an entire case.” After Sran’s firing, lab analysts must photograph every sample and write detailed reports on the substances tested.

Australian researchers claim method of Low Template DNA testing on hair samples has lower error rates (ABC Australia)

Researchers at the University of Adelaide have modified low template methodologies on hair samples with qualified success. Their abstract is published in Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology.

Pennsylvania bill that would allow DNA collection after arrest passes state Senate, awaits House vote (Witf.org)

Pennsylvania Senate Bill No. 683 introduced by Senator Dominic Pileggi (R-DE), has passed the state Senate and will now go to the House of Representatives. The bill would allow law enforcement to take DNA samples from arrested persons, while current law requires a conviction before DNA can be obtained. State Representative Stephen Bloom remarked, “Technology is pushing the boundaries of our understanding of what is a reasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment…This is one of the bills in that nebulous place.”
Related: The Times Herald

New study says fingerprints can change over time (Discover Magazine)

U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, ruled in U.S. v Watson that statutory limit on Innocence Protection Act does not apply where new technological advances in DNA can be considered “newly discovered DNA evidence” (ABC News)
Related: KBZK 7, Minneapolis Star Tribune

Retrial sought because Louisiana Police made fake DNA report to illicit defendant’s confession; question over whether fake report was only generated or used in interrogations (KTBS)

Widow files lawsuit against San Diego after her husband was implicated in a murder investigation with DNA that may have been contaminated (NBC News)
Related: CBS News

 
Posted in Bad Forensic Science, criminal justice, CSI, Forensic Science, Forensic Science Bias, forensic testimony | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment