Death by “microwave.” A Forensic Sci Int abstract of a paper on human carbonization by drug traffickers. Subscription needed 24 hour access costs $31.50.
Strangulation homicide staged as a suicide by hanging. Cost the same as #1.
For those so inclined for more on this subject, here’s a recent on dying in the middle ages.
New York justice is an amazing blend of wildcard judicial decisions about what are “scientifically” reliable methods in order to allow expert forensic testimony. I’m amazed that a NY judge in a 2 1/2 year (!!!) Frye hearing on the issue surrounding a 10 year long use of “new age” highly-sensitive DNA (LowCellNumber aka HS) matching by law enforcement just ruled that:
……………including live testimony from 11 scientists, Acting Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Mark Dwyer decided not to admit so-called “lower copy number” or “high-sensitivity” analysis and the DNA “Statistical Tool.” Dwyer said that the New York Medical Examiner is the only public laboratory in the United States that employs the technique in criminal cases. Read more. This DNA admissibility battle reflects what is going on in the large industry of crime lab DNA about disagreement on stats, DNA matching algorithms (“the tool”) and personal attacks at the Innocence Project’s co-directors by the New York State crime lab.
Back to the ruling on the NY office of the Medical Examiner as a conudrum about “science and the law.”
Another NY judge using the Frye Rule, in the Dean case of bitemark/murder, ruled against excluding a “bitemark-reader” after hearing from Prosecutor Melissa Mourges massaging the truth about “bitemarkers” abysmal reliability, their history of…..
1. helping convict or incarcerate innocent defendants, and not needing empirical research to support “soft forensic science,” (24 cases to date),
2. “only real-world” bitemark dentists (there are only about 4 left in the US) rather than legitimate researchers being credible scientific witnesses, and
3. that the infamous bitemark evangelist Michael West and myself are “thankfully no longer testifying” in US courts.
Radley Balko blew up (using facts rather than personal attacks like the good DA lady) Mourges and her 2 bitemark experts in this excellent piece from February 2015. A bite mark matching advocacy group just conducts a study that discredits bite mark evidence.
The officer’s family disputes suicide findings of multiple US and Phil criminal investigators. They brought in a “US forensic expert” who has an interesting pedigree. I wonder how much he charged the family for services?
A massive PR piece by a forensic artist who is unrivaled in her success with a Guiness World Record.
Former PA judge stole cocaine from drugs brought to court by police.
At what price, freedom?. An opinion article about expert witness integrity and examples of some total failures in the forensic science industry. From Dr. Mary Beth Hauptle, the most experienced forensic investigator dentist in the US. I am serious.
Digging deeper into the “forensic mini-lab for cops” topic, here is some more infomation on who will be providing tech help and possibly lab analyses of forensic specimens for the Winston-Salem police department. A private contract company that is well-respected according to ftg (@ForensicToxGuy). This out sourcing of more common toxicology testing speaks of the “slow response time” that has been often reported of local and state run crime labs
Somebody needs to tell this Winston-Salem police chief how “speedy crime lab tests” (to avoid huge delays from the state lab) might not work out so well in some circumstances. The “speedy trial” reward for being “speedy” in that his mini-lab needs regular calibration and proficiency testing that no one learns at the local police academy. Last I heard some of the large regional crime labs are not doing so well. And here. And here. And here.
Rountree [the Chief] said being able to process tests faster will be better for investigators and the accused.
“It will allow citizens to have a speedy trial,” Rountree said.
“It can potentially save money as far as jail space,” he said. “People that couldn’t afford to get out on bail can now have their day in court.”
“This swift turn around should also provide an expedited resolution to all interested parties in a criminal…
View original post 70 more words
Somebody needs to tell this Winston-Salem police chief how “speedy crime lab tests” (to avoid huge delays from the state lab) might not work out so well in some circumstances. The “speedy trial” reward for being “speedy” in that his mini-lab needs regular calibration and proficiency testing that no one learns at the local police academy. Last I heard some of the large regional crime labs are not doing so well. And here. And here. And here.
Rountree [the Chief] said being able to process tests faster will be better for investigators and the accused.
“It will allow citizens to have a speedy trial,” Rountree said.
“It can potentially save money as far as jail space,” he said. “People that couldn’t afford to get out on bail can now have their day in court.”
“This swift turn around should also provide an expedited resolution to all interested parties in a criminal case,” said District Attorney Jim O’Neil.
Police are going through the final approval processes through the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors and the Laboratory Accreditation Board. The anticipated opening is Aug. 1.
That’s the very same forensic certification company whose members seem a bit miffed with the two NY Innocence Project lawyers being members of the NY State Forensic Commission. They don’t like “outsiders” being involve with forensics.
This associate ME in Montana thought he ran the entire show but found that overdoing it on SBS and overstating the same thing for private car companies all the time can catch up with you. A loose cannon.
And this CA Chief ME gets the boot for having nearly two full time jobs at the same time. He was only allowed 4 hours per week of outside consulting by his primary employer, Ventura County, but built up a approximate 1/2 time job next door in Santa Barbara County. Woe is him.
What the CALIFORNIA Innocence Project has to say about bitemark evidence. Undoubtedly this is why forensic reform opponents want to kick exoneration litigators off the NYS Forensic Science Commission.
From the CIP. “The issues we face: bite-mark-evidence”
Please note: the video contained in this link is talking about forensic odontologists who “specialize” in bitemark (w/out DNA) comparisons with a suspect’s teeth. This is a very small group and does not reflect on all those forensically trained dentists who reject these methods as being unreliable.
I have been perusing threads in the press concerning dialogue of forensic practitioners about the gaps and misapplications of their forensics in the US criminal justice system. There aren’t many. For the most part, there are a vocal few within the forensic communities who “come out. And, they are NOT working at police managed crime labs. Generally they are older and have “retired out” or quit to enter the private (aka criminal defense) consultant business.
I am not saying that the practitioner communities are not talking about themselves and their methods. That’s been happening in committees constructed by government agencies since the 2009 NAS Report on forensics came out in 2009.
It is telling that despite these collegial activities, the only outcomes of significant “reform” have been the FBI decommissioning their “hair unit” and backing off on “bullet-lead” matching. This was on its own, after years of “prompts” from the news media and lawyer…
View original post 810 more words
I have been perusing threads in the press concerning dialogue of forensic practitioners about the gaps and misapplications of their forensics in the US criminal justice system. There aren’t many. For the most part, there are a vocal few within the forensic communities who “come out. And, they are NOT working at police managed crime labs. Generally they are older and have “retired out” or quit to enter the private (aka criminal defense) consultant business.
I am not saying that the practitioner communities are not talking about themselves and their methods. That’s been happening in committees constructed by government agencies since the 2009 NAS Report on forensics came out in 2009.
It is telling that despite these collegial activities, the only outcomes of significant “reform” have been the FBI decommissioning their “hair unit” and backing off on “bullet-lead” matching. This was on its own, after years of “prompts” from the news media and lawyer critics. The wreckage of past trials using just these two comparison methods will linger for years. But, the FBI still deserves some kudos their eventual transparency. Then to contrast……
The bitemark “readers” still won’t reveal the cases they have testified in since 1975 after they (really only about 15 of them) cancelled out their long held practice of identifying people from skin wounds in 2013.
From this I must contend that the “reform” of forensic science has been very oddly inconsistent.
Who is responsible? I put it on the orgs that call themselves the “forensic science communities.”
And they are twitchy about “policing” from outside their brethren as shown in a complaint against a couple lawyers gleefully revealed in a blog associated with the American Society of Crime Lab Directors. On to the thesis.
Is the forensic system fractured? Read the following. Two diametric opposite views on how to “strengthen forensics” in the US show how malleable the rules of science become when talking about “forensics.”
A believer of “soft science” stated in an April 2015 NY op-ed, as a counter-point to the article’s including IP co-director Peter Neufeld’s column, “You can’t fix the system’s use of forensic science unless you fix the science”, (he talks about science) suggests a means to let a judge decide what is reliable forensics before presenting it to a jury. This is disappointing, as that’s the system which is already in place in the US justice system. His tonic includes experts “telling the strengths and weaknesses” of their opinion.(this is more about a “believe me” system). So much for cutting-edge solutions to an endemic problem. This is well documented in the press as”overeager” or downright “exaggerating” adherents of police “science” developed to aid convictions and, as they say, “protect the innocent.” This seems to have had lesser success. See Fixing the flaws in forensic science.
Here is retired Los Angeles Sheriff’s crime lab director and prior AAFS/ASCLD/IAFS president Barry Fisher talking about “soft science.”
“Evidence needn’t be air-tight if its limitations are clear.”
If you are a fan of “C.S.I.” or other police TV shows, you might be surprised to learn that crime labs, the heroic center of those programs, are under fire. While many call forensic science an essential part of modern police work and point to the thousands of criminal cases solved through the application of science, others have derided it as “junk science.”
Experts can explain a method’s strengths and weaknesses even if they can’t scientifically prove that it implicates a defendant.
Defense lawyers, legal scholars and academic scientists frequently claim that work done by the nation’s public crime labs is flawed; testing procedures are not always trustworthy and sometimes result in unreliable conclusions. So-called pattern evidence analysis is particularly at issue, with the ability of examiners to conclude that an item from a body or crime scene is associated with one person, and only one person, most heavily doubted.
Fingerprint examinations, firearms testing, shoe print and tire impression evidence are suspect. Bite mark evidence is especially singled out as unsound. Handwriting comparison has come under scrutiny. Can absolute assertions about such evidence be made?
Judges generally allow experts’ testimony if their conclusions are based on knowledge, skill, experience, training or education in the techniques involved, and can help the jury understand the evidence. The testimony must be based on reliable principles and methods, reliably applied.
But what happens when the evidence in question and the techniques used do not meet all the standards for admissibility. Should the expert’s opinion be kept from the jury?
A judge should allow expert testimony that can help the jury in its deliberations, provided the expert can explain the strengths and weaknesses of the method used, including its inherent limitations. Experts should be able to explain, in detail, the extent of their education and training in the area that they are testifying about and provide information about the research that supports their conclusions. They should inform the court about the known error rates in the procedure used, as well as the information about the procedures used to test the evidence. This information will help the trial judge decide whether to let a jury hear the expert’s opinion, and help jurors understand its reliability.”
comment:
Dear Barry, This form of judicial “reliability testing” hasn’t worked well with some of our forensic non “error rate” colleagues. Cheers, Mike
In closing: Some of us are impatient. Evidence to these emotions are based on how long it took to successfully get rid (please ignore the few remaining survivors of strident believers) of voice-print identification, graphology, hand writing profiling, composite bullet lead comparisons, positive bitemark identifications (w/out DNA), hair matching as promulgated by the FBI, and the new beginnings of re-education to correct flawed arson investigations.
PS. Please read John Lentini’s piece about arson science in the Judging Forensic Science article.
This is just another ill conceived railing at the NY and other Innocence Projects (there are about 34 affiliates). Its in the form of an anonymous letter to the the NY Joint Commission on Public Ethics in regards to “ethics violations” of IP co-directors Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld who sit on the very public and important NY Forensic Science Commission.
I am always thrilled to read narratives from “forensic scientists under fire” (which usually end up a self-immolation simulation) from the forensic reform movement and advancements in the real sciences useful to criminal investigations. This one just got self-published containing a host of vacuously expressed misdeeds and misdeamenors rising to the level of sheer rant. Targeting those at the Innocence Project of course. Those damn bastards and wanks. They hang out with rich people too (from the complaint).
Searching for substance may take some time but a scintilla exists about DNA statistics and hair microscopy. I think. The stat issues are boiling around the country among DNAers doing forensics and the “hairy” part has to do with the fallout over the FBI lab’s public denunciation of itself regarding 20 years of misused matching of hair shafts to criminal defendants. Accusations of “mis-representing our true science” seems to sour the atmosphere contained in this letter’s effort. Its bottom line is “let us alone and go away you well funded nay-sayers (aka: lawyers) of our not so scientific but long respected jobs” (at least by prosecutors).
As you peruse the contained statements (in The Letter), a few things strike me as unusual. One, he saw a podcast of the Forensic Commission. He wasn’t there? No big deal. But he allows himself to throw around typical scurrilous conspiracy theories (not the first time seen in print and secret meetings), adds some hearsay and a resignation letter from an ex-IP member lawyer from Texas. Note that this part has no relevancy to the NY dust up.
The writer fears retaliation for speaking about his objections of Scheck and Neufeld. Hence, no signature. He must not trust the NY public governmental system’s normal protections of its citizens and doubts the Forensic Commission is a safe haven for such discussion of his accusations. The Ethics Commission does allow a “tipster” to file a complaint.
Im sure this tipster is a senior “scientist” ramrod back at the ole crime lab.
The List of Crimes against the Public
1. “Berating” by Scheck of the Forensic Commission at a meeting about “future” uses of “probabilistic genotyping.” Sheck is against its use for reasons undisclosed by the tipster. THE major sinister omission from this ethics complaint letter was its non-disclosure that the FBI crime lab’s recent news release that its “statistics” of allele frequency in DNA profiling was “a bit” off. That’s “probabilistic genotyping.”
2. Scheck quoting his opposition opinion using an incorrect research citation.
3. Both lawyers (Scheck and Neufeld) profiting as lawyers in their participation on the Forensic Commission. That occurs by their using empirical research, case studies and reforming some police “sciences.” (In my opinion). Bad stuff eh? Later the writer adds the clarify that they personally make profit from exonerating so many people. (The IP number of DNA exons is around 350). Truth is, the IPs are non profit. Scheck and Neufeld are paid faculty members at Cardozo School of Law.
4. Their political influence in Criminal Justice advocacy with the US Department of Justice regarding the fall from grace of the hair analysts threatening other forensic bastions.
5. A side gripe he throws in is the Forensic Commission functioning using a “team approach.” This means others than the complainer’s pedigree (he must be a “hair guy”) get to participate in decision making. The 2009 NAS report on “Strengthening Forensic Science in the US” got the same blather from the bitemark crowd and other “threatened” forensic groups.
6. Some “incriminating” hearsay that Neufeld says he is drumming up business for the IP by “looking at the other forensic disciplines.” In fact, this is a blatant untruth. The IP has assisted litigation against bitemark matching opinions for over 12 years. Ive been doing it for 20 years.
So, the complaintant expects Commission ethics are violated by its members who make a living teaching and legitimately litigating defendants who still have some Constitutional rights? What about those who make a living dedicated to investigating evidence which can put them in prison? Such a blatant double standard needs a cure. How about a National Commission of real scientists who aren’t financially connected to this forensic industry dedicated to figuring this out. Oh, sorry, that was already done by the National Academy of Sciences in 2009. Later to suffer much passive resistance rancor from within the forensic science industry.
BTW, there is someone very happy with this “shout out about the Innocence Project’s conflict of financial interests.” This bloke thinks the conspiracy will (from his latest rag) be revealed. He has his own conspiracy theories to pile on as well.
