Why a city auditor wants a crime lab “independent” from his local Denver police department

Posted on July 9, 2015 by csidds

After singing its praises, Denver City Auditor suggests moving crime lab

Maybe this Denver city administrator is reading the forensic news. He talks about the public’s trust and new forensic “sophistication.” A very well-crafted statement.

“This recommendation is in no way intended to be a negative comment on (Denver police’s) oversight of the crime lab,” Gallagher wrote. “Rather it is a logical progression that helps maintain the public’s trust in the crime lab in an increasingly scientific and technologically sophisticated world.”

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28449539/after-singing-its-praises-city-auditor-suggests-moving

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

FORENSICS: What is a “partial DNA match?” Or, what ARE we talking about here?

Posted on July 9, 2015 by csidds

This blog follows the event of the Albuquerque police using a “partial DNA match” sufficient to hold a man in jail for 17 months.   The news release from New Mexico is vague about what the police are changing in their ‘procedure’ in response to jailing the wrong man The problems for us is “WTF is a “partial DNA match” and what happened in ABU? The quotation is from a commenter on my last post.

We may never know the last question as this event was only uncovered via a money settlement between the wrongly jailed man and the ABUPD.  Details of which I am sure are sealed. The article below sheds some light.

Being a cynic, I bet the ABUPD only recovered a “partial DNA profile” from the crime scene specimen (they used a degraded DNA sample) and then ran with it to CODIS all the while hoping to coerce the suspect to confess. Someone figured this out after 14 months.

Where is “rapid DNA” processing when we really need it?

Similar cases have occurred using such flawed forensics as “bitemark matching.”

The conundrum of definitions

Semantics  confusion exists when connecting the dots regarding whether, in comparing what we know of the ABU case (“partial DNA match”) to what the accompanying article ( from a District Attorney from another jurisdiction) contains about his “partial DNA match” cases. The article contains case examples.

Preliminary conclusion

The ABUPD case does not fit. Thinking the worst, I suggest that the PD used a crime scene sample that was degraded that resulted in a “partial” profile run against the CODIS DNA database.

The Correct Definition

So, in the literature, a “partial DNA match” means a full DNA profile of a suspect that only “matches” in part to a full DNA profiled crime scene DNA sample.  As the writer below states, that is supposed to lead to a suspect’s  “exclusion.”

There are no numbers in the article to enlighten us as to  how many loci are necessary for a “partial DNA match” to allow a prosecutor to follow the pathway (a “familial” partial DNA match) to ultimately obtaining a full profile of some relation who is the actual perpetrator.

ABU police seem to have messed up this step.

A District Attorney talks about “matching DNA at most, but not all loci.”

 

When a crime-scene DNA sample matches a profile in the database at most, but not all loci, the individual from the database is excluded. However, it is very likely that a close relative is the source of that DNA rather than a random, unrelated individual. These partial matches can be used by investigators to find the individual who left the DNA at the crime scene, providing potentially valuable information in an ongoing investigation. Although a familial search software was not used to help solve the following cases, they represent examples of investigations where a partial DNA match with a close relative was used to solve crimes.
This webpage is dedicated to the dissemination of information about partial match DNA cases in criminal investigations. If you have case studies in which this method was used or articles involving this topic, please send them to us so they can be included here.

  1. Dennis Rader – for more than 30 years Rader eluded police in Wichita, Kansas, killing ten people and taunting police with the monogram: BTK, for Bind Torture Kill. Using a search warrant, investigators were able to obtain a Pap smear specimen from Rader’s daughter, which had been provided years earlier at a hospital in Kansas. A comparison of her DNA profile from the sample and DNA profiles left at the BTK crime scenes led investigators to conclude that she was the child of the killer. This information, along with other materials from the investigation, allowed police to get an arrest warrant for Rader. When confronted with the information, he confessed to the crimes. News Report re Dennis Rader.PDF
  2. Altemio Sanchez – a rapist/murderer known as the “Bike Path Killer” terrorized Buffalo, New York for three decades, murdering three women and raping over a dozen others. Investigators relied on several key pieces of evidence, including a DNA sample from a relative, to narrow their search. They seized a glass that Sanchez used when he dined at a restaurant and determined that the DNA on the glass matched DNA from the crime scenes of the Bike Path Killer. Sanchez admitted killing the three women and was tied by DNA evidence or similarity of attacks to sixteen other rapes. News Report re Altemio Sanchez.PDF News Report re Bike Path Rapist.PDF
  3. David Bruce Bowen – in 1979 eight year-old Kenneth Conrick was tortured and murdered; the case went unsolved for 30 years. Investigators recently obtained a DNA sample from Bowen’s sister, which showed enough similarities to DNA found on the victim and his clothing at the crime scene to allow investigators to obtain a warrant for Bowen’s DNA. Bowen’s DNA profile matched the profile from semen on cords used to strangle the boy. Bowen pled guilty and admitted that he strangled and stabbed the victim after molesting him. News Report re David Bruce Bowen.PDF

Full article with more cases. 

A very good overview of “familial “matching issues from CBS News from 2007.

One reference from the DA’s story:

The First Successful Use of a Low Stringency Familial Match in a French Criminal Investigation, Emmanuel Pham-Hoai, et al. J Forensic Sci, May 2014, Vol. 59, No. 3 Low_Stringency_familial_Search_JFS_2014.pdf

 

 

 

Posted in Bad Forensic Science, criminal justice, CSI, DNA profiling, Forensic Science | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

ABQ PD uses a “partial DNA match” to put the wrong man in jail for 14 months

Posted on July 8, 2015 by csidds

And here is how they got the wrong guy.

“After settling a lawsuit, the police department changed its procedure. Officers must now explain how strong the DNA match is for any potential suspect before a judge agrees to issue a warrant.”

Full article

Bad construction at NO crime lab messes up criminal cases. This is a newer facility. 

Posted in AAFS, criminal justice, CSI, DNA profiling, exoneration | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Forensics: Child abuse research: multiple fractures possible from single impact : animal study.

Posted on July 6, 2015 by csidds

EAST LANSING – The years that Todd Fenton, Roger Haut and their research team spent smashing infant pig skulls in a lab at Michigan State University could change the way forensic scientists interpret skull fractures in children and the way they determine what’s child abuse and what’s not.

What they found was that multiple skull fractures and fractures that aren’t connected can come from a single impact. They found that the greater the impact force the more fractures there were, and that the direction — or line of the actual fracture — pointed back to the location of impact.

Full article.

Texas politician proposes bill to license forensic analysts to monitor and oversee QA and misconduct.

Full article.

Posted in Forensic Science Bias | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Update on ‘Baby Tyler’ Iowa death case. Crime fighting in the UK and AU comes up zip

Posted on July 6, 2015 by csidds

 

Update:

A classic example of legal/forensic relationship disharmony.

Here are issue clarifications and further discussion from earlier CSIDDS blogs about an Iowa state medical examiner court hearing and trial testimony about cause and manner of death in a murder case.  After reversing the infanticide conviction against the mother Tyler, the Iowan Supreme Court took this expert  to school (and by reference this includes all the state’s medico-legal 1300 annual autopsies) with its opine on the legalities of determining the manner of death being “homicide” via the use of hearsay evidence.

This has set off a fur ball of upset in the state and national death investigation community.

Here is a list from the upper court’s legal objections to what the forensic pathologist said in court.

1) The medical evidence (i.e. hearsay statements from the child’s mother) the expert brought into court as his opinion support was  not supported by medical evidence. This is despite a death certificate (which states cause and manner of death) not being limited to only a basis of violent or pathology being observable either inside or outside the  victim’s body. Note that death certificates are not signed as a statement of “medical certainty.”

2) Usurping (taking away) the jury privilege to determine actual guilt. (This one seems strangely unsupported by what I have read). I think the higher court tripped over the fact that this is what MEs do all the time in court. They include circumstances around the nexus of a death. In the archaic and hardly used inquest system and lay (non-medical) coroner systems, a hearing run by the coroner brings in witnesses determined to be relevant to the case. In its objection, the Iowa court sounds to be using the mother’s statement as being a confession which, according to law, can only be believed or discounted by a jury.

3) The ME talking beyond his expertise regarding the “truth” of a defendant’s statements which were (by the defense) claimed to be coerced or at least “incompetent.” (connecte to #2).

The Iowa Association of Medical Examiners had submitted an ‘amicus brief” defending the legal and statutory rights of a medical examiner’s opinions regarding death certificates. At this point a copy of that amicus is not available to me.

A quote from the appellate opinion on Tyler.

“Tyler asserts the doctor’s opinion, based solely upon Tyler’s statements to law enforcement officers and not his medical expertise, invaded the province of the jury to decide credibility and factual issues. Because we agree with Tyler, we reverse her conviction and remand for a new trial.”

A quote from the medical examiner .

“Dr. Thompson also ruled the manner of death “homicide.” Trial tr. p. 669, line 25 — p. 670, line 5. He explained that homicide is a neutral medical term that “doesn’t signify right or wrong. It simply means death at the hands of another individual.” Trial tr. p. 670, lines 6–9. He elaborated that, “Just like cause of death, my manner of death opinion is based on history, again, scene findings, witness statements; it’s based on a physical exam, or the autopsy; and then supplemental lab testing.” Trial tr. p. 670, lines 10–14. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Dr. Thompson if he was “entirely relying on the review of the interview [where the defendant confessed]” for his conclusion about breathing. Trial tr. p. 682, lines 3–8. The doctor disagreed, noting “there’s nothing inconsistent with what the witness statement said with the autopsy findings.” Trial tr. p. 682, lines 3–8”

To my thinking, we are talking apples and oranges regarding what the court says is inappropriate. It is effectively “shrinking” the scope of medical opinion in determining bases for cause and death an affecting the existing domain of the Iowa medical examiner death system as allowed by state statutes.

==============================================

1999 murder investigation went to a private forensic firm in the UK. 600,000P later, no leads,  nowhere to go.

Aussie Major Crimes unit is having a rough time in court x2.

“They took all the forensic samples and never tested them. It’s incredible,” Mr Napper said. “It’s extraordinary that they didn’t do this forensic testing before they charged anyone.” Mr Napper also criticis[z]ed the police case for relying almost entirely on the “questionable” testimony of three known Albany drug dealers. Full article. 

==============================================

No money in the account? Hooouston crime lab drops property crime ‘touch DNA service’ to local law enforcement as being too expensive for budget. “Touch DNA” had solved over 800 crimes. The county spent $$ to establish this specialty DNA unit almost ten years ago. One wonders what they spend on continued marijuana testing? Could redirecting the budget have prevented this?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Pathologist gets spanked for using defendant’s statements as basis for determining cause and manner of death

Posted on July 4, 2015 by csidds

Comments from a veteran forensic pathologist;
The district court that first allowed that the pathologist could use the mother’s statements to the police that sealed his decision about the cause and manner of death when he testified as an expert in a criminal homicide case. The standards of “certainty” for a death certificate are not so high as the standards for a criminal conviction “beyond a reasonable doubt”. I have always used the standard for a death certificate cause of death as “more likely than not”, in other words “probable”. the State and National instructions for a physician completing a death certificate are of little issue on this matter. For example, California’s instructions for a physician completing the cause of death statement are to “enter the cause of death”. For the manner of death the instructions are to ” check the appropriate manner of death: natural, homicide, suicide, accident, undetermined. For any case that seems like it might be anything other than natural, the physician or someone is supposed to refer the case to the coroner/ME for investigation and certification of the cause and manner of death.

So the author of the above article was missing the point. The doctor was testifying to his opinion, based on the information he received about the circumstances of death and the consistency of the circumstances with the autopsy findings. Personally, I think the district court was right in allowing the ME to testify. Prosecution and defense should clarify for the jury ( if the ME hasn’t already done so) that his opinion about the cause and manner are not as high as the standard for a criminal conviction, that is, “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

One of the ironies in all this is that Calif. statutes specifically say that the death certificate shall not be entered as evidence in a court proceeding, yet routinely the DA’s submit it as an exhibit, unchallenged by the defense (in my experience of around 500 homicide trials).

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

This case defines some limits to what a medical expert can consider in rendering  “with medical certainty” testimony. This should be a message to the odontologists who rely on law enforcement to determine how many people should be considered potential “biters” [e.g. “uncorroborated’ and unscientific”]. The case was remanded, in part, on this issue.
===========================================================

In the state of Iowa, there is an assistant medical examiner who testified at a hearing before trial in a newborn death case that ……….. [read further in the following section].

Later, the Iowa higher court, upon appeal by the convicted mother, ruled that……

“On retrial, should the State attempt to use Dr. Thompson as an expert witness, the district court should prohibit him from testifying that the cause of death was “drowning” and the manner of death was “homicide.” Likewise, it should redact the portions of the autopsy report stating his ultimate opinions on cause and…

View original post 560 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Forensics: Is the US military capable of reliably identifying remains from the USS Oklahoma?

Posted on July 3, 2015 by csidds

This is a very sensitive topic as it is about identifying remains of 388 US Navy and Marine Corps personnel killed on the USS Oklahoma during the Pearl Harbor attack by Japanese aircraft in the morning of December 7, 1941. RIP.

The core issue is: Why not FIRST use the best methods available to forensic science?

The Stars and Stripes digital magazine addresses statements from a US bio/anthropologist and others about the current DNA capabilities available at the US POW/MIA /DPAA/ lab in Oahu, HI. Its main DNA method is mtDNA and to a lesser extent Y-STR chromosomal tech methods developed in the 1990’s. Both have higher margins of error and are not as robust compared to autosomal DNA analysis but are backup in cases where genomic DNA is not available. The article develops both sides of this argument but the question of “what are best forensic practices?”, clearly stands out. In addition,  the military does not reveal its data on when/how/results of its autosomal work in analyzing aged remains.

Excerpts:

“The technology they’re using is basically 1990s technology,” said Cecil Lewis Jr., presidential research professor, associate professor of anthropology at the University of Oklahoma, and co-director of its Laboratories of Molecular Anthropology and Microbiome Research. “Genomic science has aggressively moved past it.”

“Obviously the Bode lab is superior to AFDIL, as we should have been pursuing [nuclear] DNA all this time,” said correspondence between JPAC personnel and officials from the Armed Forces Medical Examiner’s office, which includes AFDIL. The name of the sender and recipient were redacted due to government privacy policies.”

Full article

2014 Stars and Stripes article outlining backstory about the Oklahoma externment of the remains and the identification capabilities of AFIL/DPAA/MIAPOW/JPAC.

cmbowers@aol.com

 

Posted in CSI, DNA profiling | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pathologist gets spanked for using defendant’s statements as basis for determining cause and manner of death

Posted on July 3, 2015 by csidds

This case defines some limits to what a medical expert can consider in rendering  “with medical certainty” testimony. This should be a message to the odontologists who rely on law enforcement to determine how many people should be considered potential “biters” [e.g. “uncorroborated’ and unscientific”]. The case was remanded, in part, on this issue.
===========================================================

In the state of Iowa, there is an assistant medical examiner who testified at a hearing before trial in a newborn death case that ……….. [read further in the following section].

Later, the Iowa higher court, upon appeal by the convicted mother, ruled that……

“On retrial, should the State attempt to use Dr. Thompson as an expert witness, the district court should prohibit him from testifying that the cause of death was “drowning” and the manner of death was “homicide.” Likewise, it should redact the portions of the autopsy report stating his ultimate opinions on cause and manner of death.”

Here is what went on at the original hearing. (this starts at page 13 of the appellate opinion). The higher court’s basis for reversal is the last paragraph.

The phrase to remember while reading is from the appellate court’s ruling stating “Dr. Thompson’s opinions on the cause and manner of Baby Tyler’s death were based primarily, if not exclusively, on Tyler’s [the mother and criminal defendant] inconsistent and uncorroborated statements to police.”

============================================================

Motion In Limine hearing testimony of an Iowa state medical examiner.

“At the hearing, Tyler’s counsel questioned Dr. Thompson about the autopsy he performed and the foundation for his conclusions of the cause and manner of Baby Tyler’s death. The following exchange occurred:

  1. Okay. So the examination includes your visual examination, both inside and outside of the body that you’re examining, correct?
  2. Yes, sir.
  3. And then it also includes various . . . scientific tests?
  4. Yes, it does.
  5. In this case, if you based your opinions speaking strictly on medical or scientific evidence, you were unable to give a conclusion as to whether or not this was a homicide, correct?
  6. Just on the autopsy findings, that would be correct, yes.
  7. Okay. And also based just on the autopsy findings, you would be unable to determine whether or not this was a drowning, correct?
  8. That would be correct, yes.
  9. The autopsy findings were consistent with intrauterine fetal demise,[4] correct?
  10. They could be, yes.
  11. They could also be consistent with a baby that died immediately after birth, correct?
  12. It could be, yes. . . . .
  13. Okay. So the specific autopsy, the testing that you did, the toxicology test, the examination of the lungs, all of the things you did, the examination of the stomach contents, all of that led you to an inconclusive determination, correct?
  14. That’s correct, yes.
  15. And the only way that you reached the conclusion of homicide as the manner of death, as drowning as a cause of death, is through observing and watching the videotapes that the law enforcement officers supplied to you, correct?
  16. Yes, it is.
  17. So that would be of Miss Tyler’s interview with the police, correct?
  18. That’s correct.
  19. Okay. So from that standpoint, ultimately your opinion as to whether or not this was a homicide . . . and what the cause of death was, is based entirely on your belief of her statements, correct?
  20. That’s correct, yes.
  21. Okay. [E]ssentially what you’re saying is that since the autopsy didn’t disprove her statement, you’re going to believe her statement?
  22. That’s correct, yes. There’s nothing inconsistent between what she said and what I saw at the autopsy.
  23. Hypothetically speaking, if her statement to the police was the baby was a stillborn, your conclusion then would have had to have been stillborn birth, natural cause of death, correct?
  24. I would probably classify as [stillbirth].
  25. And that’s just because the actual medical examination, medical testing, scientific testing is inconclusive?
  26. That’s correct, yes.

The district court overruled Tyler’s motion in limine. In its ruling, it noted that “in Iowa, the courts are committed to a liberal rule on the admission of expert testimony” and that Dr. Thompson’s reliance on Tyler’s statements to police was “no different than a physician relying on a patient’s history in reaching a diagnosis.” Consequently, the district court overruled Tyler’s motion in limine, “subject to [her] right to vigorous cross examination.”

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

Private Funding for Forensic Science Assessments: A Quality and Gap Analysis

Posted on July 1, 2015 by csidds

Comment: Notable in this announcement from the AAAS are the echoes of  previous narratives from various US forensic governmental oversight committees such as the National Research Council (NAS), NCFS, Congressional subcommittees and such. Funding of forensic science research is paltry in comparison to funding of its principle client , the US criminal justice system. Since its research generally takes place in third-tier colleges and universities or law enforcement related agencies, the possibility of new funding for validity testing of decades-long court accepted police science is encouraging. The fact that this funding is from a private organization seems extraordinary.

What I hope will not be repeated is excessive incorporation of proponents of the much maligned bitemark club. 

=========================================================

Excerpts from the AAAS

With funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, AAAS will conduct an analysis of the underlying scientific bases for the forensic tools and methods currently used in the criminal justice system. This project will evaluate the quality of the studies the forensic community relies on to support its practices and, where the scientific underpinning of these practices falls short, recommend a research agenda for the field.

*

Working groups will be appointed for each forensic field, and a distinguished Advisory Committee will advise on every aspect of the overall project.

*

The project’s impact will be transformational for the criminal justice system, enabling the public to have confidence that the ability to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent is enhanced.

*

Forensic Disciplines

  1. Bloodstain Pattern Analysis
  2. Digital Evidence
  3. Fire Investigations
  4. Firearms and Toolmarks/Ballistics
  5. Footwear and Tire Tracks
  6. Forensic Odontology- Bitemark Analysis
  7. Latent Fingerprints
  8. Trace Evidence- Fibers
  9. Trace Evidence- Hair
  10. Trace Evidence- Paint & Other coatings

Read the full article from the AAAS.

Thanks to The Forensic Science Daily

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

“No preset rules in DNA Forensics”: examples of errors and doubts in DNA casework that juries must tackle.

Posted on July 1, 2015 by csidds

This does not read like CSI Miami. Wait, that one got cancelled. Thank you Jesus.

“A 2013 survey by the National Institute of Standards and Technology asked analysts from 108 labs to look at a three-person mixture and determine if a suspect’s DNA was present. Seventy percent of the analysts said the suspect might be in the mix; 24 percent said the data was inconclusive. Just six percent arrived at the truth: The suspect was not in the sample.

Not only do analysts vary in their interpretation of evidence, they also disagree over how certain to feel about the results. In another NIST survey, labs interpreting a two-person mixture came back with match probabilities that varied by 10 orders of magnitude. “Imagine if you take a pregnancy test and you send it to two different labs,” said Greg Hampikian, who authored the study on bias in the Atlanta rapist case, “and one said the odds are a billion to one that you’re pregnant, and the other said it’s 50-50.” The Marshall Project.

A study on contextual bias among lab analysts.

Similar cases with arguments about partial DNA profiles and disagreement in their results. 

Uncovering unscientific assumptions used in DNA
mixture analysis. These assumptions are committee-based. The following group and its NCFS equivalent has raised the ire of the IP’s Barry Scheck recently.

“The Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (known as SWGDAM) acknowledged in their publication (Interpretation Guidelines for Autosomal STR Typing by Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories, 2010) that “[d]ue to the multiplicity of forensic sample types and the potential complexity of DNA typing results, it is impractical and infeasible to cover every aspect of DNA interpretation by a preset rule,” thereby keeping the door open for subjective interpretation by the DNA analyst. This door is also open for knowledgeable experts to challenge interpretation of that data, particularly when it comes to the most difficult DNA samples to interpret, Low Copy Number (LCN) mixtures.”

 

Posted in Crime, criminal justice, CSI, death penalty, DNA mixtures, DNA profiling, Forensic Science, police crime labs, wrongful convictions | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment