This is what’s going on in New York’s state lab. There’s also a strange internal dispute about a new “controversial” DNA profiling method. Im looking for more info on that. Can anyone out there elaborate?
http://m.timesunion.com/news/article/State-Police-suspends-13-more-DNA-scientists-6214374.php
NYT editorial letter about judges and bar associations getting huevos about misconducting prosecutors.
Taking at look at 1904 to the present regarding science and non-science accepted as such. Includes SBS, phrenology, eugenics, gun powder, bullet lead, ear prints, fiber, bitemark and hair matchers. Law professors Saks and Koehler urge that its “time to move outside the courts” for determination of acceptable forensic practices. The Watch
===========================================================
Comments from Germany about the inherent bias of crime lab personnel and prosecutors. Includes comments on FBI lab scandal and pattern experts’ subjective opinions.
===========================================================
FBI will now offer DNA testing in cases where their hair analysis people “mis-stated” the reliability and certainty of their methods. This has nothing to do with the unknown number of cases brought forth by FBI trained state and local crime lab persons.
The Innocence Project’s Chris Fabricant, the Director of Strategic Litigation, presents its determination to lead and support forensic reform in the US Criminal Justice Systems. US Senator Blumenthal has choice words for bitemark analysts.
The scope of the piece is that this new FBI lab scandal is only a glimpse of the total picture.
=========================================================
Sherlock Holmes is surely a myth according to this Atlantic expose’. The author really amps up the shock wave passing in front of the public’s eyes since last week’s announcement about the failures of the FBI crime lab. Article
My particular interest being pattern analysis, I am particularly interested in what is said in response to these journalists. It generally concedes nothing other than blaming the problem on someone or something else.
Here’s a couple comments from some bitemark advocates concerning the recent WashPost continuing slam on their credibility and self-acclaimed (neither published nor successful) accuracy.
1) This is a garden variety diss at the Innocence Project and an ignorant statement that “LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE CASES” (this bunch has 24 of their own cases picking innocents being the criminal) occurs from bad-lawyering. Im sure he hasn’t read the summaries of the IP’s over 300 exons cases regardless of what he claims.
“I believe from keeping up with the IP’s work, the IP intends to go afterall the various comparison disciplines–hair analysis, firearms & toolmarks, foot wear and tire tread, etc., and even at some point, fingerprintcomparison. Of course, they do conveniently overlook the “ineffective assistance of counsel” (i.e. bad lawyering) issue that comes up in a largepercentage of the cases….”
2) A respondent to (1) comes up with:
“Cannot agree more with Dr. XXX. Not having an opposing expert or even minimally qualified one at the time of the original trial is a part of theproblem. Throw a ton of $$ at a case (OJ trial an extreme but you get my idea) and the outcome may be different.”
I expect the ABFO-heavy bitemark committee of the National Forensic Science Commission to say nothing less. If they don’t like it, it will remain unpublished as well.
Largest US review of questioned forensic evidence. The FBI records are so poor they are unsure how many cases their experts testified. Says expert “statements” were exaggerated. Not that their methods were flawed.
From the Washington Post:
The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.
Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.
The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.
The FBI…
View original post 1,158 more words
Reading this will explain the effects of flawed forensic ‘science’ when 28 FBI examiners expound a method that had no basis of validity. This article associates bitemark examiners as also being considered faulty and specious ‘forensic’ evidence. There have been 130 bitemark experts doing the same since 1975.
The attitude of this group is that “bad” cases are from “bad” examiners. This is despite never having reviewed the 24 cases where DNA demolished their opinions of biter identification. Their endemic use of false assumptions are still being used in their current casework.
One comment wonders why the FBI “took so long” (30 years) is declassifying their internally developed methods.
Now who will answer this one?
Notice the FBI says expert “statements” were exaggerated. Not that their methods were flawed.
Looking into the Holocaust recovery as forensic investigations. Article.
Opine piece about forensics not being able to prevent wrongful convictions. That, to say the least, is debatable. Faulty or misleading forensics is a major factor in causation. Article.
Police ‘use of force’ investigation by the Washington Post. Ballistic aspects certainly play a role in findings of ‘justifiable’ use of deadly force. Article.
Forensic photography called an ‘art.’ I just wish police users of digital cameras would shoot at resolutions higher than 72dpi. Article.
The complete lack of stewardship by the AAFS in this forensic tragedy is more than troubling. Its like the Vatican condoning voodoo worship.
This article is about how forensic experts who sound convincing to juries shape their images as ‘scientific’ by misinformation and resorting to desperate measures to mislead the US judicial system. Since this article was published in early April 2015, the target of the article, the American Board of Forensic Odontology, is investigating its members about who is the “reliable source” mentioned in the article. This is an American Academy of Forensic Sciences sponsored organization. Retribution may follow, but this story is compelling evidence of misconduct and bad faith. I’ve used it in my Elsevier published book “Forensic Testimony: Science, Law and Forensic Evidence” as a framework for a junk science masquerading as being legitimate.
A bite mark matching advocacy Washington Post’s Raley Balko covers the ABFO’s latest failed attempt at legitimacy Highlights added for emphasis.
Learn how the US law enforcement lobby throws its weight into elections of judges and prosecution harder liners imagining citizen terrorists amongst us all. It insures continuing $$ for policing the “enemy forces” in our society. This is in the face of lowering of crime stats and monumental overpolicing of victimless crimes and profiting from assest forfeiture.
This article is about how forensic experts who sound convincing to juries shape their images as ‘scientific’ by misinformation and resorting to desperate measures to mislead the US judicial system. Since this article was published in early April 2015, the target of the article, the American Board of Forensic Odontology, is investigating its members about who is the “reliable source” mentioned in the article. This is an American Academy of Forensic Sciences sponsored organization. Retribution may follow, but this story is compelling evidence of misconduct and bad faith. I’ve used it in my Elsevier published book “Forensic Testimony: Science, Law and Forensic Evidence” as a framework for a junk science masquerading as being legitimate.
A bite mark matching advocacy Washington Post’s Raley Balko covers the ABFO’s latest failed attempt at legitimacy Highlights added for emphasis.
Hiding witnesses from defense counsel and another recanting leads to release of 3 prisoners. Of course this attempt for permanent freedem is pending recharging by the same DA’s Office that lied to convict 20 years ago.
http://citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-32558-free_at_last_free_fo.html
