This is a list of 50 twitter accounts and blog posts on this subject. It is no way comprehensive but it is a good place to start. Ignore the cheapo advert at the top.
Daniel Franke 
Alchemist 
Arriaga II 
Latest News on Forensic Science and Criminal Law
-
Join 223 other subscribers
Thursday’s Quick Clicks…
Important news on exoneration events, false guilty pleas, GPS location for alibis, etc.
- The link between incarcerations, plea bargains and violent neighborhoods
- Why innocent people plead guilty, by federal judge Jed Rakoff
- In Japan, man exonerated from death row helping capital punishment abolitionists
- Exoneree Kirk Odom seeks compensation from the District of Columbia
- Innocence Project Clinic in Baltimore works to free man with GPS evidence
- Facebook helps in exoneration
Posted in Uncategorized
Leave a comment
Racial discrimination and retaliation in #Forensic #Science never a topic at annual #AAFS meetings
Charges of racial discrimination in forensics. Sounds like a hostile working and personnel environment to me. Former crime lab employee suing City of Columbia for $3 million over poor training, poor lab equipment, retaliation, loss of reputation, income, emotional distress AND racial discrimination. She claims she took the hit and supervisor were held unaccountable. I’ve never heard nor seen this topic discussed at the annual AAFS meetings. Some of these topics will be forthcoming soon on this blog.
Expert Disagreement: 26 year old murder brings friction between 2 opposing DNA advocates at 6 day trial. Original evidence testimony considered erroneous (def attorney uses alot of hot button adjectives) by defense expert from Cellmark in the UK. Plays out as “old science versus new and improved. ” Then read the next one.
Expert Disagreement: Two pathologists argue over COD re: stillborn vs newborn infant. Im wondering if the defense expert will get harassed on this one. http://fw.to/IKTChLk
Exoneration Litigation: Typical arguments used in exoneration cases. There are only 1467 listed at the National Registry of Exonerations.
Past memories induced: More on doubtful forensic “science” quite popular with Prosecutors. This time its not bitemark IDs. Recovery therapy still being used to foster false accusations.
Jailhouse snitches: 2 men exonerated today after 14 yrs in prison. To convict, prosecutor made—then hid—a deal with jailhouse snitches.
and the last one………………………………..
Forensic evidence: Preservation and chain of custody. You may be surprised. There is an apparent double standard in some jurisdictions. Read on.. “You’re obligated to preserve for the government any evidence of any crimes you commit. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/11/05/a-double-standard-on-destroying-evidence/ …
Recovery therapy still being used to foster false accusations
Sadly, US courts will accept almost any expert as “relevant” as long as the Pros uses them. Seems the rule about a “scientific community” extends to any group with more than 3 members. That’s when the “novel science” rules kicks in to allow admissibility. Just like bitemark ID believers.
“The belief that hidden memories can be ‘recovered’ in therapy should have been exorcised years ago, when a rash of false memories dominated the airwaves, tore families apart and put people on the stand for crimes they didn’t commit,” Pacific Standard magazine reports in a story you can find here.
Sadly, pseudoscientific recovery therapy is still being used, and, Pacific Standard says, “people are still paying the price.”
Posted in Uncategorized
Leave a comment
More Social Media responses on #Junk #Forensic #Science involving the #AAFS
The topic from my last blog on the unfair composition of the NCFS Working Group on “bitemark science” which poses one legitimate forensic researcher against a platoon of self described bitemark believers has brought more responses from the public who are interested in Forensic Reform. Here is one of the ABFO mentors discussing the “art and science” of what he has done for decades.
Like that isn’t the standard practice for forming government committees.
Onlooker @OnlookerfrTroy Oct 30
That’s govt “reform” for ya.
That’s really creepy and weird.
“Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced”.
So no double blind test that they all score 100% on huh?
George Stigler called it…
Posted in Uncategorized
Leave a comment
Social Media on the US Forensic Sci Commission raises public concerns about a failed “science” in its mist.
Folks in the public sector who have been following the machinations of the bitemark “board” belonging to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences have been disappointed with the makeup and ingrained status quo culture of most members of the NIST Forensic Sciences Commission re: Odontology. One journalist in particular at the Washington Post is a veteran of writing about the host of forensic misidentifications and failures that members of the ABFO have perped on the general public with tragic results for innocent people. Lets say that the exoneration cases of Ray Krone, Willie Jackson, Kennedy Brewer, Levon Brooks, Robert Lee Stinson, Gerald Richardson, Bennie Starks, (all black except Krone) and others still in prison weigh heavily on their optimism. Odds are good that the majority of the Odontology Study Group will do nothing more than pad their own pockets and profess their lies about what they consider “science.” This is much like whats happened for years with the AAFS’s FSAB “certify the certifiers” committee. These guys can’t even yet agree on how to do proficiency testing of their “non-science.” Ray Krone’s supporters aptly summed up the mantra of ABFO’s validity while Ray was on AZ Death Row.
Here’s a few recent comments from Radley Balko (he did 6 tweets on this subject).
This one just lays thing out rather explicitly.
3. If this is what the White House commitment to forensics reform will look like, then there’s really no commitment to reform at all.
Plus a few more……………………………………..
-
“Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced”.
-
So no double blind test that they all score 100% on huh?
-
George Stigler called it…
Blacks must wait longer to be exonerated, study shows
Statistics from the Innocence Project lends clarity to trends within the racial disparity in criminal justice. 38% of prison populations are black. 18% in within the US general population.
From The Huffington Post:
By Michael McLaughlin
It took 18 years for DNA evidence to surface that cleared Derrick Williams of a rape and attempted kidnapping in Florida. Prosecutors had relied on the testimony of the victim, who identified Williams as her attacker in 1992. But he walked free at age 48 in 2011 because his DNA didn’t match that left on a gray T-shirt by the actual perpetrator.
The truth might have surfaced sooner if Williams were white or Latino instead of African-American.
There’s no way to know for sure, of course, but data about wrongful convictions show that blacks who are exonerated after a bogus conviction have served 12.68 years on average before the good news, according to Pamela Perez, professor of biostatistics at Loma Linda University. It takes just 9.4 years for whites and 7.87 for Latinos.
“Black Americans are exonerated at a…
View original post 321 more words
Posted in Uncategorized
Leave a comment
DNA is to blame when certain forensic science orgs get caught with their underwear showing. Again
I am struck with the recent declarations by the NCFS regarding their non-mandatory “solutions” to forensic experts being scientifically “shady” in their testimony. Some folks may ask, “What is the backstory on this? Why is this group (now composed of the best of the AAFS and crime lab communities) now targeting such transgressions and professional fraud ?”
Truth being said, this has been going on forever. Sir Alec Jeffries is to blame for causing all this dustup.
This blog has been dedicated to shining some light on the above questions.
The NCFS has finally “called out” certain forensic ner’ do wells (after 5 years of the AAFS yakking about nothing substantive regarding these problems) since judges are not savvy enough to protect their system from such prejudicial evidence use against criminal defendants.
There is no rational reason to ignore the presence of convictions sentencing the innocent within the US Criminal Justice system. The data continues to grow. Irrational thought does erupt amongst certain forensic “stakeholders” (such as criticizing or spoofing the NAS 2009 report on “Strengthening the Forensic Sciences”) and is generally composed of two variations.
1) It’s the price of doing business. This similar to “friendly fire.” Totally abhorrent in my opinion.
2) “Blame it on the lawyers.” A phrase used in desperation by many forensic types who have found themselves on the wrong side of lengthy post conviction appellate battles where DNA eventually expunged their “scientific” prowess.
On the legal side, a tactic oft used by “tough on crime at all costs” prosecutors, when jammed up in wrongful conviction litigation, is: “the defendant is still a ” bad person.” This is an end around manuever where eye-witness accounts and other noxious types of witness evidence used at trial is later proven false during appellate review. This new evidence could be DNA, compelling exculpatory evidence or “egregious/pervasive/systemic/more than one instance” prosecutorial misconduct.
Personally having been involved in 8 successful exoneration cases opposing the “best” of the AAFS odontologists, I have experienced opposing witnesses exhibiting serious symptoms of what the NCFS is talking about. Yet the AAFS seems oblivious to their negligent past and is self absorbed with looking good in the current press.
I can attest to becoming VERY unpopular with the AAFS/ABFO dentists because of these cases. Harassment is ongoing but the exonorees seem pleased. Plus I got to write a book about it.
Sorry to bore anyone, but here are more two cases of recent exoneration of defendants sentenced to death.
#Forensic #Science #Commission Pushbacks against Junk Forensic Experts
Progress is being made towards Forensic Science Reform. It has taken 5 years to get coordinated (but preliminary) recommendations from organized forensic practitioners since the 2009 NAS Report on “Strengthening Forensics Sciences.” The NAS slammed a fistful of long accepted forensic “sciences.” (e.g.: bitemark identification and others.)
The National Commission on Forensic Science just issued its first “work product” in dealing with the bad habits of some forensic practitioners. Phil Locke at the Wrongful Conviction Blog posted comments today that will give you an overview.
Phil has been dedicated in exposing problems in court accepted forensic “science.” Some folks within forensic organizations, like the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, have become aware that their previous “acceptance” of the NAS report was little more than posing. Now the NCFS is composed of many AAFS members.
Here’s a quote from Phil’s excellent blog-post giving some background reasons for the 5 year delay.
“Not surprisingly, the NAS report was met with “stonewall” and dismissive resistance from the extant forensics community, as well as the National Association of District Attorneys.”
Here is Phil Locke’s post with links to the NCFS recommendations.
Included in the NCFS portion on expert testimony is:
6. Experts should not testify concerning conclusions that are beyond the limits of a laboratory’s testing protocols.
7. Experts should not use invalid or problematic terms in their reports or when testifying
8. Experts should not use misleading terms that suggest that the methodology or the expert is infallible when testifying.
9. Experts should not use potentially misleading terms in their reports or when testifying without a clear explanation of the term’s significance and limitations.
10. Experts should not use the term “scientific” when testifying unless the basis for their opinions has been scientifically validated.
One comment from me. The NCFS determinations about what needs to been done to corral junk science echoes the contents of Forensic Testimony, Law, Science and Forensic Evidence. This was published by Elsevier in Ocotober, 2013.
Befuddled #Forensic #Science dentists resort to a color chart as a safeguard against their history of faulty convictions
For the life of me, I cannot translate into words, what the think tank (really a kiddie pond) of the bitemark group (the ABFO recognized by the AAFS as an elite forensics certifying board) is now up to. Agronomy? Aborism (sic)? Word puzzles? Hey there guys and gals, how about some empirical research? Instead you give us a tree?
Are they confused? Or just amateur sleuths, closeted charlatans, poorly trained, semi- literate, desperate, foolish?
Considering the adjectives used in the NAS 2009 report on forensic bitemark “science”, the ABFO clearly has ignored this esteemed multi-scientific governmental advisory group’s message. Some descriptors in its scathing review of the ABFO operative bitemark assumptions and validity claims can be condensed in two words: Junk Science (as in NO science research relevant to what they claim in US courts).
It’s been reported to me that this is the ABFO’s first step in creating its”methodology.”
Nice colors. Uh, what if someone is colorblind?
FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends 