This article from the whyfiles shows more evidence that crime laboratories feel pressure to "find" the guilty party. Can we really trust DNA evidence to be accurate when there is pressure to have the forensic evidence match?
http://whyfiles.org/133crime_lab/5.html
Don't give that girl a gunBehind the debate over the proper role of crime labs is this question: Are labs tools of the prosecution, or of justice? Certainly, crime labs are touted as impartial, scientific means of finding the truth. But the truth is that most exist in a prosecutorial milieu -- as branches of the department of justice or the state police.
Geurts, of the Wisconsin lab, acknowledges that he works for the Department of Justice, but says, "Once you become an advocate, you lose your status as a scientist. We try to avoid that, but in general we work for the prosecution, and there's a small chance an individual analyst could become more prosecution oriented. In general, we get equal satisfaction from eliminating someone from suspicion, even though police usually respond, 'How can that be? We know this is the guy.'"
Evidence expert Jennifer Mnookin sees merit in the proposal -- raised in Oklahoma among other places -- to make labs independent of the prosecution. Although it would not solve everything, she adds, "Closely tying the forensic scientist to the prosecutorial apparatus may increase the likelihood of some of these problems. People may feel that to get promoted, they need to provide the evidence that makes a conviction; they may turn into cops in lab coats."
Mnookin describes the challenge thusly: "How do you create an incentive structure that does not encourage scientists and technicians to err on the side of the prosecution?"
Somebody bad stole de wedding bell We've heard other suggestions for improving labs:
Faigman suggests creating a "firewall" to reduce contact with police." Examinations should be as blind as possible, he says, "so the officer does not walk in and say, 'We found the guy who has these prints with the stereo equipment, and we want you to match them.'" The expectation of guilt, he says, "will intrude on the analysis."
Confirm the theory with basic scientific techniques -- and confirm the examiner's practice with blind tests. The Wisconsin State Crime Lab, says Geurts, tests employee proficiency at least annually. When drug examiners test proficiency samples, he says, they think they are working on actual cases.
Use peer review. Geurts says that having more than one examiner handle subjective analyses, such as handwriting, can reduce errors.
Subterranean homesick blues A final means to make sure that crime labs do their work honestly and intelligently is accreditation from the American Society of Crime Lab Directors. To date, 196 U.S. crime labs have attained certification, that's about half of the full-function scientific crime labs in the United States. That's the estimate of Robert Conley, director of the American Society of Crime Lab Directors Accreditation Board -- a separate group established by the Society. Accreditation, he says, requires "100 percent compliance" to a long list of standards affecting the "quality of the work product."
Covered areas include:
Minimum education for various disciplines -- typically at least a bachelor's degree -- with a concentration in science.
Annual proficiency testing for all employees.
Written procedures covering, according to Conley, "literally everything the lab does." Procedures must be validated in the lab, so "the method works in their lab, with their equipment and their personnel."
The standards are tough enough, he says, that almost all labs fail the first inspection. They then have a year to get up to snuff.
Could certification have helped at the Oklahoma City police lab, whose misconduct apparently doomed Jeffrey Pierce to spend 15 years in prison for another person's crime? Perhaps, Conley says, noting that the lab was not accredited.
"Without being specific or concluding about what happened in Oklahoma, because I only read about it in the papers, our process requires external review of all procedures used in the lab. If we were looking at microscopic analysis of hair, certainly the kind of results we have been hearing about would not be acceptable scientific practice."
However, accreditation does not address the issue of independence of the prosecution, or the overall question raised by the Supreme Court -- whether the forensic sciences are actually science.
While DNA profiling has been proven to be science after years of hard work and intense argument, that remains the exception. As Professor Faigman says, "Courts are wondering, scratching their heads, about why the other forensic sciences don't look like DNA profiling."
Faulty Forensic Evidence
It would seem that what has convinced the public most of Anthony Stockelman's guilt is the fact that the prosecution claims to have DNA evidence. Shows like CSI and Cold Case Files have promoted the idea that forensic evidence is infallible and cannot be disputed. However, this article from the Innocence Project reveals that often DNA is mishandled and DNA experts have been known to fabricate evidence, or as this article also reveals plant evidence.
Al Roker of Court TV produced a documentary on the Collman murder titled "Meth, Murder and Madness." A few weeks later another documentary aired by Roker titled "Faulty Forensics". It detailed how crime labs often placed a rubber stamp so to speak on the forensic evidence turned over to them by prosecutors and police.
Here is the full article from the Innocence Project. More can be found on their website at www.innocenceproject.com
Fix The System: Crime Lab Oversight
Forensic Science Misconduct
Because forensic science results can mean the difference between life and death in many cases, fraud and other types of misconduct in the field are particularly troubling. False testimony, exaggerated statistics and laboratory fraud have led to wrongful conviction in several states.Since forensic evidence is offered by "experts," jurors routinely give it much more weight than other evidence. But when misconduct occurs, the weight is misplaced. In some instances, labs or their personnel are too closely tied to police and prosecutors, and therefore not impartial. Other times, a criminalist lacking the requisite knowledge embellishes findings, confident that he will not be caught since the lawyer, judge and jury have no background in the relevant science.
In some cases, critical evidence is consumed or destroyed, so that re-testing to uncover the misconduct is impossible. Evidence in these cases can never be tested again. Those wrongful convictions will never be overturned.
One weak linkThe identification, collection, testing, storage, handling and reporting of any piece of forensic evidence involves a number of people. Evidence can be deliberately or accidentally mishandled at any stage of this process.The risk of misconduct starts at the crime scene, where evidence can be planted, destroyed or mishandled. Then the evidence is sent by police to a state forensic lab or independent contractor, where it can be contaminated, poorly tested, consumed unnecessarily or mislabeled. The next step is a report, in which technicians and their superiors sometimes misrepresent results. DNA exonerations have revealed numerous instances of “drylabbing” evidence – reporting results when no test was actually performed. It's cheaper and faster – but fraudulent.
All over the mapThe Innocence Project has seen forensic misconduct by scientists, experts and prosecutors lead to wrongful conviction in many states. The following are among the more notorious:
A former director of the West Virginia state crime lab, Fred Zain, testified for the prosecution in 12 states over his career, including dozens of cases in West Virginia and Texas. DNA exonerations and new evidence in other cases have shown that Zain fabricated results, lied on the stand about results and willfully omitted evidence from this reports.
Pamela Fish, a Chicago lab technician, testified for the prosecution about false matches and suspicious results in the trials of at least eight defendants who were convicted, then proven innocent years later by DNA testing.
A two-year investigation of the Houston crime lab, completed in 2007, showed that evidence in that lab was mishandled and results were misreported.
Ending forensic fraudThe Innocence Project has uncovered these abuses since 1992 and has developed recommendations for crime labs, law enforcement agencies and courts to ensure that forensic science misconduct is prevented whenever possible. The Innocence Project calls for state to impose standards on the preservation and handling of evidence. When exonerations suggest that an analyst engaged in misconduct or that a facility lacked proper procedures or oversight, the Innocence Project advocates for independent audits of their work in other cases that may have also resulted in wrongful convictions.
Visit our Fix The System: Crime Lab Oversight page for more information.
Featured Case: George Rodriguez
George Rodriguez was exonerated in 2005 after serving 17 years for a sexual assault he didn't commit. Rodriguez's case helped to reveal a pattern of error and fraud in the Houston Police Department Crime Lab that is still being investigated and corrected today. In Rodriguez's case, lab director Jim Bolding testified that a hair found in the victim's underwear could have belonged to Rodriguez. He also testified that blood type evidence showed that Rodriguez – and not a co-defendant – could have deposited biological fluids. This was false – later tests showed that the co-defendant could have been a contributor. DNA testing also showed that the hair used against Rodriguez could not have been his. Audits of the Houston lab since Rodriguez's exoneration have revealed a wide range of misconduct.
Al Roker of Court TV produced a documentary on the Collman murder titled "Meth, Murder and Madness." A few weeks later another documentary aired by Roker titled "Faulty Forensics". It detailed how crime labs often placed a rubber stamp so to speak on the forensic evidence turned over to them by prosecutors and police.
Here is the full article from the Innocence Project. More can be found on their website at www.innocenceproject.com
Fix The System: Crime Lab Oversight
Forensic Science Misconduct
Because forensic science results can mean the difference between life and death in many cases, fraud and other types of misconduct in the field are particularly troubling. False testimony, exaggerated statistics and laboratory fraud have led to wrongful conviction in several states.Since forensic evidence is offered by "experts," jurors routinely give it much more weight than other evidence. But when misconduct occurs, the weight is misplaced. In some instances, labs or their personnel are too closely tied to police and prosecutors, and therefore not impartial. Other times, a criminalist lacking the requisite knowledge embellishes findings, confident that he will not be caught since the lawyer, judge and jury have no background in the relevant science.
In some cases, critical evidence is consumed or destroyed, so that re-testing to uncover the misconduct is impossible. Evidence in these cases can never be tested again. Those wrongful convictions will never be overturned.
One weak linkThe identification, collection, testing, storage, handling and reporting of any piece of forensic evidence involves a number of people. Evidence can be deliberately or accidentally mishandled at any stage of this process.The risk of misconduct starts at the crime scene, where evidence can be planted, destroyed or mishandled. Then the evidence is sent by police to a state forensic lab or independent contractor, where it can be contaminated, poorly tested, consumed unnecessarily or mislabeled. The next step is a report, in which technicians and their superiors sometimes misrepresent results. DNA exonerations have revealed numerous instances of “drylabbing” evidence – reporting results when no test was actually performed. It's cheaper and faster – but fraudulent.
All over the mapThe Innocence Project has seen forensic misconduct by scientists, experts and prosecutors lead to wrongful conviction in many states. The following are among the more notorious:
A former director of the West Virginia state crime lab, Fred Zain, testified for the prosecution in 12 states over his career, including dozens of cases in West Virginia and Texas. DNA exonerations and new evidence in other cases have shown that Zain fabricated results, lied on the stand about results and willfully omitted evidence from this reports.
Pamela Fish, a Chicago lab technician, testified for the prosecution about false matches and suspicious results in the trials of at least eight defendants who were convicted, then proven innocent years later by DNA testing.
A two-year investigation of the Houston crime lab, completed in 2007, showed that evidence in that lab was mishandled and results were misreported.
Ending forensic fraudThe Innocence Project has uncovered these abuses since 1992 and has developed recommendations for crime labs, law enforcement agencies and courts to ensure that forensic science misconduct is prevented whenever possible. The Innocence Project calls for state to impose standards on the preservation and handling of evidence. When exonerations suggest that an analyst engaged in misconduct or that a facility lacked proper procedures or oversight, the Innocence Project advocates for independent audits of their work in other cases that may have also resulted in wrongful convictions.
Visit our Fix The System: Crime Lab Oversight page for more information.
Featured Case: George Rodriguez
George Rodriguez was exonerated in 2005 after serving 17 years for a sexual assault he didn't commit. Rodriguez's case helped to reveal a pattern of error and fraud in the Houston Police Department Crime Lab that is still being investigated and corrected today. In Rodriguez's case, lab director Jim Bolding testified that a hair found in the victim's underwear could have belonged to Rodriguez. He also testified that blood type evidence showed that Rodriguez – and not a co-defendant – could have deposited biological fluids. This was false – later tests showed that the co-defendant could have been a contributor. DNA testing also showed that the hair used against Rodriguez could not have been his. Audits of the Houston lab since Rodriguez's exoneration have revealed a wide range of misconduct.
This author said what?
Here is a link to a story written about Crothersville. It talks about the murders in the town.
Note that this is a fairly recent article, yet the author still talks about this crime as being drug-related.
http://www.authspot.com/Journals/Small-Town.95369
This author claims that even though the public was told that drugs did not play a part in this young girl's death, she does not necessarily believe it to be true.
http://www.topix.net/city/crothersville-in/2008/04/small-town
Note that this is a fairly recent article, yet the author still talks about this crime as being drug-related.
http://www.authspot.com/Journals/Small-Town.95369
This author claims that even though the public was told that drugs did not play a part in this young girl's death, she does not necessarily believe it to be true.
http://www.topix.net/city/crothersville-in/2008/04/small-town
Back to those carpet fibers
Now of all of the forensic evidence that officials claim to have, the carpet fibers stick out in my mind as being the most illogical. Here is yet more proof that the claim that this forensic evidence just does not make sense.
Two days after Katie disappeared, an eyewitness saw her across town near the school riding in a white Ford F150 pick up truck. According to the witness, the child did not seem frightened, but rather appeared as though she were a normal passenger in the truck.
That's right. The eyewitness claimed that she appeared as though she were a normal passenger and that she was not afraid.
Now this causes the average person to stop and ponder the situation a little closer than what it appears on the surface. If Collman were to have been molested at the house on Koevener street prior to being abducted, she would have been bound at the house as well. This would have taken place prior to her being placed in the truck.
Now if the child had just been molested and abducted by a complete stranger, and her hands were bound behind her back why would she look as though she was not afraid?
Unfortunately, we may never have the answer to that question. Remember the eyewitness who spotted her? She was "unavailable" to testify in court.
Two days after Katie disappeared, an eyewitness saw her across town near the school riding in a white Ford F150 pick up truck. According to the witness, the child did not seem frightened, but rather appeared as though she were a normal passenger in the truck.
That's right. The eyewitness claimed that she appeared as though she were a normal passenger and that she was not afraid.
Now this causes the average person to stop and ponder the situation a little closer than what it appears on the surface. If Collman were to have been molested at the house on Koevener street prior to being abducted, she would have been bound at the house as well. This would have taken place prior to her being placed in the truck.
Now if the child had just been molested and abducted by a complete stranger, and her hands were bound behind her back why would she look as though she was not afraid?
Unfortunately, we may never have the answer to that question. Remember the eyewitness who spotted her? She was "unavailable" to testify in court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)