POPULAR FORENSIC INTELLIGENCE EXPERT CITES FEAR OVER CONVICTIONS BASED JUST ON DNA, IN INTERVIEW WITH TORONTO STAR;

"Q: THERE WAS A NEWS REPORT RECENTLY THAT DNA EVIDENCE ISN’T AS FOOLPROOF AS MANY HAD THOUGHT. WILL THIS CHANGE EVIDENCE GATHERING AND PRESENTATION PROCEDURES?

A: YES, IT COULD. THE SCARY THING ABOUT IT, OF COURSE, IS WHEN YOU THINK OF ALL THE CASES THAT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED ON JUST DNA EVIDENCE. THINK OF THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT. I KNOW IF I HAD SOMEONE WHO WAS CONVICTED ON DNA EVIDENCE, I’D TRY TO OVERTURN THAT ON APPEAL, BASED ON QUESTIONABLE EVIDENCE. THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF RAMIFICATIONS THERE."

MOVIES COLUMNIST PETER HOWELL: THE TORONTO STAR;

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: These comments are particularly relevant to the Toshikazu Sugaya case in Japan, and the Ferah Jama case in Australia, which have been the subject of numerous posts on this Blog.

Harold Levy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Robert Ing's web-site tells us that he is: (A) forensic intelligence specialist, technology crime commentator and vertical market media personality. He works as a forensic intelligence specialist at large, bringing an understanding and awareness of the impact of technology on privacy, terrorism and crime in a practical, easy to understand format for non-technical audiences. Dr. Robert Ing has hosted educational documentaries, instructional videos, has appeared on major North American television and radio networks, is regularly cited in mainstream news publications throughout the world, and in syndicated Internet news services. From 2005 to 2007, Dr. Ing appeared as a guest on North American broadcast news and talk networks at an average of one segment every 10 days.

Toronto Star Movies Columnist Peter Howell tells us in his introduction to an interview with Dr. Ing:

"Toronto’s Dr. Robert Ing is a regular Sherlock Holmes.

Like the famous fictional sleuth of Baker St., he looks for clues that aren’t obvious to untrained eyes. The difference is that Ing works in a computerized world that Holmes could only have imagined in his steam-engine era of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Ing, 53, is a specialist in technology crime and forensic intelligence. He uses everything from fingerprints to pixels to track and stop evil doers. He’s also a prolific lecturer, author and broadcaster. His hobby is collecting antique occult items and other curios, something else that would appeal to Holmes.

Ing’s accomplishments include developing electronic counter-surveillance training methods, alerting authorities to destructive computer viruses and creating an anti-terrorism program that has become part of federal law enforcement procedures.

He works closely with the police: Ing was the 2001 recipient of the American Police Hall of Fame Award.

But like Holmes, his presence is sometimes more tolerated by the cops than welcomed, even though he’s a pretty genial guy.

“I’m not complaining, because I understand where it’s coming from,” he said in an interview.

“I’d probably be the same way if I had a first-class constable over my shoulder and I was made to work with him.”

Ing was the guest speaker recently at a Warner Bros. press luncheon unveiling the DVD for Sherlock Holmes, the Guy Ritchie movie about the famous sleuth, who is played by Robert Downey Jr. Ing spoke to The Star afterwards:" (See the link below for the entire interview);

DNA-RELATED QUESTIONS:

Q: There was a news report recently that DNA evidence isn’t as foolproof as many had thought. Will this change evidence gathering and presentation procedures?

A: Yes, it could. The scary thing about it, of course, is when you think of all the cases that have been convicted on just DNA evidence. Think of the ramifications of that. I know if I had someone who was convicted on DNA evidence, I’d try to overturn that on appeal, based on questionable evidence. There are all sorts of ramifications there.

I don’t think it’s a deal breaker for DNA, but being in the business, I’m always suspect of the science. Scientific procedure requires repeatable things: if you can repeat it, you don’t have a problem. But how many repetitions do you really need to say that this is 100 per cent foolproof? I’m quite the skeptic, even though I work with the science. I say, “Geez, we’ll use it, but we’ll use it very cautiously.” You don’t look at it as the be-all and end-all.

Q: It sounds like there’s a great potential movie there, about faulty DNA evidence.

A: I believe that they’re probably doing it even as we speak!

The story can be found at:

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/article/789185--elementary-my-dear-dr-ing

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;