"It has already happened: Gene Morrison. Originally jailed for 5 years various offences after he masqueraded as a forensic scientist for many years, he is now imprisoned for an indeterminate period for child sex offences. OK, so he’s an extreme example, but who is checking the standard of forensic scientists and the science they are presenting in court?"
ANNA SANDIFORD; FORENSIC SCIENTIST BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Gene Morrison and Charles Smith had many things in common - but one stands out. They both managed to bamboozle people in their respective justice systems, including judges, prosecutors, police and even defence lawyers, into believing that they were genuine forensic experts. Morrison purported to be a forensic expert in the areas of handwriting, drugs, lie detection, toxicology, facial mapping and forensic dentistry, who had earned his qualifications through who a BSc in forensic psychology, an MSc in forensic investigation, and a PhD in criminology which he purchased from Rochville University, an online website offering 'life experience degrees'. Smith misrepresented himself as a qualified forensic pathologist (while staring down those who dared to disagree with him) even though he had no professional qualifications in the area, no specialized training to speak of as a forensic pathologist, and had never been trained or mentored by a genuine forensic pathologist. He would later admit to the independent Goudge inquiry into many of his cases that his knowledge of forensic pathology was "woefully inadequate," that his training was "minimal," that he was basically ''self-taught, and that he was "profoundly ignorant" of the role of expert witnesses and the way in which the criminal justice system works. (Not true. He wrote impressive articles on the role of experts, and lectured to homicide officers on issues involving the criminal justice system); In spite of his admission of being "woefully inadequate" and "self-taught," Smith's evidence from the witness box brimmed with confidence, certainty, experience, and a sense of deep knowledge of his field. One major difference: Morrison was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to prison for five years for his fraud upon the justice system; Charles Smith remains untouched. I am publishing this series of posts on Gene Morrison without editorial comment (not an easy task) so that our readers can make up their own minds about whether Smith should be prosecuted. I will publish my personal views at the end of the series.
HAROLD LEVY: PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“A lack of accreditation of expert witnesses means that anyone with a scientific background and sufficient ‘brass neck’ could set themselves up as a forensic science expert and mislead the court," Anna Sandiford's February 14, 2011 column begins, under the heading, "Guilty until proven innocent."
"So warns Lord Justice Leveson, an English Court of Appeal Judge," the column continues.
"It has already happened: Gene Morrison. Originally jailed for 5 years various offences after he masqueraded as a forensic scientist for many years, he is now imprisoned for an indeterminate period for child sex offences. OK, so he’s an extreme example, but who is checking the standard of forensic scientists and the science they are presenting in court?
Many will say that the court itself is the place for establishing whether or not a scientist and their report is appropriate for a given case. However, is that a good use of court time? If it is, who should be making that judgement? Can we realistically expect lawyers to be able to tell whether the science in a case is appropriate? The whole point of expert witnesses is to provide information to the court that is outside the general knowledge of the triers of fact: the judge and jury. Unless they have a working knowledge of, for example, mixed DNA profiles in a sample being separated using a combination of LCN, Y-STR and SGM+, how are they to know that what is being presented is full, fair and accurate? And that’s before we even get to see what is in the scientist’s casefile. There is often information in the casefile that is hugely informative but this information is not made available – it has to be requested. If you don’t know what to ask for, you won’t get what you need.
An article in the December 2010 issue of North & South is entitled “Guilty until proven innocent.“ The article describes three examples of miscarriages of justice in New Zealand. An extract from that article reads, “The three cases examined in this story exhibit some of the classic traits of miscarriages of justice worldwide: police tunnel vision, withholding of evidence, false witness identification or memory, incorrect or over emphasized expert evidence and poor legal representation.“ As an Expert Witness working in the independent sector, it is my job to look at scientific evidence to see if it is incorrect or over emphasized of even if there is something that hasn’t previously been considered for a variety of reasons. In some cases, there’s nothing of concern with the science. In others, the issues relate to scientific results that are in the case files but not immediately apparent in the reports. In other cases, it’s scientific methodology. For yet others, it could be that the Defendant wants his account of events to be considered but this hasn’t previously been presented to the Crown’s experts. There are many reasons.
I am passionate about accuracy and fairness of science in the courtroom; if we use science as part of a case to convict someone of a crime then that science must be correctly reported. It is not the job of an expert witness to have an opinion on whether or not the defendant is guilty; that is the job of the court. Although accreditation of individual expert witnesses alone will not solve all the issues of incorrect or over emphasized expert evidence, it is a start and, in my opinion, should form at least part of the standards for allowing people to give evidence in court as expert witnesses."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE POST CAN BE FOUND AT:
http://sciblogs.co.nz/forensic-scientist/2011/02/14/guilty-until-proven-innocent/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com
