STORY: "Helping decide guilt or innocence," by reporter Liz Robbins, published in the New York Times on December 15, 2012.
GIST: "A man will go on trial for attempted murder in Brooklyn. His fate may hang on the handlebars of a bicycle.` Prosecutors contend he shot a man from the bike, and may have left a DNA calling card on its surface. He may not have been the only one to touch the bicycle, though. As DNA evidence is increasingly used in courtrooms, forensic scientists are struggling to find more-precise ways to analyze smaller and smaller samples that contain multiple contributors — scraped from, say, the trigger of a gun, the handle of a knife or the trim of a scarf. Two scientists at the forensic biology laboratory of the New York City medical examiner’s office have created a way. The scientists, Theresa A. Caragine and Adele A. Mitchell, produced the Forensic Statistical Tool, an algorithm for a software program that can analyze a mixture of DNA from a crime scene and determine the probability that it could include the defendant’s profile. “We said, ‘Here’s a problem. Let’s do something about this,’ ” Dr. Caragine, the deputy director of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner’s forensic biology department, said in her office last week. “I like to think of it as the New York way. Just do it.” The tool has been used in New York City courts since July 2011, when it was approved by the New York State Commission on Forensic Science, which also accredits public laboratories, and the DNA Subcommittee, made up of statisticians and geneticists who review protocols. What makes it innovative, but also controversial, is that in cases like the bicyclist’s, where previously no conclusion could be made, the Forensic Statistical Tool, or FST, can now use the data to produce a ratio of the likelihood that the defendant’s DNA is in the mixture compared to the DNA of random people. A lower value may help establish that a suspect is not the source of the DNA, while a higher value could point to a suspect. In the bicyclist’s case, the FST found that there was a relatively low likelihood that the suspect’s DNA was part of the mixture on the left handlebar, but that the probability of it being part of the mixture on the right handlebar was quite high — 972,000 times more likely than the DNA of three random people. The two scientists said that in general, differences might arise because of the amount and quality of DNA collected. The Legal Aid Society filed a motion for a Frye hearing, which challenges the general scientific acceptance of new technology, to stop the introduction of the FST’s conclusions as admissible evidence. There are Frye hearings on FST scheduled in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx. The first hearing, on both FST and DNA collection, began on Wednesday in Brooklyn. Dr. Caragine presented four hours of scientific testimony while the defendant peered numbly at the PowerPoint slides. “It’s very important, because DNA has such a powerful reputation in the legal community and the public, where it enjoys a gold standard. But it’s not that simple,” said Jessica Goldthwaite, one of the lead Brooklyn Legal Aid lawyers. “The FST must be subjected to scrutiny outside their inventors’.” The scientists say they are confident. “If I was nervous that it wasn’t going to prevail, then we wouldn’t be using it today,” Dr. Caragine said."
The entire story can be found at:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/a-forensic-tool-helps-decide-guilt-or-innocence.html?ref=lizrobbins&_r=0
PUBLISHER'S NOTE
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
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 found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
