EDITORIAL: "Junk science at the F.B.I.," published by the New York Times on April 27, 2015.
GIST: The Justice Department is working with the Innocence Project and
the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers to notify the
defendants in those cases that they may have grounds for an appeal. It
cannot, however, address the thousands of additional cases where
potentially flawed testimony came from one of the 500 to 1,000 state or
local analysts trained by the F.B.I. Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the
Innocence Project, rightly called this a “complete disaster.” Law enforcement agencies have long known of the dubious value of hair-sample analysis. A
2009 report
by the National Research Council found “no scientific support” and “no
uniform standards” for the method’s use in positively identifying a
suspect. At best, hair-sample analysis can rule out a suspect, or
identify a wide class of people with similar characteristics. Yet
until DNA testing became commonplace in the late 1990s, forensic
analysts testified confidently to the near-certainty of matches between
hair found at crime scenes and samples taken from defendants. The F.B.I.
did not even have written standards on how analysts should testify
about their findings until 2012. If
the early results of the new review are any indication, there are many
more wrongful convictions waiting to be discovered. In the District of
Columbia alone, three of the seven men whose convictions involved
erroneous hair-sample testimony have already been exonerated. That
should be no surprise, since it is hard to imagine that juries would
discount the testimony of a F.B.I. forensics expert with years of
experience. The
difficulty now is in identifying and addressing the remaining cases
quickly and thoroughly. Most of the convictions are decades old;
witnesses, memories, and even evidence may be long gone. And courts have only
made the problem worse
by purporting to be scientifically literate, and allowing in all kinds
of evidence that would not make it within shouting distance of a
peer-reviewed journal. Of the 329 exonerations based on DNA testing
since 1989, more than one-quarter involved convictions based on
“pattern” evidence — like hair samples, ballistics, tire tracks, and
bite marks — testified to by so-called experts. While
the F.B.I. is finally treating this fiasco with the seriousness it
deserves, that offers little comfort to the men and women who have spent
decades behind bars based on junk science."
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/opinion/junk-science-at-the-fbi.html?_r=0
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
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/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
I look forward to hearing from readers at:
hlevy15@gmail.com.
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
