STORY: "The surprisingly imperfect science of DNA testing: How a proven tool may be anything but," by reporter Katie Worth, published by the Marshall Project on June 24, 2015. (This story was produced in partnership with
Fusion and
FRONTLINE.) Thanks to the Wrongful Convictions Blog for bringing this insightful article to our attention. As the WCB points out: "DNA testing is the gold standard in forensic science, and it has been
used to free hundreds of innocent inmates since 1989. But it has also
falsely implicated other innocents, and it likely will do so even more
as labs push the technological envelope to solve crimes, the Marshall
Project reports
here. Add human error to the equation, and you have the recipe for potential disasters." Must Read. HL;
GIST: "Fahnestock’s answer was a simple acknowledgement
that even at its best, DNA science is not absolute. To Brian, it was
proof that DNA cannot be trusted. In the three decades since DNA emerged as a
forensic tool, courts have rarely been skeptical about its power. When
the technique of identifying people by their genes was invented, it
seemed like just the thing the justice system had always been waiting
for: Bare, scientific fact that could circumvent the problems of human
perception, motivation, and bias. Other forensic sciences had taken a stab at this
task. Lie detector tests, ballistics, fingerprinting, arson analysis,
hair examinations — all aim to provide evidence independent of the
flawed humans wrapped up in an investigation. But those methods were
invented by law-enforcement agencies eager for clues; it is now well
established that their results are not always sound. With few
alternatives, police and courts spent most of the 20th century hammering
away at justice with the rubber tools of traditional forensics. DNA was different. It came up through science,
which began, in the 1950s, to unravel the ways the double helix drafts
our existence. When DNA profiling led to its first conviction in a U.S.
courtroom in 1987, DNA had already vaulted through the validating hoops
of the scientific method. Soon it was accompanied by odds with enough
zeros in front of the decimal to eliminate reasonable doubt. Today, most of us see DNA evidence as terrifically persuasive: A
2005 Gallup poll found that 85 percent of Americans considered DNA to be either very or completely reliable.
Studies
by researchers at the University of Nevada, Yale, and Claremont McKenna
College found that jurors rated DNA evidence 95 percent accurate and
between 90 and 94 percent persuasive, depending on where the DNA was
found. That faith could be shaken, but only when lawyers made a
convincing case that a lab had a history of errors. Otherwise, the mere introduction of DNA in a courtroom seemed to stymie any defense.
“A mystical aura of definitiveness often surrounds the value of DNA evidence,” the studies’ authors wrote. In many cases, this aura is deserved. The method
is unequivocal when it tests a large quantity of one person’s
well-preserved genes, when it’s clear how that evidence arrived at a
crime scene, and when the lab makes no errors in its work.
But those are not circumstances enjoyed by every
criminal investigation........."
The entire post can be fund at:
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/06/24/the-surprisingly-imperfect-science-of-dna-testing
See Mike Bowers comments on this article by Mike Bowers on his informative site CSIDDS: (Link below); "The best journalism on this subject I have so far seen in print. From the Marshall Project. It describes the influence of DNA popularity with juries juries
amounting to I call a “Reverse CSI Effect.” The original CSI effect
(according to prosecutors) being juries expecting more TV-like forensic
sci evidence before rendering a guilty verdict. The “reverse” is
juries’s incredibly high belief in DNA accuracy when it does show up in
criminal trials. This article looks at the other side of that coin, It tells the tale of interpretative limits of Low Cell Number
mixed DNA specimens, and the nether world of poor evidence
preservation, bio-interpretation disagreement, expectational bias, and
the unsettling disparity in DNA profiling options and standards. Juries don’t seem to understand how “amped up DNA” taken from a low
number of cells and the use of diverse testing “assumptions” leads to
diasagreement and doubts regarding its reliability. The article clearly says that RMP studies within multiple law
enforcement run databases are frowned upon or outright considered
secret. The scant look that IS available should influence a layman to
wonder further about weaknesses in certain aspects. Even committees of experts within the field take a dim view of each other. Barry Scheck has a substantial quote. My layman view is that LCN DNA reliability may be useful for suspect elimination. Here’s a short excerpt. “In the three decades since DNA emerged as a forensic tool, courts have rarely been skeptical about its power.”"
http://csidds.com/2015/06/25/the-reverse-csi-effect-and-imperfect-aspects-of-lcn-dna-ignored-the-marshall-project/
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;
