STORY: "Why it's so hard to keep bad forensics out of the courtroom," by reporter Rachel Mendleson, published by the Toronto Star on Friday June 12, 2015.
SUB-HEADING: "When bad science (or a bad scientist) infects the judicial process, things can go very wrong, very quickly."
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/06/12/why-its-so-hard-to-keep-bad-forensics-out-of-the-courtroom.html
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:
SUB-HEADING: "When bad science (or a bad scientist) infects the judicial process, things can go very wrong, very quickly."
GIST: "As post-conviction DNA testing has exonerated
hundreds of wrongly convicted, it has revealed the inherent danger of
what one New York Times op-ed column recently dubbed “the collision
between the law and science.” A big problem, says Toronto defence lawyer
Alan Gold, who wrote the book on expert evidence in criminal law in
Canada, is that most lawyers — along with police officers, judges and
jurors — simply don’t know enough to effectively challenge scientific
evidence. “We all went to law school to avoid the math
and science stuff,” Gold said. “The math and science stuff has pursued
us into the courtroom, and we are not very well-equipped to deal with
it.” Although there are standards for admissibility of evidence in both Canada and the U.S., critics say the bar is not high enough. A watershed report by the National Research
Council in the U.S. in 2009 found that with the exception of DNA
analysis, “no forensic method has been rigorously shown able to
consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a
connection between evidence and a specific individual or source.” Commonly used methods like shoe print analysis
and fingerprinting are important tools, the report concluded, “but many
need substantial research to validate basic premises and techniques.” In cases where there are competing scientific
experts, the arbiters are often jurors without scientific training,
which is less than ideal, said Hageman. “Why should it be up to a jury to listen to
two testimonies and figure out which is right and which is wrong?” she
said. “That’s the thing: the adversarial system doesn’t work that great
when it comes to trying to get the truth out of the science.”...Bad science and ruined lives: Flawed forensic science can have disastrous implications.
As these wrongful conviction cases show, some combination of bad
science — and bad scientists — is often to blame: Charles Smith cases: "Charles Randal Smith worked as a pediatric
pathologist at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children from 1981 to 2005.
Smith became the go-to expert in suspicious child death cases. However,
as an inquiry into flawed pediatric forensic pathology in Ontario
concluded, Smith had no formal training in this area, and believed his
role was to “advocate for the Crown,” and “to make a case look good.” He
testified outside his area of expertise, offered unsubstantiated
opinions and, in some cases, “made false and misleading statements to
the court,” the inquiry found. The fallout was catastrophic: Smith’s
flawed evidence led to 13 wrongful convictions."
The entire story can be found at:
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/06/12/why-its-so-hard-to-keep-bad-forensics-out-of-the-courtroom.html
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.
