STORY: 'Great Pause' Among Prosecutors As DNA Proves Fallible," by reporter Martin Kaste, published by NPR on October 9, 2015. (All Things Considered);
GIST: "Over the summer, the Texas Forensic Science Commission,
which sets standards for physical evidence in state courts, came to an
unsettling conclusion: There was something wrong with how state labs
were analyzing DNA evidence. It seemed the labs were using an
outdated protocol for calculating the probability of DNA matches in
"mixtures"; that is, crime scene samples that contain genetic material
from several people. It may have affected thousands of cases going back
to 1999. At first, they assumed the update wouldn't make a big difference — just a refinement of the numbers. But
when a state lab reran the analysis of a DNA match from a murder case
about to go to trial in Galveston, Texas, it discovered the numbers
changed quite a bit. Under the old protocol, says defense
lawyer Roberto Torres, DNA from the crime scene was matched to his
client with a certainty of more than a million to one. That is, you'd
have to go through more than a million people to find somebody else
who'd match the sample. But when the lab did the analysis again with the
new protocol, things looked very different. "When they
retested it, the likelihood that it could be someone else was, I think,
one in 30-something, one in 40. So it was a significant probability that
it could be someone else," Torres says. The change didn't
affect the outcome of that case because there was other evidence against
his client, but officials in Texas have just begun the process of
correcting the mistake. "We have to go back and identify which
of those cases involved DNA mixtures where the lab may have given
incorrect results," says Jack Roady, the district attorney in Galveston.
"It's going to be a herculean task, but we're gonna do it."... It's unsettling to find out DNA analysis can vary like
this because it threatens to undermine the deep faith people have
placed in the technology. "And it's not faith they should not
have had to begin with," says Keith Inman, who teaches forensic science
at California State University, East Bay. Inman has worked with
DNA evidence since the 1980s. He says forensic DNA-matching is based on
sound science, but sometimes labs can get ahead of themselves. What
happened in Texas, he says, is that labs have been using cutting-edge
"testing kits" that can extract tiny traces of DNA from crime scenes,
but those samples were then analyzed with math that's not suited to
"weak" samples that combine DNA from many people. He says the problem isn't limited to Texas. He says the newest,
best analysis method — called "probabilistic genotyping" — takes time to
roll out, and that's put labs in a quandary. "There's this interim time that cases are coming up and the
analyst has to do something with it, and they know by definition that
there is a better approach," Inman says. Meanwhile, the justice
system's hunger for DNA evidence just keeps growing.... In the
world of scientific research, this would be seen as normal; scientific
doubt is considered part of the process. But NYU law professor Erin
Murphy says in the world of courts and lawyers, those doubts aren't
always understood. "We have this tendency in criminal justice
to look for solutions to the most vexing problem, which is, 'How do we
find dangerous people and stop them?' And when we look for those
solutions, we like for them to be perfect," Murphy says. I feel like we're clinging to a life raft of DNA, and saying, 'Well this one will save us!' Murphy has written a new book about this called Inside the Cell: the Dark Side of Forensic DNA.
She says people should understand that DNA analysis can involve
"subjectivity," and she worries about the tendency of juries to look
past doubt. "[Juries] are even willing to go a step further and
say, 'We'll convict on the basis of DNA, even in the face of evidence —
non-DNA evidence — that this isn't the perpetrator," Murphy says. She
has a pet theory about this. She says the public has seen other kinds
of evidence discredited over the years, such as bite mark analysis and
hair analysis. Even eyewitness testimony is now seen as unreliable. So
we look to DNA. "I feel like we're clinging to a life raft of
DNA and saying, 'Well this one will save us!' " Murphy says. "But I
think that both wrongly inflates DNA's capabilities, and it also is just
overlooking the part of the story of these old techniques, where they
were used in our system for decades without challenge." If we
now push this technology too hard — say, by prosecuting someone on
nothing more than a genetic match — then DNA may also be headed for the
kind of reassessment that has battered the reputation of older types of
physical evidence."
http://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/447202433/-great-pause-among-forensic-scientists-as-dna-proves-fallible?sc=tw
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/
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;
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/447202433/-great-pause-among-forensic-scientists-as-dna-proves-fallible?sc=tw
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/
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;
