COMMENTARY: "Forensic evidence can be open to the same subjectivity that affects other types of evidence," by Conor Gallagher, published by the Irish Times on December 4, 2015.
SUB-HEADING: "Why forensic evidence may not be as certain as we'd like to think it is.
GIST: "There are
few certainties in a criminal trial – witnesses forget, barristers spin
and defendants lie. So thank heavens for forensic experts, those
objective specialists whose evidence is based in science and presented
as irrefutable fact. What though if the experts are as biased as the rest
of us? According to a growing number of studies, forensic evidence is
vulnerable to the same subjectivity that plagues other types of evidence
such as eye-witness testimony. Experts in the field of cognitive bias believe
forensic scientists are subconsciously influenced by many factors which
can affect the decisions they come to and the evidence they give in
court. The main problem is that when an examiner receives a piece of
evidence, they are also given details about the crime such as how
violent it was, whether there were eye-witnesses or if a suspect has
confessed. Such information can subconsciously prejudice even
the most experienced of scientists. Facts as basic as which side the
evidence comes from, the prosecution or defence, can influence the
findings. Dr Itiel Dror, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London,
was one of the first people to raise the problem 10 years ago. Since
then he has worked with forensic labs and police services around the
world, including the FBI and London Metropolitan Police, in an effort to
mitigate this bias. “Rather than looking at the evidence alone, forensic
scientists are influenced by expectations and information provided by
the context of the case which makes them see things differently and not
see things at all,” he says. “So really, we’re contaminating their minds
and not enabling them to look at the evidence impartially.”
According to Dror, one of the biggest problems is
that forensic evidence is usually treated in court as beyond reproach
and frequently not even challenged by the defence. It is so powerful it
can force defendants to plead guilty in the hope of a lesser sentence,
even if they are innocent. “Often forensic examiners overstate the
evidence and they rarely present the limitations and uncertainty. “Every
science has uncertainties, but they forget
their role. They think they’re there to help the prosecution or defence,
rather than presenting the evidence of what they’ve done, what they
know and what they don’t know. Their evidence comes across as impartial,
objective and very strong and it’s taken as that by the jury and the
judge. The examiners are playing a game which is not scientific, which
is actually anti-scientific.” In one of Dror’s most famous studies, he took sets of
fingerprints which had been examined by forensic scientists five years
before and found to be matching. He gave the same prints to the same
unsuspecting experts and this time told them they needed to examine them
because the FBI had mistakenly identified them as matching. Four out of the five experts changed their previous
conclusions and said they did not match. The only thing that changed
between the two examinations was the information about the FBI findings
and with it the clear suggestion the prints did not match.
Dror and his colleagues have since completed dozens
of studies which have enforced the view that seemingly innocent bits of
information can have a massive influence on findings, even with those
gold standards of forensics, DNA and fingerprinting. Juries are rarely told that matching a crime scene
DNA sample often comes down to a judgment call. DNA at crime scenes is
frequently mixed together with other people’s biological material,
meaning that matching it becomes much more complicated and subjective
than matching two pristine lab samples. The same goes for fingerprints. Pairs of prints taken
in the calm surrounds of a police station are easy to compare, but
criminals are rarely so obliging. Crime scene prints can differ due to
elasticity of the skin, the angle the print is left at and the material
it is left on. They can also be smeared or mixed with other prints.
“People say the fingerprint doesn’t lie, I say the
fingerprint doesn’t talk,” Dror says. “The problem is prints can be very
similar and the examiner has to decide if they’re similar enough to
come from the same person. That’s where the subjectivity comes in.” The
most infamous recent example of forensic bias is the case of Brendan Mayfield,
an American lawyer who converted to Islam and represented clients
accused of terrorism activities. Following the Madrid train bombings in
2004, the FBI
matched prints taken from a bag of detonators found at the scene to
those of Mayfield, despite the fact that he hadn’t left the US in over a
decade. The prints were even confirmed as a match by an independent
examiner. The FBI maintained the prints were a 100 per cent match, right
up until the Spanish authorities arrested the real suspect, an Algerian
national.According to Dror, Mayfield is just the tip of the
iceberg."
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/why-forensic-evidence-may-not-be-as-certain-as-we-d-like-to-think-it-is-1.2451
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; Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
