COMMENTARY: "The Next Page: Four experts explain why forensic analysis of crime scenes is not as reliable as you might think," published by the Pittsburg Post-Gazette on March 13, 2016.
(Lucas Mentch (lmentch@samsi.info) is an assistant professor of statistics at the University of Pittsburgh, currently on leave to participate in the 2015-2016 SAMSI program dealing with statistics in forensic science. Maria Cuellar (mcuellar@cmu.edu) is a doctoral student in statistics and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. William C. Thompson (william.thompson@uci.edu) is professor of criminology, law and society at the University of California, Irvine. Clifford Spiegelman (cliff@stat.tamu.edu) is distinguished professor of statistics at Texas A&M University.)
SUB-HEADING: "In a popular TV show, academics Lucas Mentch, Maria Cuellar, William C. Thompson and Clifford Spiegelman see grave shortfalls with crime-solving science."
GIST: "Like many Americans, we were riveted by “Making a Murderer,” Netflix’s true-life series about Steven Avery, a Wisconsin man who served 18 years in prison for sexual assault, was exonerated of that crime and released, then arrested and convicted for the 2005 murder of photographer Teresa Halbach. Avery’s nephew, Brendan Dassey, also was convicted of the murder. The series has raised questions about the actions and motives of law enforcement. Avery was exonerated of the sexual assault because of DNA evidence and the help of the Wisconsin Innocence Project. Now, DNA is an issue in efforts to overturn his murder conviction. We have a professional interest in forensic science. We are academics who have been participating in a year-long evaluation of forensics sponsored by the Statistical and Applied Mathematical Sciences Institute with funding from the National Science Foundation. Among other issues, participants are studying fingerprint and shoe print quality and examiner bias. In the evidence against Steven Avery, we saw striking examples of problems we have been studying.........These problems are not unique to the Avery case. According to the Innocence Project, about half of DNA-related exonerations resulted from the authorities’ misapplication of forensic science; one analysis found that forensic scientists overstated their findings in more than 60 percent of cases. We see inadequate validation and potential issues of bias frequently in the forensic science evidence we examine. But the Avery case illustrates dramatically why it is important that these problems be addressed. When the liberty of a human being is on the line, the scientific evidence on which we rely must be as valid and unbiased as possible."
The commentary can be found at:
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2016/03/13/The-Next-Page-Four-experts-explain-why-forensic-analysis-of-crime-scenes-is-not-as-reliable-as-you-might-think/stories/201603200003
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
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.
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com;
Harold Levy;
Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
