COMMENTARY: " A closer look at the evidence," by Clyde Haberman, published by The New York Times on April 26, 2017.
SUB-HEADING: "The back story on bad forensic science."
SUB-HEADING: "With the Trump administration’s move to end a commission investigating flaws in forensic science, Retro Report looks at the history of one now-challenged method: hair analysis."
GIST: "Reverence for science has not been a conspicuous guiding spirit of the Trump administration, and forensic science is no exception. That was affirmed this month when Attorney General Jeff Sessions ended an advisory panel created under President Barack Obama to improve the reliability of crime-solving techniques like hair analysis, ballistics testing, bite-mark evidence, blood typing and shoe-print comparisons. This panel, the National Commission on Forensic Science, was made up of scientists, judges and lawyers whose brief was to raise the standards of laboratory work in criminal cases. What will emerge in its place is not clear. But perhaps not surprisingly, prosecutors in the main applauded the Sessions decision, and defense lawyers fretted that the rights of their clients could be undermined. The reality is that forensic science is not the infallible discipline that television shows like “CSI” may lead many viewers to believe. That point is underscored in this brief offering from Retro Report, a series of video documentaries re-exploring major news stories of the past. In real life, crime labs are not the exclusive domain of une rring Gil Grissoms and Dr. Quincys. Mistakes happen. And often enough, errors send innocent people to prison and even, in some instances, to death row. The video focuses on hair analysis, a staple of forensic work for decades. The advent of DNA testing in the late 1980s showed that hair samples found at crime scenes did not necessarily match those of criminal suspects, no matter what lab technicians may have concluded. “About 11 percent of the time, mitochondrial DNA said: ‘No, that hair actually came from someone else,’” Max M. Houck, a former forensics expert for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, told Retro Report. “It kind of shook us up.” And so it should have, says the Innocence Project...Mr. Sessions said that with the fade-out of the old commission, an in-house group at the Justice Department would work on a new strategy for forensics procedures. Nonetheless, his critics say they are troubled that an independent voice on science has been silenced."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/retro-hair-analysis.html?_r=0SUB-HEADING: "The back story on bad forensic science."
SUB-HEADING: "With the Trump administration’s move to end a commission investigating flaws in forensic science, Retro Report looks at the history of one now-challenged method: hair analysis."
GIST: "Reverence for science has not been a conspicuous guiding spirit of the Trump administration, and forensic science is no exception. That was affirmed this month when Attorney General Jeff Sessions ended an advisory panel created under President Barack Obama to improve the reliability of crime-solving techniques like hair analysis, ballistics testing, bite-mark evidence, blood typing and shoe-print comparisons. This panel, the National Commission on Forensic Science, was made up of scientists, judges and lawyers whose brief was to raise the standards of laboratory work in criminal cases. What will emerge in its place is not clear. But perhaps not surprisingly, prosecutors in the main applauded the Sessions decision, and defense lawyers fretted that the rights of their clients could be undermined. The reality is that forensic science is not the infallible discipline that television shows like “CSI” may lead many viewers to believe. That point is underscored in this brief offering from Retro Report, a series of video documentaries re-exploring major news stories of the past. In real life, crime labs are not the exclusive domain of une rring Gil Grissoms and Dr. Quincys. Mistakes happen. And often enough, errors send innocent people to prison and even, in some instances, to death row. The video focuses on hair analysis, a staple of forensic work for decades. The advent of DNA testing in the late 1980s showed that hair samples found at crime scenes did not necessarily match those of criminal suspects, no matter what lab technicians may have concluded. “About 11 percent of the time, mitochondrial DNA said: ‘No, that hair actually came from someone else,’” Max M. Houck, a former forensics expert for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, told Retro Report. “It kind of shook us up.” And so it should have, says the Innocence Project...Mr. Sessions said that with the fade-out of the old commission, an in-house group at the Justice Department would work on a new strategy for forensics procedures. Nonetheless, his critics say they are troubled that an independent voice on science has been silenced."
The entire commentary can be found at the link below;
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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/
