the charles smith blog: November 2017

Thursday, November 30, 2017

Scott Watson: New Zealand: New murder Appeal filed around handling and identification of "two blonde hairs."... Claims a new "in-depth" forensic report challenges crucial evidence that led to his infamous conviction, the New Zealand Herald reports..." Watson was jailed for life after he was found guilty of murdering Ben Smart and Olivia Hope on New Year's Day in 1998. Smart, 21 and Hope, 17, went missing after attending a New Year's Eve party in the Marlborough Sounds. Watson has always denied murdering the pair and maintains he never even met them. The only physical evidence police presented that linked Watson to the young couple was two blonde hairs that were believed to be Hope's which were found on his sloop following the high-profile disappearance. Fairfax revealed today that a new appeal - an application for a Royal Prerogative of Mercy - has been filed on Watson's behalf to Governor-General Dame Patsy Reddy. The appeal centres around a report by a forensic scientist which challenges whether the hairs found on the sloop belonged to Hope. The report by Sean Doyle, who according to his website has more than 40 years' experience as a forensic scientist and who has provided expert evidence in major trials including Mark Lundy's, is also said to criticise the way police handled the evidence in the Sounds case. Doyle's report spans 22 pages and concludes that there were "weaknesses" in the way ESR handled and identified the hairs, Fairfax reported. "The hair and DNA evidence falls some way short of current standards and, in some respects, fell short of standards at the time," Doyle said. "If adduced today, the reliability of that evidence would be strongly challenged."

STORY: "Scott Watson murder appeal: new forensic report challenges evidence," published by The New Zealand Herald on November 26, 2017.

SUB-HEADING: "Much of the evidence used to convict Watson was circumstantial."

PHOTO CAPTION: "A group of Scott Watson supporters undertaking a series of marches between Christchurch and Picton to highlight their case that he is wrongly imprisoned for the Marlborough Sounds murders."

GIST: "Convicted double murderer Scott Watson has filed a new appeal, claiming a new "in-depth" forensic report challenges crucial evidence that led to his infamous conviction. Watson was jailed for life after he was found guilty of murdering Ben Smart and Olivia Hope on New Year's Day in 1998. Smart, 21 and Hope, 17, went missing after attending a New Year's Eve party in the Marlborough Sounds. Watson has always denied murdering the pair and maintains he never even met them. The only physical evidence police presented that linked Watson to the young couple was two blonde hairs that were believed to be Hope's which were found on his sloop following the high-profile disappearance. Fairfax revealed today that a new appeal - an application for a Royal Prerogative of Mercy - has been filed on Watson's behalf to Governor-General Dame Patsy Reddy. The appeal centres around a report by a forensic scientist which challenges whether the hairs found on the sloop belonged to Hope. The report by Sean Doyle, who according to his website has more than 40 years' experience as a forensic scientist and who has provided expert evidence in major trials including Mark Lundy's, is also said to criticise the way police handled the evidence in the Sounds case. Doyle's report spans 22 pages and concludes that there were "weaknesses" in the way ESR handled and identified the hairs, Fairfax reported. "The hair and DNA evidence falls some way short of current standards and, in some respects, fell short of standards at the time," Doyle said. "If adduced today, the reliability of that evidence would be strongly challenged." Auckland man Brian McDonald is behind the appeal. He met with Watson earlier this year after researching the case, Fairfax reported, and helped to raise the funds needed for Doyle to compile the forensic report. "The new evidence focuses on the how the hair samples were mishandled and how the evidence can't be looked at in isolation," McDonald told Fairfax. He hoped the report would push the government to order a retrial for Watson, arguably one of the country's most controversial killers, or quash his conviction entirely. Watson and his father Chris had both read the forensic report. Chris Watson confirmed the report to the Herald this morning. He believed it could go some way in helping with a retrial or acquittal for his son. "The fall-back position on new bits of evidence - and this is new evidence - was always 'but it's the hairs', and Brian McDonald has attacked the hairs pretty much," he said. However, he said the report still representing "just another wait and another kick in the teeth". "My hopes depend on the Criminal Cases Review Commission," he said. "The Justice Department is going to defend itself, Brian is prepared to take this further if he has to." Watson told Fairfax he and his son both backed the appeal. "Scott is optimistic, hopeful, with a touch of pessimism about the whole thing," he said. "He is getting on with life, he has got a lot to get along with." Chris Watson and his inmate son filed an application for a Royal Prerogative of Mercy in 2009. But after receiving advice from then-Justice Minister Judith Collins, the Governor-General denied the request. Watson has also appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council. Those attempts were also unsuccessful."

The entire story can be found at:

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Michael Slager: (Former North Charleston, South Carolina, police officer awaiting sentencing for fatally shooting an unarmed black man)...(From our 'when you think you've seen everything department'. HL)..." "Earlier this month, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions changed his account of what he knew about the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russia, he stressed that he had “always told the truth” as he remembered it at the time. “I’ve answered every question to the best of my recollection,” he testified in a closely watched congressional hearing. Now, in an unrelated matter, a former North Charleston, S.C., police officer is hoping that Sessions’s memory lapses will help him persuade a judge to show some leniency as he awaits sentencing for fatally shooting an unarmed black man."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In a federal court filing last week, Slager’s attorneys said the former officer had not, in fact, lied when he gave an ever-shifting account of the shooting during two years of investigations and court proceedings, at times contradicted by cellphone footage of the incident. Rather, they said, his memory had faltered under pressure. “A Swiss cheese memory is a symptom of stress, not an indicator of lying,” Slager’s attorneys wrote, citing testimony from a medical expert. To further illustrate the point, they quoted at length from Sessions’s testimony."

STORY: "Jeff Sessions’s ‘failure to recall’ gives defense lawyers new argument in police shooting case," by reporter Derek Hawkins, published by The Washington Post on November 28, 2017.

GIST: "Earlier this month, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions changed his account of what he knew about the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russia, he stressed that he had “always told the truth” as he remembered it at the time. “I’ve answered every question to the best of my recollection,” he testified in a closely watched congressional hearing. Now, in an unrelated matter, a former North Charleston, S.C., police officer is hoping that Sessions’s memory lapses will help him persuade a judge to show some leniency as he awaits sentencing for fatally shooting an unarmed black man. Federal prosecutors say that Michael Slager lied repeatedly about why he fired eight rounds at Walter Scott’s back in April 2015 and that he should be punished with an enhanced sentence for obstruction of justice. Slager’s defense attorneys disagree, and to bolster their argument, they’re citing Sessions’s appearance before the House Judiciary Committee on Nov. 14. In a federal court filing last week, Slager’s attorneys said the former officer had not, in fact, lied when he gave an ever-shifting account of the shooting during two years of investigations and court proceedings, at times contradicted by cellphone footage of the incident. Rather, they said, his memory had faltered under pressure. “A Swiss cheese memory is a symptom of stress, not an indicator of lying,” Slager’s attorneys wrote, citing testimony from a medical expert. To further illustrate the point, they quoted at length from Sessions’s testimony. In the November hearing, Sessions acknowledged for the first time that he remembered a meeting where a foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos, floated a possible meeting between then-candidate Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. He had previously said he didn’t think anyone from the Trump campaign had had communications with Russians. Sessions blamed those and other lapses on the chaos of the Trump campaign, saying “my story has never changed.” Slager’s attorneys saw a direct parallel. “Unlike Slager, who had been in what he perceived as a life and death struggle before he made his statements, Sessions had time to prepare for his Congressional testimony, yet still often got it wrong,” they wrote in their filing. “Why? According to Sessions, he was working in chaotic conditions created by the Trump campaign,” they continued. “This was undoubtedly stressful, though not as stressful as having shot a man to death, or dealing with the aftermath of that, or facing the death penalty or life in prison. As Sessions made clear in his statement, a failure to recall, or an inaccurate recollection, does not a liar make.” The unorthodox argument is seemingly designed to put the Department of Justice lawyers handling the case in an awkward position. If they continue to insist that Slager is a liar, the defense’s theory seems to go, then they’re essentially calling their boss a liar, too. “Like Sessions, Slager never lied or misled anyone,” the defense attorneys’ filing reads. “Like Sessions, he answered the questions that were asked. When he had his memory refreshed, he added the refreshed recollection to his testimony. When he failed to remember certain items, it can be attributed to the stress or chaos of the event during which the memory should have been formed.” Slager, 36, gunned down Scott, 50, in North Charleston after Scott fled a traffic stop for a broken brake light. Scott, who was unarmed, was running away when Slager fired on him. He died on the scene, struck by five of Slager’s eight shots. Cellphone video captured the shooting, which became a rallying cry for police accountability advocates around the country. After a mistrial on a murder charge, Slager pleaded guilty in May to a federal civil rights charge. Prosecutors said Scott posed no threat to Slager. Sentencing is scheduled to take place next week. The Department of Justice asked the court last week to find the underlying offense to be second-degree murder and to sentence Slager to life in prison. Defense attorneys contend the offense should be voluntary manslaughter. Prosecutors are seeking an enhancement on the sentence for obstruction of justice. They claim that Slager gave “false and misleading information to his supervisors and state investigators” and provided “misleading and inaccurate testimony under oath during proceedings in state and federal court.” Specifically, Slager told investigators that Scott had attacked him, stolen his Taser and was charging toward him when he opened fire. As the case progressed and footage of the incident showed otherwise, he changed his account, eventually saying stress had given him a “fuzzy” memory of the shooting. “All of the defendant’s false claims that Scott had acted aggressively towards him before the shooting were made in attempt to justify his unlawful shooting of the victim,” prosecutors wrote in their filing. The filing also alleges that Slager moved his Taser to make it seem like Scott was the aggressor. “For over two years, the defendant continuously lied about his conduct,” the filing read, “propagating a false and evolving narrative that he was attacked by Walter Scott.” Slager’s attorneys said that such a characterization was wrong. In addition to Sessions, they cited a forensic psychiatrist who testified that high levels of stress interfered with memory-building in both the short and long term."

The entire story can be read at:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/28/jeff-sessions-failure-to-recall-gives-defense-lawyers-new-argument-in-police-shooting-case/?utm_term=.48d7db33d7b8

test

testhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/28/jeff-sessions-failure-to-recall-gives-defense-lawyers-new-argument-in-police-shooting-case/?utm_term=.abcf596a8994

4:01

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Randox Testing Services/Trimega: Forensic test 'privatisation' crisis erupts on floor of British Parliament as MP's hear of criminal trials in jeopardy and children wrongly taken away from parents...". “In January Randox Testing Services informed Greater Manchester Police that here may have been manipulation of test results at their laboratories,” admitted Home Office Minister Nick Hurd, adding: “ongoing police investigations have uncovered that the same manipulation may also have occurred at Trimega Laboratories. Criminal investigations by Greater Manchester Police into alleged manipulation of toxicology results are still ongoing.” SNP MP Carol Monaghan MP accused the government of ignoring “warning signs” about Trimega “which had seen children almost taken into care on the basis of erroneous evidence. “This major mistake should have been a red flag to the government,” she added, insisting that had shown how “privatisation of vital elements of the justice system without proper oversight can lead to errors or deliberate tampering.”..." Forensic experts had warned since the Conservatives entered power in 2010 and first suggested privatising the nation’s forensic services that it could lead to mass miscarriages of justice. Now in the biggest recall of forensic samples in British criminal justice history, it appears that evidence from Randox Testing’s Manchester laboratory may have been manipulated. And that the same issues may have occurred at Trimega between 2010 and 2014.'

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Shadow home secretary Dianne Abbott asked “is it true that ministers did not consult the chief scientific adviser on the decision to privatise the forensic service – merely informed him of the decision two weeks before announcing it?”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Parliament hears criminal trials in jeopardy, children wrongly taken away from parents in growing forensic services privatisation crisis," by reporter Ben Gelblum, published by The London Economic on November 27, 2017.

GIST: "Shocking details of the scandal behind the urgent review of 10,000 criminal cases possibly tainted by faulty or manipulated forensic data have been aired in an emergency parliamentary debate. Westminster heard how the Government had been warned that “murders and rapists will go free” because of their policy of privatising forensic services. Judges’ adoption and fostering decisions have relied on questionable forensic data too. “What assurance can the minister give that children haven’t been removed under false forensic evidence?” asked Labour MP Chris Elmore as parliament heard how the government had ignored repeated warnings from the all party science and technology committee, the regulator and forensic scientists. Instead this integral part of the country’s justice system had been reorganised and privatised as part of austerity cuts. The Shadow Home Secretary Dianne Abbott had asked for an urgent statement from the Home Secretary on the growing scandal. But Policing and Fire Services Minister Nick Hurd stood in for Amber Rudd and faced a barrage of questions from the opposition, which he accused of being “driven by tribal politics.” But Graham Stringer MP hit back pointing to “three reports – not one or two – reports of the science and technology committee – all party – that criticised his government’s Home Office – for not consulting Professor Silverman – who was the Scientific adviser to the Home Office.” The Labour MP for Blackley and Broughton also brought up the repeated warnings of “Dr Tully – now the regulator of the forensic science services who said that murders and rapists will go free because of changes that his government made,” adding, “not one party – all parties made that conclusion.” Replacing a national forensics service with the private market in a climate of austerity has been as botched as those who worked in the field predicted. Operators are trying to get out of the sector and LGC, Britain’s biggest provider recently sold its forensics security wing to a European company. Police have suspended forensic tests with another provider Randox after two scientists were arrested on suspicion of tampering with data. “In January Randox Testing Services informed Greater Manchester Police that here may have been manipulation of test results at their laboratories,” admitted Home Office Minister Nick Hurd, adding: “ongoing police investigations have uncovered that the same manipulation may also have occurred at Trimega Laboratories. Criminal investigations by Greater Manchester Police into alleged manipulation of toxicology results are still ongoing.” SNP MP Carol Monaghan MP accused the government of ignoring “warning signs” about Trimega “which had seen children almost taken into care on the basis of erroneous evidence. “This major mistake should have been a red flag to the government,” she added, insisting that had shown how “privatisation of vital elements of the justice system without proper oversight can lead to errors or deliberate tampering.” Shadow home secretary Dianne Abbott asked “is it true that ministers did not consult the chief scientific adviser on the decision to privatise the forensic service – merely informed him of the decision two weeks before announcing it?” In what has rapidly become “the biggest forensic science scandal for decades,” the shadow home secretary explained how not consulting “evidence used in sex cases, violent crimes, driving cases and unexplained deaths” and highlighted the concerns of both victims of such crimes and those possibly wrongly convicted. “ Abbott demanded that the Government reveal the full scale of the scandal, whether other labs that had been contracted since the service was privatised may be involved in the scandal and what the likely cost to the public purse from retesting, criminal investigations, retrials and possible litigation might be. Forensic experts had warned since the Conservatives entered power in 2010 and first suggested privatising the nation’s forensic services that it could lead to mass miscarriages of justice. Now in the biggest recall of forensic samples in British criminal justice history, it appears that evidence from Randox Testing’s Manchester laboratory may have been manipulated. And that the same issues may have occurred at Trimega between 2010 and 2014. Around 50 trials have been dropped over the scandal, and two road deaths have been referred to the Court of Appeal. – A fraction of the cases possibly affected across 42 police force areas in England and Wales. Newport West MP Paul Flynn denied Nick Hurd’s claim that Labour were politicising the issue. He told the House of Commons today that the Government were at odds with the opposition and the scientific community. In a comment after the emergency debate, the former scientist and Labour MP told The London Economic: “False results are very rare – either by malice or incompetence. “There is a proud record of scientific integrity among laboratory technicians. Without reaching conclusions on this case, there were early warnings from the scientific community in 2012 that removing forensics into the world of commerce would expose its results to the dangers of manipulation.”
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/politics/parliament-hears-criminal-trials-jeopardy-children-wrongly-taken-away-parents-growing-forensic-services-privatisation-crisis/27/11/

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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.

Faulty 'pattern-matching' forensics; Explained by Jessica Brand, Legal Director of the Fair Punishment Project...."The examples above represent only three of literally hundreds of cases where faulty forensic testimony has led to a wrongful conviction. And yet as scientists have questioned the reliability and validity of “pattern-matching” evidence — evidence like fingerprints, bitemarks, and hair — prosecutors are digging in their heels and continuing to rely on it. In this explainer, we explore the state of pattern-matching evidence in criminal trials."

STORY: "Faulty Forensics: Explained," by reporter Jessica Brand, Legal Director of the Fair Punishment Project, published by Injustice Today on November 1, 2017. (In Justice Today is a national criminal justice news outlet, which produces compelling, original journalism and commentary that educates and inspires journalists, advocates, academics, officials, and others interested in criminal justice reform.)

GIST: "In 1994, bite mark “expert” Michael West testified that the bite mark pattern found on an 84-year-old victim’s body matched Eddie Lee Howard’s teeth. Based largely on West’s testimony, the jury convicted Howard and sentenced him to death. Expert’s have since called bite mark testimony “scientifically unreliable.” And sure enough, 14 years later, DNA testing on the knife believed to be the murder weapon excluded Howard as a contributor. Yet the state continues to argue that Howard’s conviction should be upheld on the basis of West’s testimony. [Radley Balko / Washington Post]

In 1978, a jury found Santae Tribble guilty of murdering a Washington, D.C., taxi driver. The verdict was based largely on testimony that his hair matched strands found in a stocking recovered near the crime scene, which was significant because the culprit wore a stocking mask. The prosecutor told the jury that there was “one chance, perhaps for all we know, in 10 million that it could [be] someone else’s hair.”
But it was someone else’s hair. Twenty-eight years later, after Tribble had served his entire sentence, DNA evidence excluded him as the source of the hair. Incredibly, DNA analysis established that one of the crime scene hairs, initially identified by an examiner as a human hair, belonged to a dog. [Spencer S. Hsu / Washington Post;
In 1985, in Springfield, Massachusetts, testimony from a hair matching “expert” put George Perrot in prison — where he stayed for 30 years — for a rape he did not commit. The 78-year-old victim said Perrot was not the assailant, because, unlike the rapist, he had a beard. Nonetheless, the prosecution moved forward on the basis of a single hair found at the scene that the examiner claimed could only match Perrot. Three decades later, a court reversed the conviction after finding no scientific basis for a claim that a specific person is the only possible source of a hair. Prosecutors have dropped the charges. [Danny McDonald / Boston Globe]

The examples above represent only three of literally hundreds of cases where faulty forensic testimony has led to a wrongful conviction. And yet as scientists have questioned the reliability and validity of “pattern-matching” evidence — evidence like fingerprints, bitemarks, and hair — prosecutors are digging in their heels and continuing to rely on it. In this explainer, we explore the state of pattern-matching evidence in criminal trials. Read on at the link below:"

https://injusticetoday.com/faulty-forensics-explained-cd102d3f0a2e

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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.

Monday, November 27, 2017

Randox Testing Laboratory debacle: Manchester; UK; Commentator Steve Thomas has an explanation in the Guardian for the "dubious forensic evidence" which has led to "the biggest recall of samples in British history." The Union official says" "Dubious forensic evidence? That's what happens when we sell off public services."..."The potential human impact could be devastating, both for victims and for people who are wrongly convicted. Since 2010, when proposals to close the Forensic Science Service – the publicly owned organisation that provided forensic analysis to the police – were first floated, professionals working in forensics, including many members of our union, have warned that it could lead to miscarriages of justice. Prospect members were shocked by the closure of the service. There were huge concerns about the wider implications, including the loss of experienced forensic scientists, the loss of impartiality of forensic evidence – and concerns that the private market lacked the capacity to deal with demand. The latest developments highlight what all those issues mean in reality."..."Forensics requires maintaining high levels of control, which is expensive. Individual private companies dealing with commercial demands can lose sight of why they are doing this work: they are delivering an essential part of the criminal justice system. There are already more reports emerging of child protection and family cases being affected by potential forensic manipulation. As well as the truly scary implications for individuals in the criminal justice system, this is one of the clearest examples of the damage of privatising public services. Rather than overlooking this and taking it as an isolated incident, the government must pay attention. This is a symptom of a sustained attack on public services."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY; "The data in question includes evidence used in sex cases, violent crimes, driving cases and unexplained deaths across England and Wales. This is about public trust in the criminal justice system. Without confidence in forensics – the fundamental evidence prosecutors rely on – convictions are open to serious scrutiny. The potential human impact could be devastating, both for victims and for people who are wrongly convicted."

COMMENTARY: "Dubious forensic evidence? That's what happens when we sell off public services," by Steve Thomas, National Secretary, Prospect Union" published by The Guardian on November 27, 2017.

SUB-HEADING: "The recent mass review of 10,000 criminal case samples shows what can happen when commercial demands get in the way of vital public services."

PHOTO CAPTION: "Alleged manipulation of forensic evidence has led to the biggest recall of samples in British criminal justice history."

GIST: "The mass review of 10,000 criminal cases because of concerns over forensic evidence is shocking – it’s the biggest recall of samples in British criminal justice history. But it comes as little surprise to our union. Forensic data handled by Randox Testing’s laboratory in Manchester is being questioned as it may have been manipulated. The implications of this mass recall are wide-ranging. The data in question includes evidence used in sex cases, violent crimes, driving cases and unexplained deaths across England and Wales. This is about public trust in the criminal justice system. Without confidence in forensics – the fundamental evidence prosecutors rely on – convictions are open to serious scrutiny. The potential human impact could be devastating, both for victims and for people who are wrongly convicted. Since 2010, when proposals to close the Forensic Science Service – the publicly owned organisation that provided forensic analysis to the police – were first floated, professionals working in forensics, including many members of our union, have warned that it could lead to miscarriages of justice. Prospect members were shocked by the closure of the service. There were huge concerns about the wider implications, including the loss of experienced forensic scientists, the loss of impartiality of forensic evidence – and concerns that the private market lacked the capacity to deal with demand. The latest developments highlight what all those issues mean in reality. There is clear evidence elsewhere that the private market isn’t working. The UK’s largest provider of forensics, LGC, recently sold its forensics security division to European company Eurofins, and there are rumours of other providers also looking to get out of the industry. Prospect has consistently warned that the pressure to provide services and deliver profit is a hard balance to strike. Forensics requires maintaining high levels of control, which is expensive. Individual private companies dealing with commercial demands can lose sight of why they are doing this work: they are delivering an essential part of the criminal justice system. There are already more reports emerging of child protection and family cases being affected by potential forensic manipulation. As well as the truly scary implications for individuals in the criminal justice system, this is one of the clearest examples of the damage of privatising public services. Rather than overlooking this and taking it as an isolated incident, the government must pay attention. This is a symptom of a sustained attack on public services."

The entire commentary can be found at:

https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2017/nov/27/dubious-forensic-evidence-privatisation-public-services

Trimega Laboratories: U.K. Bulletin: "Mother reveals how her baby was nearly taken for adoption because of false test results from a firm at the centre of forensics scandal," the Mail reports..."The woman said she was wrongly kept apart from her one-year-old daughter by social workers after a blood alcohol test mistakenly stated the mother had been drinking heavily. She said it was only because she spotted the error herself and insisted the sample be re-examined that she was eventually reunited with her child and received an apology from Trimega Laboratories, which carried out the test. It is just one example of a staggering 30,000 drug and alcohol tests carried out by Trimega that are being treated as unreliable."

STORY: "Mother reveals how her baby was nearly taken for adoption because of false test results from a firm at the centre of forensics scandal," by reporters Martin Beckford and Simon Murphy, published by The Mail on Sunday on November 25, 2017.

SUB-HEADINGS: "Woman says she was kept from her daughter, one, after a mistaken blood test; Test wrongly stated the mother had been drinking and social workers stepped in; It was only because she spotted the error herself she was reunited with the child; The test is one of 30,000 carried out by Trimega being treated as unreliable."

GIST: "A mother told last night how her baby was nearly taken for adoption because of a false test result from a firm at the centre of Britain’s biggest forensics scandal. The woman said she was wrongly kept apart from her one-year-old daughter by social workers after a blood alcohol test mistakenly stated the mother had been drinking heavily. She said it was only because she spotted the error herself and insisted the sample be re-examined that she was eventually reunited with her child and received an apology from Trimega Laboratories, which carried out the test. It is just one example of a staggering 30,000 drug and alcohol tests carried out by Trimega that are being treated as unreliable..........Speaking exclusively to The Mail on Sunday, the mother – who cannot be named for legal reasons – said last night: ‘I am horrified to hear that so many people might potentially be victims of this and have lost their children. 'Had I not been so persistent they would have done this to me. It will haunt me for the rest of my life. I had 18 months of hell.’"......... The woman said she was wrongly kept apart from her one-year-old daughter by social workers after a blood alcohol test mistakenly stated the mother had been drinking heavily. As Ministers admitted last week that ‘all tests carried out by the firm between 2010 and 2014 are currently being treated as potentially unreliable’, it could mean as many as 34,000 cases falling under suspicion. The firm went bust in 2014 and its records are feared to have been lost. The Department for Education has written to councils asking for details of cases where they used Trimega to test parents for drugs or alcohol. Two scientists who worked at both Trimega and Randox have been arrested by Greater Manchester Police. They were questioned on suspicion of perverting the course of justice and later bailed. Trimega’s founder Avi Lasarow said in a statement: ‘I sold my interest in Trimega Laboratories as part of a sale of the business in its entirety to Ingemino in February 2012. ‘This was following due diligence undertaken on behalf of the buyer. Following the sale no issues were raised with me by the buyers.’"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5117681/False-alcohol-test-nearly-saw-girl-adoption.html