PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In May of this year, ProPublica and The New York Times Magazine extensively reviewed Joe Bryan’s 1986 murder conviction. A jury had found that Bryan murdered his wife, in large part due to testimony by a police investigator with a 40-hour training certificate in bloodstain-pattern analysis. Bryan was convicted despite there being an alibi, character witnesses, and physical evidence that suggested his innocence. In the aftermath, several experts with far more experience rebutted the bloodstain-pattern testimony and concluded that there should have been a retrial. With that said, this case isn’t a one-off. There are many police investigators who testify as bloodstain-pattern experts despite possessing only cursory training certificates. This is one of several examples of how faulty forensics have forced innocent people into prison. To be exact, false or misleading forensic science is responsible for 24 percent of the 2,258 exonerations that have occurred in this country since 1989, according to the National Registry of Exonerations."
STORY: "When Forensic Evidence Goes Bad A whole cottage industry has been built around hair, blood, and bite-mark analyses---but what happens when it puts the wrong people in jail?, by writer Brian Saady, published by The American Conservative on August 28, 2018. (Brian Saady is the author of the series Rackets, which chronicles the legalization of drugs and gambling, and the decriminalization of prostitution);
GIST: “(It is better) that ten guilty persons
escape than that one innocent suffer.” It was the 18th-century English
jurist Sir William Blackstone who first coined this theoretical basis of
criminal justice, and it’s a principle with which a majority of Americans agree. Unfortunately, far too many criminal
convictions have been overturned due to false evidence, including what
is often considered to be gospel—forensic evidence. Forensic science is a fundamental tool
of the criminal justice system. However, a growing number of scandals
have illustrated that not everyone in this field is qualified or immune
to systemic bias. And as research continues to develop, some forms of
forensic science have been proven to be, well, unreliable. Science as a law enforcement tool has
become wildly popular over the last two decades—from its pervasiveness
in higher education criminal justice programs to its persistent presence
in media culture (see: NCIS and its spinoffs). But its credibility has
nonetheless been an issue for many years. For example, former FBI agent
Frederic Whitehurst, who began working in the bureau’s crime lab in
1994, immediately noticed that many of the staffers were not qualified to conduct scientific analysis. He subsequently became a whistleblower and exposed that many FBI staffers had falsely testified about the level of their expertise and reliability of their evidence. Whitehurst’s dogged quest for
upholding the integrity of the system led to his ouster in 1998. His
efforts resulted in some internal reforms, but many of the systemic
problems appear unresolved more than 20 years later. Meanwhile, in 2015, the Department of
Justice, the FBI, the Innocence Project, and the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) released an alarming report
that found a 90 percent error rate in 500 FBI cases that the team
reviewed. Remarkably, 26 out of 28 FBI hair analysis “experts” provided
erroneous statements. Worst of all, several people were executed as a
result of this evidence. Of the 35 cases that ended in a death penalty
sentencing, 33 included erroneous statements from FBI staff. TV and movies have promoted another
type of forensic science—bite mark analysis–whose validity numerous
studies have nullified. Among them is one by the Obama administration’s Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in 2016. Popular culture also loves to promote
bloodstain pattern analysis as being foolproof, but it’s anything but.
Even experts with years of training at times disagree on the conclusions
from this evidence. In May of this year, ProPublica and The New York Times Magazine extensively reviewed Joe Bryan’s 1986 murder conviction. A jury had found that Bryan murdered his wife, in large part due to testimony by a police investigator with a 40-hour training certificate in bloodstain-pattern analysis. Bryan was convicted despite there
being an alibi, character witnesses, and physical evidence that
suggested his innocence. In the aftermath, several experts with far more
experience rebutted the bloodstain-pattern testimony and concluded that
there should have been a retrial. With that said, this case isn’t a
one-off. There are many police investigators who testify as
bloodstain-pattern experts despite possessing only cursory training
certificates. This is one of several examples of how
faulty forensics have forced innocent people into prison. To be exact,
false or misleading forensic science is responsible for 24 percent of
the 2,258 exonerations that have occurred in this country since 1989,
according to the National Registry of Exonerations. As a proactive measure, the Obama
administration formed the National Commission on Forensic Science in
2013 to improve standards. However, Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions
decided last year to discontinue the commission. Likewise, several scandals have
exposed the poor standards and lack of independence in many crime labs
where evidence is handled. Annie Dookhan, a chemist with the
Massachusetts state drug lab, was found to have falsified evidence in
over 21,000 cases. She was highly regarded by her supervisors because
she processed over three times as many cases as other analysts. Her secret to success was simply not doing all of the necessary tests, or any at all. This scandal, like many others, demonstrated the institutional bias within many crime labs. Moreover, emails
show that the conflict of interest went well beyond the implicit in
Dookhan’s case. She was in close contact with prosecutors and viewed
herself as part of the team. Whereas with defense attorneys, she was
hesitant to even respond. This was not an isolated incident.
Scandals in other cities vary by degrees of incompetence and deceit but
the general theme more or less involves unqualified staff and/or biased
analysts. An audit from two years ago of
the crime lab in Austin, Texas, found that one tech with nearly 5,000
drug cases under his belt had “a lack of understanding of chemistry” and
a 33 percent error rate. Regardless, he received a promotion due to limited staffing. One year earlier, it was revealed that the San Francisco crime lab had a criminologist who withheld DNA evidence linked to the likely killer in a 2010 double homicide case. That’s just one of multiple issues at that lab—two criminologists there failed national proficiency tests and a technician stole large amounts of cocaine back in 2010. We need to heed the words of Sir
William Blackstone because the evils of punishing the innocent are far
worse than letting the guilty go free. Right now we seem to have a
system that assumes the opposite—and unfortunately forensic evidence,
regarded as unimpeachable by so many, is part of the problem."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/__trashed-6/
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/__trashed-6/
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/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
