QUOTE OF THE DAY: "I think there is a significant potential for miscarriages of justice,” Dr Roberts said. “For most forensic disciplines, we just don’t know how reliable they are. And that’s a problem. We don’t know error rates for techniques. We don’t know how reliable, how competent the expert witness is.”
-----------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY:" TV shows like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation often show scientists carefully matching 'tool marks' on a bullet with the muzzle of the gun that fired it. Again, there is just not enough evidence to show this technique works. Fingerprint evidence has only been recently shown to work – but comes with an error rate of around 1 per cent. Hair comparison has an error rate of 1 in 9. In the US, that finding has led to major changes in the forensics system. Not so in Australia, some experts argue. “There was a lot of lip service,” says Australian forensic scientist Mark Reynolds. “But if you want to be honest and courageous, there was no palpable change. “Nothing has changed. In my opinion, it has gone backwards.” Dr Reynolds was in charge of scientific quality in the Western Australia Police Force’s forensic science team. He retired in 2017."
-----------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "CSI not so scientific: Doubt cast on veracity of forensic evidence," by Science Reporter Liam Mannix, published by The Sydney Morning Herald on August 18, 2019.
GIST: "The use of forensic evidence such as firearms analysis, hair comparisons and some DNA samples presented in criminal cases is sometimes flawed and unscientific and likely to lead to the conviction of innocent people, experts say. Researchers have expressed serious concerns about the state of forensic science in Australia and the reliability of materials presented as evidence in court. Five major forensic science techniques either do not work or have no strong evidence proving they work, a 2016 US study found. The study cast doubt on techniques used to match a bullet to a gun, footprint analysis, hair comparison, DNA analysis of mixed samples, and bite mark analysis. Much of this evidence continues to be used in Australian courts. In 2016, a team of scientific advisers to the White House released a damning review of forensic science based on a review of more than 2000 scientific papers. Five of the seven forensic disciplines they studied were not based on strong evidence, they found. Most of the techniques are based on expert opinion, rather than objective facts, they found. In most cases there were no studies showing the techniques worked. Some of the studies found specific disciplines did not work at all. Experts claimed for many years to be able to conclusively match a bite mark to a suspect’s teeth. Yet when this was finally studied, it was discovered the examiners often could not tell if a mark came from teeth at all. TV shows like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation often show scientists carefully matching 'tool marks' on a bullet with the muzzle of the gun that fired it. Again, there is just not enough evidence to show this technique works. Fingerprint evidence has only been recently shown to work – but comes with an error rate of around 1 per cent. Hair comparison has an error rate of 1 in 9. In the US, that finding has led to major changes in the forensics system. Not so in Australia, some experts argue. “There was a lot of lip service,” says Australian forensic scientist Mark Reynolds. “But if you want to be honest and courageous, there was no palpable change. “Nothing has changed. In my opinion, it has gone backwards.” Dr Reynolds was in charge of scientific quality in the Western Australia Police Force’s forensic science team. He retired in 2017. Scientists are supposed to objectively study evidence, but most forensic scientists are police officers. “The police hypothesis is to prove that a suspect did it,” Dr Reynolds said. “The underpinning ethos is mutually exclusive.” Dr Reynolds, along with Melbourne University law school Associate Professor Andrew Roberts, University of NSW director of forensic psychology Professor Richard Kemp and Professor Gary Edmond, who directs the university's legal evidence program, all said they had serious concerns about the state of forensic science in Australia. “I think there is a significant potential for miscarriages of justice,” Dr Roberts said. “For most forensic disciplines, we just don’t know how reliable they are. And that’s a problem. We don’t know error rates for techniques. We don’t know how reliable, how competent the expert witness is.” When forensic evidence is presented, courts and juries tend to believe it rather than question it, according to Professor Edmond. “The forensic sciences have been treated as if they were all scientifically based,” he said. “Trials have not been fair. The value of evidence has been exaggerated.” For years, Australian courts used facial recognition experts who claimed they could recognise a suspect from a blurry CCTV image. Professor Kemp argues there is little evidence these experts can do what they claim. “That evidence was not scientific at all. There was no evidence these individuals were able to make these IDs at all, even though they were doing so with very high degrees of confidence. And there was reason to believe it probably did not work,” he said. Australian courts have taken steps to improve forensic evidence. Fingerprint examiners in Victorian courts are now routinely asked to tell the jury their error rates. And a practice note from Victoria’s Chief Justice now lists standard questions for forensic experts after concerns were raised they were not being properly questioned. Professor Adrian Linacre is chair of forensic science at Flinders University and president of the Australian New Zealand Forensic Science Society. He accuses critics of forensics of having an agenda. “Some people have picked up certain areas of forensic science and somehow tarnished all forensic science with them," Professor Linacre said. “We know the consequences of just how important our evidence is. None of us are employed to try to find people guilty, that’s not our jobs. We are all scientists.” Forensic scientists were called as experts to give their opinions, he said. Forensics worked well as long as they explained the limitations. “But some areas of forensic work don’t easily have an error rate,” he said. Dr Linzi Wilson-Wilde, director of the National Institute of Forensic Science, said considerable work strengthening the evidence for forensics had been done since the 2016 report. Hair and bite mark forensics were no longer used in Australia, she said. Bullet and shoe tread analysis continued to be conducted, but experts were accounting for the science's limits, she said. "There have been instances where the findings of the 2016 report were used to test the validity of forensic evidence in Australia," she said. "However, due to the rigour in which forensic findings are evaluated in Australia, the validity of the forensic sciences was accepted by the courts." Despite all the issues, defence lawyers still seem reluctant to examine forensic evidence, and courts don't often question the science. Stephen Odgers SC recently defended a client in a case where a forensic expert linked marks on the cartridge to a shotgun. There is no strong evidence a specific bullet can be linked to a gun – let alone a cartridge. Mr Odgers challenged the evidence on that basis, but the judge dismissed it. “So we’re going to appeal that,” he said. “One does what one can.""
GIST: "The use of forensic evidence such as firearms analysis, hair comparisons and some DNA samples presented in criminal cases is sometimes flawed and unscientific and likely to lead to the conviction of innocent people, experts say. Researchers have expressed serious concerns about the state of forensic science in Australia and the reliability of materials presented as evidence in court. Five major forensic science techniques either do not work or have no strong evidence proving they work, a 2016 US study found. The study cast doubt on techniques used to match a bullet to a gun, footprint analysis, hair comparison, DNA analysis of mixed samples, and bite mark analysis. Much of this evidence continues to be used in Australian courts. In 2016, a team of scientific advisers to the White House released a damning review of forensic science based on a review of more than 2000 scientific papers. Five of the seven forensic disciplines they studied were not based on strong evidence, they found. Most of the techniques are based on expert opinion, rather than objective facts, they found. In most cases there were no studies showing the techniques worked. Some of the studies found specific disciplines did not work at all. Experts claimed for many years to be able to conclusively match a bite mark to a suspect’s teeth. Yet when this was finally studied, it was discovered the examiners often could not tell if a mark came from teeth at all. TV shows like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation often show scientists carefully matching 'tool marks' on a bullet with the muzzle of the gun that fired it. Again, there is just not enough evidence to show this technique works. Fingerprint evidence has only been recently shown to work – but comes with an error rate of around 1 per cent. Hair comparison has an error rate of 1 in 9. In the US, that finding has led to major changes in the forensics system. Not so in Australia, some experts argue. “There was a lot of lip service,” says Australian forensic scientist Mark Reynolds. “But if you want to be honest and courageous, there was no palpable change. “Nothing has changed. In my opinion, it has gone backwards.” Dr Reynolds was in charge of scientific quality in the Western Australia Police Force’s forensic science team. He retired in 2017. Scientists are supposed to objectively study evidence, but most forensic scientists are police officers. “The police hypothesis is to prove that a suspect did it,” Dr Reynolds said. “The underpinning ethos is mutually exclusive.” Dr Reynolds, along with Melbourne University law school Associate Professor Andrew Roberts, University of NSW director of forensic psychology Professor Richard Kemp and Professor Gary Edmond, who directs the university's legal evidence program, all said they had serious concerns about the state of forensic science in Australia. “I think there is a significant potential for miscarriages of justice,” Dr Roberts said. “For most forensic disciplines, we just don’t know how reliable they are. And that’s a problem. We don’t know error rates for techniques. We don’t know how reliable, how competent the expert witness is.” When forensic evidence is presented, courts and juries tend to believe it rather than question it, according to Professor Edmond. “The forensic sciences have been treated as if they were all scientifically based,” he said. “Trials have not been fair. The value of evidence has been exaggerated.” For years, Australian courts used facial recognition experts who claimed they could recognise a suspect from a blurry CCTV image. Professor Kemp argues there is little evidence these experts can do what they claim. “That evidence was not scientific at all. There was no evidence these individuals were able to make these IDs at all, even though they were doing so with very high degrees of confidence. And there was reason to believe it probably did not work,” he said. Australian courts have taken steps to improve forensic evidence. Fingerprint examiners in Victorian courts are now routinely asked to tell the jury their error rates. And a practice note from Victoria’s Chief Justice now lists standard questions for forensic experts after concerns were raised they were not being properly questioned. Professor Adrian Linacre is chair of forensic science at Flinders University and president of the Australian New Zealand Forensic Science Society. He accuses critics of forensics of having an agenda. “Some people have picked up certain areas of forensic science and somehow tarnished all forensic science with them," Professor Linacre said. “We know the consequences of just how important our evidence is. None of us are employed to try to find people guilty, that’s not our jobs. We are all scientists.” Forensic scientists were called as experts to give their opinions, he said. Forensics worked well as long as they explained the limitations. “But some areas of forensic work don’t easily have an error rate,” he said. Dr Linzi Wilson-Wilde, director of the National Institute of Forensic Science, said considerable work strengthening the evidence for forensics had been done since the 2016 report. Hair and bite mark forensics were no longer used in Australia, she said. Bullet and shoe tread analysis continued to be conducted, but experts were accounting for the science's limits, she said. "There have been instances where the findings of the 2016 report were used to test the validity of forensic evidence in Australia," she said. "However, due to the rigour in which forensic findings are evaluated in Australia, the validity of the forensic sciences was accepted by the courts." Despite all the issues, defence lawyers still seem reluctant to examine forensic evidence, and courts don't often question the science. Stephen Odgers SC recently defended a client in a case where a forensic expert linked marks on the cartridge to a shotgun. There is no strong evidence a specific bullet can be linked to a gun – let alone a cartridge. Mr Odgers challenged the evidence on that basis, but the judge dismissed it. “So we’re going to appeal that,” he said. “One does what one can.""
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/csi-not-so-scientific-doubt-cast-on-veracity-of-forensic-evidence-20190816-p52hq9.html
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;
