PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "For decades, police have used forensic tests to link bullets, hair, bite marks and footprints to possible suspects. Popular shows like CSI lead juries to believe those forensic tests are 100 per cent accurate. But many have never been tested, meaning there is little to no evidence they work. When bite-mark science was finally tested, it was discovered forensic experts could not even tell if a bite came from a human, let alone narrow it down to a single suspect. Since those problems came to light in 2016, the US and the UK have reformed their forensic evidence system. But Victoria Police refuse to accept their methods don’t work, Associate Professor Richard Bassed, deputy director of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine told The Age last month."
QUOTES OF THE DAY: "The risk of miscarriages of justice is always present when the science is doubtful,” said Daniel Gurvich, QC, chair of the bar association. In September, Justice Maxwell told The Age he held “profound concern” about the forensic evidence presented in courts. “With the exception of DNA, no other area of forensic science has been shown to be able reliably to connect a particular sample with a particular crime scene or perpetrator,” he said. "There have been a string of wrongful convictions across the world. The benefit of better DNA testing has shown that very many people convicted on the basis of 'crook science', for example bite mark analysis, were innocent.”
--------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Attorney-General calls for inquiry over fears innocent people being jailed," by reporter Liam Mannix, published by The Age on October 10, 2019. (Liam Mannix is the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald's Science Reporter.)
GIST: "Victoria’s
Attorney-General is calling for an immediate national review of
forensic evidence over fears flawed police forensics may be putting
innocent people in jail. An inquiry that confirms deep flaws in the accuracy of forensic science could see people convicted of serious crimes walk free. Two
major US reports have found there is little to no evidence police can
reliably match a bullet to a gun, match a footprint to a shoe, or match a
hair found at a crime scene to a suspect. The call for an inquiry comes after The Age revealed
senior legal figures including Chris Maxwell, president of the
Victorian Court of Appeal, had lost confidence in the accuracy of
forensic science. Late
last month Attorney-General Jill Hennessy wrote to her state and
territory counterparts urging them to launch a national review into
forensic science. The review should consider the accuracy of forensic evidence and the laws that govern how it is presented in court, she said. Changes
to evidence laws would need to be made uniformly by all participating
states, leading Ms Hennessy to take a national approach. The matter is set for discussion at the national Council of Attorneys-General meeting in November. "I’ve
also called for the establishment of a working group to consider these
important issues – because we need a national approach to ensure science
and technology to prove guilt or innocence is used reliably and
fairly," Ms Hennessy said in a statement. For decades, police have used forensic tests to link bullets, hair, bite marks and footprints to possible suspects. Popular shows like CSI lead juries to believe those forensic tests are 100 per cent accurate. But many have never been tested, meaning there is little to no evidence they work. When
bite-mark science was finally tested, it was discovered forensic
experts could not even tell if a bite came from a human, let alone
narrow it down to a single suspect. Since those problems came to light in 2016, the US and the UK have reformed their forensic evidence system. But Victoria Police refuse to accept their methods don’t work, Associate Professor Richard Bassed, deputy director of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine told The Age last month. On Thursday Ms Hennessy's call for a review was backed by Victoria Police and the Criminal Bar Association. “We
continue to be concerned about forensic evidence in court. The risk of
miscarriages of justice is always present when the science is doubtful,”
said Daniel Gurvich, QC, chair of the bar association. In September, Justice Maxwell told The Age he held “profound concern” about the forensic evidence presented in courts. “With
the exception of DNA, no other area of forensic science has been shown
to be able reliably to connect a particular sample with a particular
crime scene or perpetrator,” he said. "There
have been a string of wrongful convictions across the world. The
benefit of better DNA testing has shown that very many people convicted
on the basis of 'crook science', for example bite mark analysis, were
innocent.” He declined to comment on Thursday. Federal
Attorney-General Christian Porter had told Ms Hennessey he agreed the
issue should be discussed at the November meeting, his spokesman said. A
spokeswoman for Victoria Police said they "support this decision and
look forward to working with government and our stakeholders"".
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/attorney-general-calls-for-inquiry-over-fears-innocent-are-being-jailed-20191010-p52zil.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;
