PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "In Keith’s case, there was no DNA that linked him to the crime. In fact, there was no physical evidence at all—no DNA, no fingerprints, and no gunshot residue. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that many frequently used forensic science techniques have no validity at all. This is especially true for pattern recognition analyses on tire treads, footwear, bloodstains, and other evidence of this type. Developed by law enforcement, these techniques are subject to numerous biases and have never been validated. The analysis conducted in Keith’s case involved the exact pattern recognition methods that lack validity. The only forensic evidence that could attempt to link him to the crime was a partial tire track impression and a partial license plate impression in the snow. What’s more, the forensic examiner on the case, Michelle Yezzo, did not even examine the tire tread impressions with an actual tire – instead, she compared a mold of the treadmarks with tire treads from a faxed brochure picture and concluded they were “similar.”
----------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Second, forensic science must be reliable. Reliability in forensic science usually refers to the reproducibility of the results: Do different examiners come to the same conclusion when conducting the same analysis of the same sample? We know little about Yezzo’s reliability, as her work was often not evaluated by other examiners. Sadly, a lack of oversight at forensic labs is not uncommon. On the very rare occasions Yezzo had her work checked, errors were documented in her personnel file. For example, she once concluded that a blood sample originated from a dog; three other examiners correctly concluded it came from a human. This incident, as well as others in her file, give rise to the grave concern that Yezzo’s error rate was high."
------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: Finally, best practice in forensic science requires a good system of independence—a process free of bias and conflicts of interest. To avoid bias, examiners should not be privy to any irrelevant information about the case, such as the suspect’s race or law enforcement’s opinion about whether the suspect is guilty, as such information can inadvertently bias an examiner. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen in Keith’s case: Yezzo, who had a record of making racial slurs at work, knew Keith was a Black man. She also knew that the detective she was working with thought the suspect was guilty and desperately wanted a positive identification. A note on the car tire picture the detective faxed over to Yezzo read, “Michelle - Hope this will do the trick for us”—as if she were on the law enforcement team seeking prosecution. In addition to documentation of racist remarks, Yezzo’s personnel file was full of letters from law enforcement describing her as a partner and collaborator, and thanking her for positive identifications that resulted in guilty verdicts. It is exactly this type of cozy relationship with law enforcement that undermines the independence of forensic science."
-------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE FOUR OF THE DAY: "In Keith’s case, the forensic examiner’s supervisors repeatedly expressed their concern about her relationship with law enforcement. Notes in her personnel file mentioned she would “stretch the truth to satisfy a department” and that she had a “reputation of giving dept. answer[s] [it] wants if [they] stroke her.” What’s alarming about the lack of independence in this and other cases is that the errors all go in the same direction—toward convicting innocent people and letting the real perpetrators go free. No doubt Yezzo would dismiss concerns that she is pro-prosecution, as she has done previously, and insist she can remain objective and impartial. Stating these qualities does not make them accurate. In fact, my own research has shown the opposite to be true: the more confident we are in our ability to remain objective and impartial, the more prone to bias we are. Even if Keith’s verdict is overturned, doubts about the validity, reliability, and independence of forensic science in the criminal justice system will remain."
----------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTARY: "For justice, forensic science must be scientific: The case of Kevin Keith," by Sunita Sah, MD PhD, published BY Forbes, on December 8, 2022. (A physician turned organizational psychologist. she served on the National Commission on Forensic Science."
GIST: "In 1994, Kevin Keith was sentenced to death in Ohio for a triple homicide, as recounted in Kim Kardashian’s new podcast The System.
Keith was scheduled to be executed in September 2010, but just thirteen days before his execution date, Ted Strickland, then the governor of Ohio, commuted his sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Strickland is convinced that “Kevin Keith is very likely an innocent man.” Yet 28 years after he was locked up, Keith remains behind bars.
The best practices of forensic science demand that it be valid, reliable, and independent. Unfortunately, as I reviewed the analysis in Keith’s case, I saw that none of this was true—instead his case was plagued with bad science, bad practice, in a bad system. The issues highlight systemic problems abundant in much of forensic science today.
Valid Science
First, forensic science needs to be valid—that means the methods must be accurate. To determine accuracy, we need to know the error rate: for example, how many false positives occur? If we don’t know accuracy, the method lacks scientific validity.
The gold standard in forensic science is DNA typing.
Developed from the science of molecular biology, it allows a person to be linked to a DNA sample with frequencies of less than one across the population of the world (i.e., less than one in eight billion).
In Keith’s case, there was no DNA that linked him to the crime. In fact, there was no physical evidence at all—no DNA, no fingerprints, and no gunshot residue.
In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that many frequently used forensic science techniques have no validity at all. This is especially true for pattern recognition analyses on tire treads, footwear, bloodstains, and other evidence of this type. Developed by law enforcement, these techniques are subject to numerous biases and have never been validated.
The analysis conducted in Keith’s case involved the exact pattern recognition methods that lack validity. The only forensic evidence that could attempt to link him to the crime was a partial tire track impression and a partial license plate impression in the snow.
What’s more, the forensic examiner on the case, Michelle Yezzo, did not even examine the tire tread impressions with an actual tire – instead, she compared a mold of the treadmarks with tire treads from a faxed brochure picture and concluded they were “similar.”
As a presidential science council concluded in 2016, “without appropriate estimates of accuracy, an examiner’s statement that two samples are similar – or even distinguishable - is scientifically meaningless.”
Juries place a lot of weight on forensic evidence, which plays an important role in securing criminal convictions.
Yet jurors are typically unaware that many forensic techniques have not been subject to scientific rigor.
They mistakenly assume such techniques are valid, robust, and well tested.
When this forensic pseudo-science is confidently presented in court, tragic miscarriages of justice are common.
Of the hundreds of people exonerated by DNA testing in recent years, nearly half were jailed at least in part due to flawed forensic science.
In 2015, the FBI reviewed 268 cases in which its examiners testified that hairs found at a crime scene incriminated a suspect: the experts were wrong in a staggering 96 percent (257) of cases, the bureau concluded.
This included 33 out of the 35 death penalty cases in this group. Horrifically, in nine of those cases, the suspect had already been executed.
Reliable Science
Second, forensic science must be reliable. Reliability in forensic science usually refers to the reproducibility of the results: Do different examiners come to the same conclusion when conducting the same analysis of the same sample? We know little about Yezzo’s reliability, as her work was often not evaluated by other examiners.
Sadly, a lack of oversight at forensic labs is not uncommon. On the very rare occasions Yezzo had her work checked, errors were documented in her personnel file. For example, she once concluded that a blood sample originated from a dog; three other examiners correctly concluded it came from a human. This incident, as well as others in her file, give rise to the grave concern that Yezzo’s error rate was high.
Unbiased Science
Finally, best practice in forensic science requires a good system of independence—a process free of bias and conflicts of interest.
To avoid bias, examiners should not be privy to any irrelevant information about the case, such as the suspect’s race or law enforcement’s opinion about whether the suspect is guilty, as such information can inadvertently bias an examiner.
Unfortunately, that didn’t happen in Keith’s case: Yezzo, who had a record of making racial slurs at work, knew Keith was a Black man. She also knew that the detective she was working with thought the suspect was guilty and desperately wanted a positive identification.
A note on the car tire picture the detective faxed over to Yezzo read, “Michelle - Hope this will do the trick for us”—as if she were on the law enforcement team seeking prosecution.
In addition to documentation of racist remarks, Yezzo’s personnel file was full of letters from law enforcement describing her as a partner and collaborator, and thanking her for positive identifications that resulted in guilty verdicts. It is exactly this type of cozy relationship with law enforcement that undermines the independence of forensic science.
Most publicly funded forensic science labs are closely associated with law enforcement, creating an inherent conflict of interest.
Many labs even rely entirely on law enforcement for funding, creating an expectation that they will collaborate favorably with the police. Such conflicts of interest have detrimental effects on decision-making, a large body of research shows. In the health-care realm, pharmaceutical industry representatives cultivate relationships with prescribing physicians they refer to as “key opinion leaders.”
Treated as special, these physicians unsurprisingly express views about prescription drugs that align with the interests of the drug company and their salespeople.
In Keith’s case, the forensic examiner’s supervisors repeatedly expressed their concern about her relationship with law enforcement.
Notes in her personnel file mentioned she would “stretch the truth to satisfy a department” and that she had a “reputation of giving dept. answer[s] [it] wants if [they] stroke her.”
What’s alarming about the lack of independence in this and other cases is that the errors all go in the same direction—toward convicting innocent people and letting the real perpetrators go free.
No doubt Yezzo would dismiss concerns that she is pro-prosecution, as she has done previously, and insist she can remain objective and impartial.
Stating these qualities does not make them accurate. In fact, my own research has shown the opposite to be true: the more confident we are in our ability to remain objective and impartial, the more prone to bias we are.
Even if Keith’s verdict is overturned, doubts about the validity, reliability, and independence of forensic science in the criminal justice system will remain.
Failure to address these systemic issues will continue to imprison innocent people—failing both victims and those falsely accused. The work of forensic science needs to be made clearly and irrefutably scientific: The stakes couldn’t get much higher."
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resurce. 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/
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
——————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
------------------------------
