PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Scientists responsible for implementing the system knew at the time that it was failing to recover DNA, and there had been warnings internally that it was not ready to go live because yields were too low. Independent forensic biologist Kirsty Wright said reporting scientists in the lab who were sent the document were deceived by its claims that the new system was exceptional at recovering DNA. Those scientists had gone on to provide false and misleading information to courts in criminal cases, Dr Wright said. “I believe this is the most crucial document in the inquiry. It shows fake data was presented to the lab in a ‘fact sheet’. It shows deception,” she said. “This document proves it was introduced by lies.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: Networked Knowledge Media Report: "2023 DNA lab’s fake facts key 'proof of its lies," by David Murray and Hedley Thomas: The Australian; Published on November 24, 2024." (From Networked Knowledge DNA Inquiry Homepage);
GIST: "A document described as a “fact sheet” misled dozens of scientists and Queensland Health on the eve of the launch of a DNA testing system that was doomed to fail and became the world’s biggest forensics disaster.
This key document, discovered as part of investigations by the second commission of inquiry into Queensland’s DNA fiasco, was not the subject of any findings by the inquiry’s commissioner, Annabelle Bennett SC, and barely featured during public hearings in which scientists were questioned.
The “fact sheet” sent to staff by then-managing scientist Vanessa Ientile just days before the new robotic system was launched in October 2007 falsely claimed it generated “higher yields” of DNA than the manual method in use.
The lab was rushing to launch the automated system to deal with testing backlogs that were causing the state government to come under fire from the courts, the opposition and the public.
An accompanying graph in the document purported to present proof that the new automated system was vastly superior at recovering DNA from samples. The document used different data that presented a factually wrong but seemingly superior set of results.
Scientists responsible for implementing the system knew at the time that it was failing to recover DNA, and there had been warnings internally that it was not ready to go live because yields were too low.
Independent forensic biologist Kirsty Wright said reporting scientists in
the lab who were sent the document were deceived by its claims that the new system was exceptional at recovering DNA.
Those scientists had gone on to provide false and misleading information to courts in criminal cases, Dr Wright said. “I believe this is the most crucial document in the inquiry.
It shows fake data was presented to the lab in a ‘fact sheet’. It shows deception,” she said. “This document proves it was introduced by lies.”
The document and associated emails were provided to retired Federal Court judge Dr Bennett as part of her $2.5m six-week inquiry into the failed testing system but were not mentioned in her final report this week.
Criminals may have evaded justice in nine years of cases that the “fatally flawed” system was in use, in a devastating blow to victims of crime, the inquiry
found.
No one was held responsible, with Dr Bennett blaming governance failures in the lab and finding there was no evidence that scientists engaged in deliberate misconduct.
The second commission of inquiry followed retired judge Walter Sofronoff KC’s original inquiry into the lab last year.
The inquiries were launched as a result of Dr Wright’s investigations with The Australian’s podcasts Shandee’s Story and Shandee’s Legacy.
What scientists in the lab were seeing in the “fact sheet” were results from the manual DNA IQ method, not the automated method that was about to be launched.
While the manual method had been found to work well, the
automated method was failing to recover DNA in the hands of the lab.
The senior scientist leading the automation project, Tom Nurthen, told the inquiry he was concerned in 2007 that the new robotic system was not ready to go live because yields were too low.
He said he raised these concerns with Ms Ientile in project update meetings on October 9 and October 16, 2007.
Minutes of the second meeting record a decision to implement the system and then
“optimise”, or fix it, later.
On October 24, 2007, Ms Ientile emailed staff the “fact sheet” that
falsely claimed the new automated system generated “higher yields” of DNA.
One member of the automation group, scientist Vojtech Hlinka, emailed Ms Ientile just eight minutes later, telling her it was “slightly misleading” because the yields presented were from a manual method not the automated method.
“This data has not been shown and it may arouse some questions when we do start getting results that are not significantly better in yield,” Mr Hlinka wrote.
Ms Ientile forwarded the reply to Mr Nurthen the same day. “For you to deal with please,” she wrote.
The new system was launched on October 27, 2007.
There was no evidence the problems it had recovering DNA were ever resolved before it ceased being used in 2016, Dr Bennett found. Dr Wright said she expected the document to be a key line of questioning at the inquiry but that did not eventuate.
“This is not consistent with the conclusions of the commission of inquiry report, that the scientists involved were doing the best they could at the time, and the method was only introduced because there was lack of quality assurance,” Dr Wright said.
If reporting scientists had been shown the system’s real results “there is no way they would take them to court or let the method be introduced”, Dr Wright said.
Iman Muharam, Ms. (sic) Ientile and Mr Nurthen are named on the fact sheet as authors. They deny any wrongdoing."
The entire story can be read at:
http://netk.net.au/DNA/DNA54.pdf
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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;
------------------------------
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater's attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, "Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it's the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.
https://deadline.com/2021/11/alice-sebold-lucky-rape-conviction-overturned-anthony-broadwater-12348801
————————————————————————————————
MORE VALUABLE WORDS: "As a former public defender, Texas' refusal to delay Ivan Cantu's execution to evaluate new evidence is deeply worrying for the state of our legal system. There should be no room for doubt in a death penalty case. The facts surrounding Cantu's execution should haunt all of us."
