PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I was thrilled to happen upon forensic toxicology consultant Aaron Olson's comments the on Motherisk Drug Testing laboratory scandal, which occurred on my turf in Toronto and still, years later, hovers like a black cloud over The once iconic Hospital for Sick Children. I was also thrilled to find a link to a paper, co-authored by Aaron Olson and Charles Ramsay which beautifully sets out many of the errors which can plague the science of toxicology and those who practice it - in short, 'Toxicology Gone wrong!
BACKGROUND: From his website: "Aaron Olson is a forensic toxicology consultant with an 18-year career spanning both public and private forensic toxicology laboratories. Mr. Olson’s professional journey includes key roles at the Minnesota State Crime Lab (Bureau of Criminal Apprehension) and Medtox Scientific, where he refined his skills in forensic toxicology. He serves as an expert in civil and criminal cases involving toxicology testing. He’s a sought-after expert who has testified in seven states across the US and as far away as Australia. While working for the Minnesota State Crime Lab, he analyzed biological fluids for alcohol, certified peace officers as Breath Alcohol Operators, testified in court, and maintained and certified the state’s breath alcohol analyzer."
—————————————————:
PART ONE: (From a Linked-In site); "The Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory scandal remains one of the most devastating failures in forensic toxicology history.
Over 35,000 flawed hair-strand drug and alcohol tests. Wrongful removal of children from families across Canada. Operations from the late 1990s through 2015 without forensic accreditation.
The laboratory misused ELISA screening tests as confirmatory evidence from 2005-2010. As Justice Susan Lang found: "No forensic toxicology laboratory in the world uses ELISA testing the way MDTL did."
Tamara Broomfield spent years in prison for allegedly administering cocaine to her two-year-old son based on Motherisk's flawed testing. Her conviction was overturned in 2014.
The laboratory was permanently closed in 2015. Dr. Gideon Koren relinquished his medical license in 2019.
But thousands of families had already been torn apart.
This holiday season, as coauthor Chuck Ramsay and I reflect on our published paper documenting toxicology errors, the Motherisk scandal reminds us: bad science doesn't just produce wrong numbers. It destroys lives."
------------------------------------
PART TWO: The paper: "Errors in toxicology testing and the need for full discovery," by Aaron Olson and Charles Ramsay.
THE PAPER: HIGHLIGHTS:
- •
Toxicology errors persisted for years, some over a decade before detection.
- •
External sources, not internal controls, typically discovered laboratory errors.
- •
Systematic withholding of exculpatory evidence violated defendants' due process rights.
- •
Institutional cultures often resisted disclosure and retaliated against whistleblowers.
- •
Comprehensive reforms needed: transparency, digital data retention, independent oversight.
-----------------------------------------------
THE PAPER: ABSTRACT:
Despite toxicology's foundation in analytical chemistry and quantitative measurements, it remains vulnerable to errors that can impact criminal justice outcomes. This paper presents a review of notable errors in toxicology collected over a combined 48 years of field experience. We highlight cases of toxicology errors from across multiple jurisdictions, categorizing them by type: traceability errors, calibration errors, discovery violations, maintenance failures, source code defects, fraud, errors due to interfering substances, reporting errors, laboratory contamination, and chain of custody breaches.
Our analysis reveals that many errors persisted for years before detection, with some lasting over a decade. Discovery often came from external sources rather than internal quality controls. Errors ranged from technical failures to deliberate misconduct, affecting thousands of cases. Notable patterns include institutional resistance to disclosure, retaliation against whistleblowers, and systematic withholding of exculpatory evidence. The compilation demonstrates vulnerabilities in toxicology. Key reforms needed include transparency through online discovery portals, mandatory retention of digital data, independent laboratory accreditation, whistleblower protections, and regular third-party audits. By examining past errors, the forensic science community can develop policies to prevent similar mistakes and enhance both scientific integrity and the pursuit of justice.
------------------------------------------------
THE PAPER: INTRODUCTION:
In recent years, forensic science has faced increasing scrutiny regarding its methods and reliability. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a report on the state of forensic science [1]. The report highlighted concerns regarding the lack of standardization and oversight, the absence of independence of forensic laboratories from law enforcement, bias affecting the results and their interpretation, and the lack of reporting on measurement uncertainty. The NAS report called for more rigorous methods and the creation of a forensic science institute independent from law enforcement. Subsequently, the 2016 President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report raised concerns about reliability and potential bias in methods such as latent fingerprint analysis and firearms identification [2]. In addition to calls for improvements in forensic science methods, there have been prominent cases of outright fraud and malfeasance by forensic scientists. Prominent cases were highlighted in Netflix documentaries such as The Staircase and How to Fix a Drug Scandal. In The Staircase, forensic scientist Duane Deaver was shown conducting dubious experiments using shoddy blood spatter techniques, which were later discredited by multiple experts in his field [3]. In Massachusetts, laboratory scandals involving Annie Dookhan and Sonja Farak brought to light serious ethical breaches. How to Fix a Drug Scandal showed Annie Dookhan “dry labbing” results—that is, reporting results without actually doing the analysis, while Sonja Farak was found to be using control standards to get high while working on drug cases [4]. The media coverage of the scandals brought attention to the need for more rigorous checks on forensic science. It also emphasized the importance of thorough and comprehensive discovery in the litigation process. While toxicology is often perceived as one of the more objective forensic disciplines due to its reliance on analytical chemistry and quantitative measurements, it is not immune to bias, fraud, and error [[5], [6], [7]]. Issues in toxicology often arise not only from the analytical testing itself, but from the interpretation of those results in a legal context. This paper highlights notable errors in toxicology that the authors have observed over a combined 48 years in the field of law and toxicology. The errors highlighted are not intended to be a comprehensive list but rather to serve as a basis for discussion for forensic scientists and legal professionals. The errors range from outright fraud to more subtle problems with calibration, chain of custody, instrument maintenance, compound identification, source code, traceability, and reporting. By highlighting and examining past errors, forensic professionals can learn from previous mistakes and develop policies to prevent similar mistakes from occurring in the future.
The entire paper cam be accessed at:
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/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.
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/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
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;
---------------------------------------------------------------
