Cleveland Barrett: Misuse of DNA evidence when powerful science is mixed with junk science. Chicago Tribune.

STORY: "Weak DNA evidence could undermine justice," experts say: Defence attorneys fear wrongful convictions, confusion from juries when statistical probabilities of 'match' aren't rare," by reporter Steve Mills, published in the Chicago Tribune on July 5, 2012.

PHOTO CAPTION: "Cleveland Barrett was accused of the sexual assault of a 9-year-old girl and prosecutors presented DNA evidence at his trial earlier this year. But the probabilities that Barrett was not linked to the DNA were not of the 1-in-several-billion sort; instead, a crime lab analyst said the DNA would match 1 in 4 African-American males. Barrett was acquitted."

GIST: "When Cook County prosecutors brought Cleveland Barrett to trial earlier this year for the predatory criminal sexual assault of a 9-year-old girl, they presented the jury hearing the case testimony from the alleged victim plus the kind of evidence that long has won convictions with its scientific certainty: DNA. Indeed, Assistant State's Attorneys Krista Peterson and Jane Sack told jurors in closing arguments that the DNA obtained from the victim after the alleged incident in July 2010 was a match to Barrett's genetic profile and evidence that corroborated the victim's trial testimony. "Who is the major profile in the DNA that's found?" Sack asked the jury, according to a transcript from the trial. "The defendant." But this DNA was different. It was not from semen, as is often the case in rapes; instead it came from male cells found on the girl's lips. What's more, the uniqueness of the genetic link between the DNA and Barrett was not of the 1-in-several-billion sort that crime lab analysts often testify to in trials with DNA evidence. Instead, when Illinois State Police crime lab analyst Lisa Fallara explained the statistical probabilities, she testified the genetic profile from the cells matched 1 in 4 African-American males, 1 in 8 Hispanic males and 1 in 9 Caucasian males. Fact is, the DNA profile from the cells on the victim's lips could have matched hundreds of thousands of men in the Chicago region.........O'Reilly said trial court judges need to be vigilant in weighing whether a jury should hear such DNA evidence or whether it should be kept out. "It doesn't only run the risk of convicting an innocent person or letting bad science into the courtroom, but you're going to undermine the very power that's behind DNA in the public consciousness," O'Reilly said. "The meaning of 'match' will become so trivialized that you'll mix powerful science with junk science, powerful evidence with junk evidence. It's going to lead to a lot of confusion. Because this is DNA.""

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-dna-questions-20120705,0,4187485.story

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:

I am monitoring DNA related forensic issues. 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.

Bulletin: Malcolm Ricketts: "Mom blames disgraced doctor (Charles Smith) for lying about maiming child." Reporter Sam Pazzano; Toronto Sun.

STORY: "Mom blames disgraced doctor for lying about maiming child," by reporter Sam Pazzano, published in the Toronto Sun on June 11, 2012.

GIST: "The girlfriend of a man accused of severely assaulting her and maiming their baby testified Wednesday she falsely implicated him to avoid being charged with murder. A weepy Christina Hammond testified she feared being another victim of disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith, so she gave an incriminating statement to police against Malcolm Ricketts, her lover and father of their child, Heaven Hammond-Ricketts, in March 2010. “I thought I could be going to jail for murder for a baby shaking case. Charles Smith sent away a list of innocent families and I felt we were going to be held responsible,” Hammond told Madam Justice Bonnie Croll in the judge-alone trial. A provincial inquiry found problems with 20 cases that Smith — the former chief pediatric pathologist — had worked on, with 13 of them leading to wrongful convictions. Heaven was 3 1/2 months old when she was rushed to hospital on March 6, 2010 with internal bleeding in her brain, two broken legs and 10 healing rib fractures. She now has cerebral palsy and is permanently developmentally delayed. She cannot walk, talk or see properly, court heard. The prosecution is alleging that Heaven was alone with her father when she suffered injuries consistent with a violent shaking."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/11/mom-blames-disgraced-doctor-for-lying-about-maiming-child

Toronto Star story: Reporter Peter Small;

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/1224639--child-abuse-trial-mom-denies-boyfriend-injured-their-baby-girl

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:

I am monitoring this case. 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.

Bulletin: D of J/FBI: Reax to review of forensic- related cases: (1): "it's something, but I'm not as excited as they'd like me to be." Joe Gamso.

POST: "It's something, but I'm not as excited as they'd like me to be," by Joe Gamso, published on "Gamso - For the Defence," on July 11, 2012. (Joe Blogger is a superb criminal justice blogger with a knack for calling it the way it is. He writes from the trenches with passion and an astute observer's eye. HL);

GIST: "There are four really important things to say about this besides, "Good idea." First, it's about damned time. See, there's nothing new here. The FBI has known for years, for a couple of decades, in fact, that at least some of their hair and fiber analysis is conducted incompetently and reported dishonestly. And they haven't much cared. People convicted who, even if guilty, otherwise wouldn't have been? People convicted who are factually innocent? They knew. They just didn't know exactly who. And they didn't care to find out. Nor did they bother to get word out that some enterprising defense counsel might want to investigate. Second, it's not just the FBI lab guys. The folks who examine hair and fiber at the state labs? At other federal labs? Guess who showed them how to do it. The FBI can review away, but there are tens of thousands of cases they won't be able to review because they weren't done by them. But they were done by folks they taught badly. Third, this is junk science under the best of circumstances. You want to match hair? Do DNA testing. For all its flaws, DNA is actually science. This hair looks like that one? It's bullshit. I'm not saying the results are always wrong. I'm saying they're wholly unreliable. If there's a determinable error rate, and I suppose there might be, nobody knows what it is. 5%? 95%? Your guess is as good as theirs. Fiber matching is even worse. Fourth, hair and fiber are a start, but the truth is that much of what passes for forensics is worthless. The National Research Council report in 2009 made this abundantly clear to anyone who paid attention and cared. There's no talk about reviewing all the bullshit forensic fantasy they've unleased."

The entire post can be found at:

http://gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.ca/2012/07/its-something-but-im-not-as-excited-as.html

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:

I am monitoring this case. 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.

Susan May: Should the CCRC (British review body) itself be reviewed; Miscarriages of justice: ‘a bit 1980s?’ The Justice Gap.

POST: "Miscarriages of justice: A bit 1980s?" by Mischa Wilmers, published in "The Justice Gap" on July 7, 2012.

GIST: "One of the highlights of the event came when Susan May, a woman convicted of murdering her elderly aunt 20 years ago, was invited to address the panel. Considered by many to be a miscarriage of justice victim, May has substantial experience in dealing with the CCRC which has referred her case to the court of appeal twice and is currently considering fresh evidence that could result in a rare third appeal. May said: ‘I do believe the CCRC has changed the way it operates. When I first dealt with the CCRC in 1997, my caseworker came to see me in prison quite a few times and I think I’m right in saying that doesn’t happen now…After 15 years I really think we need a review of the CCRC.’ She further criticised the Commission for ‘second guessing’ the Court of Appeal by only referring cases deemed to have a ‘real possibility’ of resulting in a quashed conviction. Responding to May’s assessment, CCRC Chair Richard Foster cited cuts in funding as the primary reason for having less face to face sessions with applicants: ‘Our budget has been frozen for the last six years so in real terms we have 33% less money than we did six years ago…and that’s why we can’t do as much face to face as we’d like to do.’"

The entire post can be found at:

http://thejusticegap.com/2012/07/miscarriages-of-justice-a-bit-1980s/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:

I am monitoring this case. 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.

Bulletin: Major development; Santae Tribble; Kirk Odom and many other cases. D of J and FBI to review forensic evidence. Washington Post;

STORY: "Justice Dept., FBI to review use of forensic evidence in thousands of cases," by reporter Spenser S. Hsu, published in the Washington Post on July 10, 2012.

GIST: The Justice Department and FBI have launched a review of thousands of criminal cases to determine whether any defendants were wrongly convicted or deserve a new trial because of flawed forensic evidence, officials said Tuesday. The undertaking is the largest post-conviction review ever done by the FBI. It will include cases conducted by all FBI Laboratory hair and fiber examiners since at least 1985 and may reach earlier if records are available, people familiar with the process said. Such FBI examinations have taken place in federal and local cases across the country, often in violent crimes, such as rape, murder and robbery. The review comes after The Washington Post reported in April that Justice Department officials had known for years that flawed forensic work might have led to the convictions of potentially innocent people but had not performed a thorough review of the cases. In addition, prosecutors failed to notify defendants or their attorneys even in many cases they knew were troubled.........In its April report, The Post identified two District men convicted largely on the testimony of FBI hair analysts who wrongly placed them at crime scenes. Santae A. Tribble, now 51, was convicted of killing a taxi driver in 1978, and Kirk L. Odom, now 49, was convicted of a sexual assault in 1981. Since The Post report, Tribble’s conviction was vacated, and on Tuesday, prosecutors moved to overturn Odom’s conviction and declare him innocent. Their cases had never been previously reviewed by the Justice Department.........The review also comes as the National Academy of Sciences is urging the White House and Congress to remove crime labs from police and prosecutors’ control, or at least to strengthen the science and standards underpinning the nation’s forensic science system."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/justice-dept-fbi-to-review-use-of-forensic-evidence-in-thousands-of-cases/2012/07/10/gJQAT6DlbW_story.html

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:

I am monitoring this case. 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.

Bulletin: Kirk Odom: Justice Delayed; Ruled out as rapist in 1981 crime thanks to DNA tests and hair analysis. Almost 30 year ordeal. NPR News.

STORY: "Justice delayed: After three decades, an apology," by reporter Carrie Johnson, published by NPR on July 10, 2012.

PHOTO CAPTION: "Kirk Odom and his wife, Harriet, outside the H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse in Washington, D.C. On Tuesday, the Justice Department said there was "clear and convincing evidence" that Odom is innocent of a 1981 rape and robbery, for which he spent more than two decades behind bars."

GIST: "Nearly 31 years after he was convicted of rape and armed robbery, Kirk Odom on Tuesday all but won his fight to be declared an innocent man The Justice Department filed court papers saying, "There is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Odom is innocent of the charges for which he was convicted," and apologized for the "terrible injustice." Prosecutors confirmed that DNA tests and hair analysis ruled him out as the culprit in a 1981 crime in Washington, D.C., but only after Odom spent more than two decades in prison, was placed on parole until 2047, and was forced to register as a convicted sex offender. Odom is one of only about 300 people nationwide to be exonerated by DNA after conviction. A judge must sign off on the motion to throw out Odom's convictions, but both sides described that as a foregone conclusion.........He eventually got out on parole. He found a job fixing heating, air conditioning and plumbing systems. And he found a wife — Harriet Kopi-Odom. "He's got a good heart. He's a hard working man, he's very loving," she says. And then Kirk Odom caught another break. At his lawyer's request, the government found stained bedsheets, a robe and that hair from the crime scene. They'd never been tested with state-of-the-art science. When the results came back, they cleared him......That still left the victim identification. But (defence lawyer) Levick pointed out some problems..."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/10/156547972/justice-delayed-after-three-decades-an-apology?ft=1&f=156547972

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:

I am monitoring this case. 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.

Faulty dog sniff drug search evidence: Grits for Breakfast blasts poor training, low-quality certification and high error rates;

POST: "Poor training, low quality certification, and high error rates dog police canine units," posted on Grits For Breakfast on July 4, 2012.

GIST: A couple of recent stories from out of state have brought drug sniffing dogs back into the news, as the US Supreme Court prepares to consider their use at people's homes without probable cause this fall. Dog-sniff evidence is problematic because dogs can't be cross examined. There's wide variation in their accuracy, not to mention the quality and quantity of their training. And dogs naturally pay careful attention to cues from their handlers, creating a significant risk of false positives. Since no attorney will ever get a dog on the witness stand, the other elements (accuracy, training, and methods to avoid cues from the handler) have been critical to the creation of probable cause in previous court decisions. Unfortunately, the bar on all those measures is lowering rapidly.

The entire story can be found at:

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.ca/2012/07/poor-training-low-quality-certification.html

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:

I am monitoring this case. 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.

Sent from my iPad