Back in action: On-going: Forensic hypnosis: Texas: Welcome Development: A bill has been filed to eliminate forensic hypnosis from Texas courts, Grits for Breakfast reports..."Pam Colloff, Mandy Marzullo and I wanted to take a forensic-hypnosis-certification course this year, but could not find one given in the state of Texas throughout all of 2018. Most practitioners boast gray hair and decades-long resumes, and there doesn't appear to be an eager new guard anxious to stake their careers on a practice that's perhaps a half step above a tarot-card reading in terms of investigative utility. The Texas Legislature should absolutely pass Sen. Hinojosa's SB 130, and while they're at it, they should get rid of this ridiculous certification at TCOLE. It can't be fixed. There's no scientific version of hypnosis-based memory enhancement to fall back on, even if the agency wanted to revise its trainings, which mostly don't occur anymore."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Neither can the Legislature count on the Forensic Science Commission to address the question, although they have received multiple complaints on the topic. That's because, by statute, they are only allowed to consider forensics related to "physical evidence." So hypnosis has somehow slithered through unintended gaps in the government's forensic-vetting apparatus. That leaves the issue on the Legislature's doorstep. The case seems easy to make: In 2018, a curriculum suggesting police try to get witnesses to engage in "automatic writing," or teaching cops to implant post-hypnotic suggestions, doesn't even pass the laugh test. And yet that's the state of evidence Texas courts have allowed, with the Court of Criminal Appeals reaffirming the admissibility of hypnotically induced testimony as recently as 2004. Courts in Texas have until now abdicated their duty to protect the public from junk science when it comes to admissibility of forensic hypnosis. In such instances, it's necessary and proper for the Legislature to step in."

-----------------------------------------------------------

POST:   "Bill filed to eliminate forensic hypnosis from Texas courts," publishedf by Grits foir Breakfast on November 14, 2018.

GIST: "Many thanks to State Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa for filing SB 130 to eliminate forensic hypnosis from Texas courtrooms. Grits has been fascinated with this topic since we first discussed it on the podcast last year, and reporters at the Dallas News and the Dallas Observer have covered the subject as well. A recent Psychology Today column on the topic concluded that the "cons" related to forensic hypnosis outweighed any "pros." Most states' courts do not allow it. In this Twitter-string in response to SB 130, I briefly made the case for ending the practice. In essence, modern brain science has shown most of the thinking behind it is garbage. For example, recently I purchased a copy of the textbook the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement requires for forensic hypnosis trainings. That learned tome informs us that the "conscious" mind takes up 1/8 of the brain and the "subconscious" 7/8(!), with memories stored in the latter. It suggests "automatic writing" may be "useful in eliciting suppressed" memories, as well as "age regression," allowing witnesses to reenact past events. Another Tweet in that string cited to the TCOLE curriculum for forensic hypnosis wondering aloud why the state would require detectives being trained in forensic hypnosis to demonstrate proficiency in post-hypnotic suggestions? (Item 14) Should detectives really be taught to implant memories in hypnotized witnesses? That seems dubious, at best. There was a time when more than 800 Texas peace officers boasted forensic hypnosis certifications. Today, just two agencies - Texas DPS and the Harris County Sheriff's Office - employ nearly all of the fewer than two dozen forensic hypnotists in the state. Indeed, forensic hypnosis appears to be a dying profession in Texas. There aren't many trainings conducted anymore. Pam Colloff, Mandy Marzullo and I wanted to take a forensic-hypnosis-certification course this year, but could not find one given in the state of Texas throughout all of 2018. Most practitioners boast gray hair and decades-long resumes, and there doesn't appear to be an eager new guard anxious to stake their careers on a practice that's perhaps a half step above a tarot-card reading in terms of investigative utility. The Texas Legislature should absolutely pass Sen. Hinojosa's SB 130, and while they're at it, they should get rid of this ridiculous certification at TCOLE. It can't be fixed. There's no scientific version of hypnosis-based memory enhancement to fall back on, even if the agency wanted to revise its trainings, which mostly don't occur anymore. Anyway, TCOLE doesn't have sufficient curriculum staff to revise outdated police trainings, which is a budget question this blog will be revisiting later. They could use three additional FTEs for that purpose, according to the "exceptional items" request in their LAR. (And that's a no-BS request; their backlog is worrying.) Neither can the Legislature count on the Forensic Science Commission to address the question, although they have received multiple complaints on the topic. That's because, by statute, they are only allowed to consider forensics related to "physical evidence." So hypnosis has somehow slithered through unintended gaps in the government's forensic-vetting apparatus. That leaves the issue on the Legislature's doorstep. The case seems easy to make: In 2018, a curriculum suggesting police try to get witnesses to engage in "automatic writing," or teaching cops to implant post-hypnotic suggestions, doesn't even pass the laugh test. And yet that's the state of evidence Texas courts have allowed, with the Court of Criminal Appeals reaffirming the admissibility of hypnotically induced testimony as recently as 2004. Courts in Texas have until now abdicated their duty to protect the public from junk science when it comes to admissibility of forensic hypnosis. In such instances, it's necessary and proper for the Legislature to step in. Bully for Chuy Hinojosa for doing so."

The entire post - with links to great background materials - can be found at the link below:
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2018/11/bill-filed-to-eliminate-forensic.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;  

Back in action: On-going: Dennis Oland: New Brunswick: Second week of trial to begin Tuesday. More helpful background material from the CBC... "A former deputy chief of the Saint John Police Force made false statements at Dennis Oland's first murder trial and to Halifax police officers investigating his conduct, an independent investigator hired by the New Brunswick Police Commission found. Glen McCloskey, a 30-year-veteran of the force, had no active role in the investigation into Richard Oland's homicide in July 2011. But he walked around the bloody crime scene twice before forensic testing was complete and later encouraged another officer not to tell the court about it, according to the summary of investigator Barry MacKnight's report to the commission. The report was among stacks of court documents related to Dennis Oland's defence lawyers' fight for third-party records at hearings earlier this year as they prepared for his retrial. The documents include prosecutors' emails about McCloskey and another officer's tour of the crime scene. They were under a publication ban but became public after it was decided the retrial would go ahead last month without a jury"

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: One can access live CBC coverage of the proceeding at the following link:
Follow the live blog here


STORY: "Ex-deputy police chief made false statements at Oland murder trial, investigator finds," published by CBC News on December 10, 2018. (Excellent background for on-going retrial set to resume tomorrow.  The retrial - loaded with significant  forensic issues -  is expected to last as long as four months. I am dipping into it from time to time. HL);

PHOTO CAPTION: "Glen McCloskey retired as deputy chief of the Saint John Police Force in April, before he was scheduled to face an arbitration hearing in connection with the Oland case."

PHOTO CAPTION: "Dennis Oland's retrial for second-degree murder is scheduled to continue on Tuesday and last four months."
 

GIST: "A former deputy chief of the Saint John Police Force made false statements at Dennis Oland's first murder trial and to Halifax police officers investigating his conduct, an independent investigator hired by the New Brunswick Police Commission found. Glen McCloskey, a 30-year-veteran of the force, had no active role in the investigation into Richard Oland's homicide in July 2011. But he walked around the bloody crime scene twice before forensic testing was complete and later encouraged another officer not to tell the court about it, according to the summary of investigator Barry MacKnight's report to the commission. The report was among stacks of court documents related to Dennis Oland's defence lawyers' fight for third-party records at hearings earlier this year as they prepared for his retrial. The documents include prosecutors' emails about McCloskey and another officer's tour of the crime scene. They were under a publication ban but became public after it was decided the retrial would go ahead last month without a jury. The defence has alleged the Crown conspired before the first trial to conceal the fact McCloskey had gone through the crime scene, which officers were trying to keep free of contamination while the head of forensics collected evidence. Richard Oland, 69 was found dead in a pool of blood in his office at 52 Canterbury St. on the morning of  July 7, 2011. The multimillionaire suffered 45 sharp- and blunt-force injuries to his head, neck and hands.​ His son, Dennis, 50, who met with the prominent businessman the night before, was found guilty in December 2015 of second-degree murder. His conviction was overturned 10 months later because of an error in the trial judge's instructions to the jury. MacKnight's report to the police commission stemmed from testimony at Oland's first trial that suggested McCloskey tried to keep his presence at the victim's office unknown to the court. MacKnight said he found McCloskey committed five breaches of the Police Act: two counts of discreditable conduct, and one count each of deceitful behaviour, neglect of duty, and being party to a breach of the professional code of conduct. A further allegation of neglect of duty was deemed unsubstantiated. McCloskey, who is now retired, declined through his lawyer Nathalie Godbout to comment, citing the ongoing court proceedings.  At Dennis Oland's first murder trial, retired Staff Sgt. Mike King testified that in 2014, either before or during the preliminary inquiry, McCloskey told him he didn't "have to" tell anyone he'd entered the crime scene. McCloskey was an inspector at the time and King's supervisor. King testified he replied to McCloskey that he had "never lied on the stand in 32 years" and he "wasn't about to start." During his own testimony the next day, McCloskey said he'd never asked anybody to lie under oath. He alleged it was King who lied because he was angry about being passed over for a promotion. McCloskey said he entered Richard Oland's office twice the day after the homicide — once to "observe the body" and then again out of "curiosity."  He admitted he went farther during his second trip into the crime scene, with Const. Greg Oram, than the head of forensics allowed the first time, and he wore no protective gear. McCloskey said he noticed some small drops of blood on the floor and he might have touched or even opened the back door, in the foyer outside the office, which Oland's defence lawyers contend would have been the preferred exit for the "killer or killers." The door was never tested for fingerprints or DNA evidence because it had been contaminated."

The entire story can be found at:
https://pressfrom.info/ca/news/canada/-107794-ex-deputy-police-chief-made-false-statements-at-oland-murder-trial-investigator-finds.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;  

Back in action: On-going; Joe Bryan; Flawed blood splatter testimony; Texas; Major (Disappointing Development)..."Despite compelling evidence that the forensic testimony used to convict former Texas high school principal Joe Bryan of murder was wrong, a Texas judge today recommended that Bryan’s conviction stand, and that he not be granted a new trial."..."Bryan, now 78 and in poor health, has served 31 years in prison despite lingering questions about who shot his wife, Mickey, in 1985. Judge Doug Shaver’s decision stunned Bryan’s attorneys, who had hoped for a different outcome after the seeming collapse of key elements of the prosecution’s case in September, during the final day of hearings over whether Bryan should be granted a new trial. In a dramatic moment at the hearing, a defense witness read an affidavit from retired police Detective Robert Thorman, the bloodstain-pattern analyst whose testimony had proved critical in convicting Bryan. In it, Thorman conceded that both his findings and testimony had been rife with errors. “My conclusions were wrong,” he wrote. “Some of the techniques and methodology were incorrect. Therefore, some of my testimony was not correct.”

 


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Thorman’s flawed testimony at Bryan’s trials was at the heart of a two-part investigation by ProPublica and The New York Times Magazine in May that questioned the accuracy of the bloodstain-pattern analysis used to convict Bryan, as well as the training of the experts who testify in such cases. Bloodstain-pattern analysis is a forensic discipline whose practitioners regard the drops, spatters and trails of blood at a crime scene as clues that can sometimes be used to reverse-engineer the crime itself. In July, Bryan’s case commanded the attention of the forensics community when the Texas Forensic Science Commission — which investigates complaints about the misuse of forensic testimony and evidence in criminal cases — announced that the blood-spatter analysis used to convict him was “not accurate or scientifically supported.” Spurred by the Bryan case, the commission had already moved to end the practice of allowing law enforcement officers with minimal training in bloodstain-pattern interpretation to testify in Texas, stipulating that such analysis must be performed by an accredited organization if it is to be allowed in court. Bryan’s request for a new trial will now go before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state’s highest criminal court."

----------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Judge in Joe Bryan Case Rejects Defense Pleas for New Trial," by reporter Pamela Colloff, published by ProPublica on December 6, 2018.

SUB-HEADING: Texas’ highest criminal court will now decide the fate of Bryan, a former high school principal who has been in prison for 31 years for the murder of his wife, Mickey. A forensic expert who testified against him has admitted his conclusions in the case were wrong.

GIST:  "Despite compelling evidence that the forensic testimony used to convict former Texas high school principal Joe Bryan of murder was wrong, a Texas judge today recommended that Bryan’s conviction stand, and that he not be granted a new trial. Bryan, now 78 and in poor health, has served 31 years in prison despite lingering questions about who shot his wife, Mickey, in 1985. Judge Doug Shaver’s decision stunned Bryan’s attorneys, who had hoped for a different outcome after the seeming collapse of key elements of the prosecution’s case in September, during the final day of hearings over whether Bryan should be granted a new trial. In a dramatic moment at the hearing, a defense witness read an affidavit from retired police Detective Robert Thorman, the bloodstain-pattern analyst whose testimony had proved critical in convicting Bryan. In it, Thorman conceded that both his findings and testimony had been rife with errors. “My conclusions were wrong,” he wrote. “Some of the techniques and methodology were incorrect. Therefore, some of my testimony was not correct.” Thorman’s remarkable admission gave fresh optimism to Bryan and the scores of former neighbors, family members and even former prison staffers who attended the hearing that he might be granted another chance to prove his innocence. Bryan had been attending a principals’ convention in Austin, 120 miles from his home in Clifton, where Mickey was killed, in the days surrounding the murder. He has always maintained that he was in Austin, asleep in his hotel room, at the time of the crime. After the hearing, Bryan’s lawyers and the Bosque County District Attorney submitted written conclusions. Today, Shaver adopted the prosecution’s findings in their entirety – including an argument by Bosque County D.A. Adam Sibley that acknowledged that parts of Thorman’s testimony were incorrect but said it didn’t matter: “Thorman’s testimony was not important to the case.” Shaver also adopted Sibley’s position that because Thorman did not specify which of his conclusions were wrong, “the Court is unable to determine whether any of this testimony mattered. Thorman’s flawed testimony at Bryan’s trials was at the heart of a two-part investigation by ProPublica and The New York Times Magazine in May that questioned the accuracy of the bloodstain-pattern analysis used to convict Bryan, as well as the training of the experts who testify in such cases. Bloodstain-pattern analysis is a forensic discipline whose practitioners regard the drops, spatters and trails of blood at a crime scene as clues that can sometimes be used to reverse-engineer the crime itself. In July, Bryan’s case commanded the attention of the forensics community when the Texas Forensic Science Commission — which investigates complaints about the misuse of forensic testimony and evidence in criminal cases — announced that the blood-spatter analysis used to convict him was “not accurate or scientifically supported.” Spurred by the Bryan case, the commission had already moved to end the practice of allowing law enforcement officers with minimal training in bloodstain-pattern interpretation to testify in Texas, stipulating that such analysis must be performed by an accredited organization if it is to be allowed in court. Bryan’s request for a new trial will now go before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state’s highest criminal court. The court will consider Shaver’s findings, but it does not rubber-stamp lower courts’ recommendations, and will review the record in full. The court has no deadline by which it must make its determination; it could take months, or even years, to hand down a ruling. The appellate court, however, cannot consider anything outside of the court record – including a separate conclusion by the Texas Forensic Science Commission in October that a Texas Department of Public Safety crime lab chemist had “overstated findings, exceeded her expertise and engaged in speculation” when she testified for the prosecution in the Bryan case in 1989. The commission also found that the now-retired chemist, Patricia Retzlaff, failed to do thorough analysis of key DNA evidence in 2012, after a judge allowed such testing to proceed.  But the court can consider evidence presented at the hearing that pointed toward another suspect in Mickey Bryan’s murder: former Clifton police officer Dennis Dunlap. After Dunlap hanged himself in 1996, Clifton police launched an investigation in which they determined that he had killed a 17-year-old Clifton High School student named Judy Whitley just four months before Mickey’s murder. During that inquiry, an ex-wife of Dunlap’s told investigators that he had boasted of being with the principal’s wife on the night she died. “We remain hopeful that the Court of Criminal Appeals will ultimately rectify this injustice and declare Joe actually innocent, which he is,” said his attorney, Jessica Freud. “At a minimum, we hope the court vacates his conviction so that he may — for the first time — receive a fair trial.""

The entire story can be read at:

 https://www.propublica.org/article/judge-in-joe-bryan-case-rejects-defense-pleas-for-new-trial

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; 

Back in action: On-going; Facial scanning technology; Reporter Sam Biddle issues a strong warning against not only ubiquitous facial recognition, but its more sinister cousin: so-called affect recognition, technology that claims it can find hidden meaning in the shape of your nose, the contours of your mouth, and the way you smile..."AI Now’s 2018 report is a 56-page record of how “artificial intelligence” — an umbrella term that includes a myriad of both scientific attempts to simulate human judgment and marketing nonsense — continues to spread without oversight, regulation, or meaningful ethical scrutiny. The report covers a wide expanse of uses and abuses, including instances of racial discrimination, police surveillance, and how trade secrecy laws can hide biased code from an AI-surveilled public. But AI Now, which was established last year to grapple with the social implications of artificial intelligence, expresses in the document particular dread over affect recognition, “a subclass of facial recognition that claims to detect things such as personality, inner feelings, mental health, and ‘worker engagement’ based on images or video of faces.” The thought of your boss watching you through a camera that uses machine learning to constantly assess your mental state is bad enough, while the prospect of police using “affect recognition” to deduce your future criminality based on “micro-expressions” is exponentially worse."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY:"Faception has purported to determine from appearance if someone is “psychologically unbalanced,” anxious, or charismatic, while HireVue has ranked job applicants on the same basis. As with any computerized system of automatic, invisible judgment and decision-making, the potential to be wrongly classified, flagged, or tagged is immense with affect recognition, particularly given its thin scientific basis: “How would a person profiled by these systems contest the result?,” Crawford added. “What happens when we rely on black-boxed AI systems to judge the ‘interior life’ or worthiness of human beings? Some of these products cite deeply controversial theories that are long disputed in the psychological literature, but are are being treated by AI startups as fact.” What’s worse than bad science passing judgment on anyone within camera range is that the algorithms making these decisions are kept private by the firms that develop them, safe from rigorous scrutiny behind a veil of trade secrecy."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY 2: "That’s because “affect recognition,” the report explains, is little more than the computerization of physiognomy, a thoroughly disgraced and debunked strain of pseudoscience from another era that claimed a person’s character could be discerned from their bodies — and their faces, in particular. There was no reason to believe this was true in the 1880s, when figures like the discredited Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso promoted the theory, and there’s even less reason to believe it today. Still, it’s an attractive idea, despite its lack of grounding in any science, and data-centric firms have leapt at the opportunity to not only put names to faces, but to ascribe entire behavior patterns and predictions to some invisible relationship between your eyebrow and nose that can only be deciphered through the eye of a computer."
 

STORY: "Artificial Intelligence Experts Issue Urgent Warning Against Facial Scanning With a “Dangerous History” by Sam Biddle, published by The Intercept on December 6, 2018. ( Sam Biddle is a reporter based in Brooklyn, focusing on malfeasance and misused power in technology. While working at Gizmodo and Gawker, he covered stories ranging from vast corporate data breaches and celebrity hackers to trafficked webcam models and Facebook privacy. As the editor of Valleywag, he provided a critical, adversarial view of the startup economy and Silicon Valley culture. His work has also appeared in GQ, Vice, and The Awl.)

PHOTO CAPTION: "A man watches as a visitor tries out a facial recognition display at the Global Mobile Internet Conference in Beijing, on April 26, 2018. "

GIST: "Facial recognition  has quickly shifted from techno-novelty to fact of life for many, with millions around the world at least willing to put up with their faces scanned by software at the airport, their iPhones, or Facebook’s server farms. But researchers at New York University’s AI Now Institute have issued a strong warning against not only ubiquitous facial recognition, but its more sinister cousin: so-called affect recognition, technology that claims it can find hidden meaning in the shape of your nose, the contours of your mouth, and the way you smile. If that sounds like something dredged up from the 19th century, that’s because it sort of is. AI Now’s 2018 report is a 56-page record of how “artificial intelligence” — an umbrella term that includes a myriad of both scientific attempts to simulate human judgment and marketing nonsense — continues to spread without oversight, regulation, or meaningful ethical scrutiny. The report covers a wide expanse of uses and abuses, including instances of racial discrimination, police surveillance, and how trade secrecy laws can hide biased code from an AI-surveilled public. But AI Now, which was established last year to grapple with the social implications of artificial intelligence, expresses in the document particular dread over affect recognition, “a subclass of facial recognition that claims to detect things such as personality, inner feelings, mental health, and ‘worker engagement’ based on images or video of faces.” The thought of your boss watching you through a camera that uses machine learning to constantly assess your mental state is bad enough, while the prospect of police using “affect recognition” to deduce your future criminality based on “micro-expressions” is exponentially worse.

“The ability to use machine vision and massive data analysis to find correlations is leading to some very suspect claims.”

That’s because “affect recognition,” the report explains, is little more than the computerization of physiognomy, a thoroughly disgraced and debunked strain of pseudoscience from another era that claimed a person’s character could be discerned from their bodies — and their faces, in particular. There was no reason to believe this was true in the 1880s, when figures like the discredited Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso promoted the theory, and there’s even less reason to believe it today. Still, it’s an attractive idea, despite its lack of grounding in any science, and data-centric firms have leapt at the opportunity to not only put names to faces, but to ascribe entire behavior patterns and predictions to some invisible relationship between your eyebrow and nose that can only be deciphered through the eye of a computer. Two years ago, students at a Shanghai university published a report detailing what they claimed to be a machine learning method for determining criminality based on facial features alone. The paper was widely criticized, including by AI Now’s Kate Crawford, who told The Intercept it constituted “literal phrenology … just using modern tools of supervised machine learning instead of calipers.” Crawford and her colleagues are now more opposed than ever to the spread of this sort of culturally and scientifically regressive algorithmic prediction: “Although physiognomy fell out of favor following its association with Nazi race science, researchers are worried about a reemergence of physiognomic ideas in affect recognition applications,” the report reads. “The idea that AI systems might be able to tell us what a student, a customer, or a criminal suspect is really feeling or what type of person they intrinsically are is proving attractive to both corporations and governments, even though the scientific justifications for such claims are highly questionable, and the history of their discriminatory purposes well-documented.” In an email to The Intercept, Crawford, AI Now’s co-founder and distinguished research professor at NYU, along with Meredith Whittaker, co-founder of AI Now and a distinguished research scientist at NYU, explained why affect recognition is more worrying today than ever, referring to two companies that use appearances to draw big conclusions about people. “From Faception claiming they can ‘detect’ if someone is a terrorist from their face to HireVue mass-recording job applicants to predict if they will be a good employee based on their facial ‘micro-expressions,’ the ability to use machine vision and massive data analysis to find correlations is leading to some very suspect claims,” said Crawford. Faception has purported to determine from appearance if someone is “psychologically unbalanced,” anxious, or charismatic, while HireVue has ranked job applicants on the same basis. As with any computerized system of automatic, invisible judgment and decision-making, the potential to be wrongly classified, flagged, or tagged is immense with affect recognition, particularly given its thin scientific basis: “How would a person profiled by these systems contest the result?,” Crawford added. “What happens when we rely on black-boxed AI systems to judge the ‘interior life’ or worthiness of human beings? Some of these products cite deeply controversial theories that are long disputed in the psychological literature, but are are being treated by AI startups as fact.” What’s worse than bad science passing judgment on anyone within camera range is that the algorithms making these decisions are kept private by the firms that develop them, safe from rigorous scrutiny behind a veil of trade secrecy. AI Now’s Whittaker singles out corporate secrecy as confounding the already problematic practices of affect recognition: “Because most of these technologies are being developed by private companies, which operate under corporate secrecy laws, our report makes a strong recommendation for protections for ethical whistleblowers within these companies.” Such whistleblowing will continue to be crucial, wrote Whittaker, because so many data firms treat privacy and transparency as a liability, rather than a virtue: “The justifications vary, but mostly [AI developers] disclaim all responsibility and say it’s up to the customers to decide what to do with it.” Pseudoscience paired with state-of-the-art computer engineering and placed in a void of accountability. What could go wrong?"

The entire story can be read aT:

https://theintercept.com/2018/12/06/artificial-intellgience-experts-issue-urgent-warning-against-facial-scanning-with-a-dangerous-history/

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; 

Back in action: On-Going: Virginia: Flawed hair tests: The Daily Press editorializes on a review of cases in which examiners had testified to the probability that hair entered into evidence belonged to a single person. (And the 'numbers' of potentially affected cases for the review are huge. HL)..."The initiative that kick started this review in Virginia was actually led by the FBI after three DNA exonerations between 2009 and 2012 in which all three defendants were convicted on faulty microscopic hair comparison testimony. The FBI trained hair examiners across the country, and in 2015, the FBI, The Innocence Project, the U.S. Department of Justice and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers found at least 90 percent of the trial transcripts the FBI analyzed included erroneous statements made by hair examiners. The FBI's finding caused some states to consider their own examiner testimony, revealing just how complicated a review can become. So far, the staff at the Virginia Department of Forensic Science has reviewed about 150,000 of the million cases."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The faulty testimony of hair examiners doesn't necessarily mean defendants were wrongly convicted, but it does open a door for evidence to be retested. Why bother with this hassle, especially if it may bring discomfort to victims' families? Because our country is built on an assumption of equal justice. "The whole idea of equal justice under law means that you've got to play by the rules. It has nothing to do with the underlying subject matter. You just tell the truth." Those are the words of former U.S. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, and they summarize why this review of old cases is important. Applying equal justice means no one should be sitting behind bars without first being given due process. And how could such a procedure take place with the use of misleading testimony? That's not to say those examiners intentionally misled juries into believing the suspects were guilty. But now that we know more about the DNA in hair samples, the state needs to review as much testimony as possible to ensure it is not holding innocent people in prison."

-------------------------------------------------------------

EDITORIAL:  "Testimony worth the second look," by the Daily Press Editorial Board, published on November 24, 2018.

SUB-HEADING: "Faulty testimony that relied on collected hair samples is being reviewed to ensure defendants were justly tried." Hollywood makes it look easy. Detectives collect samples of blood and lipstick, chance fingerprints and other DNA evidence haphazardly lying around crime scenes. The clues are used to tie ghastly cases together for prosecutors in neat, nearly hour-long episodes. The world we live in is not that clear-cut. And the ever-present technology, science and skilled personnel that seals the case for Hollywood's gumshoes is not as readily available and does not produce as clear a result as it does on television. Hair samples are one such example. The Virginia Department of Forensic Science is reviewing cases in which examiners had testified to the probability that hair entered into evidence belonged to a single person. Experts say that kind of testimony is flawed because science can't definitively link any single hair sample to an individual.Now, the department is reviewing cases where such testimony may have been used as the linchpin to a guilty verdict. The problem with such a review is that there are about a million case files in the archives from between 1973 and 1994 that need to be digitized and searched. The cases already digitized also need to be scrutinized. Record keeping involving case transcripts is not uniform in Virginia, meaning in some instances, the written records of examiners' courtroom testimonies may have already been destroyed or filed away in hard-to-retrieve places. When a transcript isn't available through the court reporter or clerk, the review team is turning to prosecutors, defense attorneys and even defendants to see if they have a copy of the documents. The initiative that kick started this review in Virginia was actually led by the FBI after three DNA exonerations between 2009 and 2012 in which all three defendants were convicted on faulty microscopic hair comparison testimony. The FBI trained hair examiners across the country, and in 2015, the FBI, The Innocence Project, the U.S. Department of Justice and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers found at least 90 percent of the trial transcripts the FBI analyzed included erroneous statements made by hair examiners. The FBI's finding caused some states to consider their own examiner testimony, revealing just how complicated a review can become. So far, the staff at the Virginia Department of Forensic Science has reviewed about 150,000 of the million cases. Of those, 358 had a positive probative association. Of those, 16 cases involved a suspect who was tried and convicted and the department was able to get the transcripts. The team sent seven notifications to defendants, intended to inform them their trials had questionable testimony from a hair examiner. Of the seven, four notifications are pending because the department hasn't been able to track down the defendant or their family. The faulty testimony of hair examiners doesn't necessarily mean defendants were wrongly convicted, but it does open a door for evidence to be retested. Why bother with this hassle, especially if it may bring discomfort to victims' families? Because our country is built on an assumption of equal justice. "The whole idea of equal justice under law means that you've got to play by the rules. It has nothing to do with the underlying subject matter. You just tell the truth." Those are the words of former U.S. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, and they summarize why this review of old cases is important. Applying equal justice means no one should be sitting behind bars without first being given due process. And how could such a procedure take place with the use of misleading testimony? That's not to say those examiners intentionally misled juries into believing the suspects were guilty. But now that we know more about the DNA in hair samples, the state needs to review as much testimony as possible to ensure it is not holding innocent people in prison. This review is, perhaps, a telling litmus to the state judicial system's record keeping. That is to say, if authorities cannot easily retrieve and review records needed for this process, who's to say they will have the ability to find any valuable records for other cases? We are not saying warehouses of needless files be stored for decades at taxpayers' expense, but the authorities responsible for how cases are evaluated should have a frank discussion about the current state of record keeping and retrieval. Ultimately, this review will consume both time and money, but it may prevent innocent people from needlessly spending precious time behind bars. And freedom, in our free society, is a priceless commodity."

The entire story can be read at:
https://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/editorials/dp-edt-dna-evidence-1125-story.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; 

Back in action: On-going: New York: Silvon Simmons; Anatomy of a cover-up... Fascinating story from 'Techdirt.'..."Man Shot By Cops Claims Shotspotter Found Phantom 'Gunshot' To Justify Officer's Deadly Force." "Simmons had been engaged in 'Minding Your Own Business,' which can apparently be nearly-fatal. Returning from a trip to a convenience store shortly after 9 pm, Officer Ferrigno cut in front of him, hit Simmons with his spotlight, exited his car with his gun drawn, and opened fire when Simmons began running. According to Simmons' amendment complaint [PDF] filed in August, Ferrigno never stated he was police officer before opening fire. Simmons, blinded by the spotlight, was unsure who was shooting at him. Even if he had known it was cop, he still would have had no idea why he was being stopped, much less shot at. The number of bullets fired matters, as Tracy Rosenburg of Oakland Privacy reports. Something seriously messed up happened after the shooting."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Having reverse-engineered a narrative to support the shooting, cops set about charging Simmons with attempted aggravated murder, attempted aggravated assault on a police officer, and criminal weapon possession. Simmons spent more than a year in jail before being acquitted on all charges. The wounds he sustained are permanent. The dark and disturbing wildcard in this lawsuit is a Shotspotter gunshot detection device. The sensor reported no shots that night. What it detected during the shooting of Simmons was determined by the device to be "helicopter noise." That alone is concerning, considering the main job of the Shotspotter is to spot gunshots. But that all changed once a police officer got involved. The Shotspotter forensic report says the incident switched from "helicopter noise" to "multiple gunshots" at an officer's request. This officer requested something extra though: an additional gunshot to support the narrative used to charge Simmons with murder/assault and give Officer Ferrigno post-incident permission to shoot the man fleeing from him."

-----------------------------------------------------------

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: As the Wikipedia entry below indicates - 'Shotspotter'  - a gunshot location system -  can be used by police"to direct first responders to the scene of the gunfire. But the entry also tells us that gunshot location technology like 'Shotspotter' can provide "Additional benefits (which)  include aiding investigators to find more forensic evidence to solve crimes and provide to prosecutors to strengthen court cases resulting in a higher conviction rate. the following report, shows how police attempted to cover up the framing of an innocent  by manipulating shotspotter data. Fortunately the court saw thorough this blatant abuse  of technology by police for nefarious purposes.

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

-----------------------------------------------------------

STORY:  "Man Shot By Cops Claims Shotspotter Found Phantom 'Gunshot' To Justify Officer's Deadly Force," published by Techdirt.

SUB-HEADING:  "from the so-are-cops-still-losing-the-tech-race-or-whatever? dept."

GIST: "A lawsuit originally filed early last year makes some very disturbing allegations about police officers and their relationship with their vendors. New York resident Silvon Simmons was shot three times by Rochester Police Officer Joseph Ferrigno. Simmons was unarmed, but was hit with three of the four bullets fired by Ferrigno as he ran way from the officer. Shortly before being shot. Simmons had been engaged in "Minding Your Own Business," which can apparently be nearly-fatal. Returning from a trip to a convenience store shortly after 9 pm, Officer Ferrigno cut in front of him, hit Simmons with his spotlight, exited his car with his gun drawn, and opened fire when Simmons began running. According to Simmons' amendment complaint [PDF] filed in August, Ferrigno never stated he was police officer before opening fire. Simmons, blinded by the spotlight, was unsure who was shooting at him. Even if he had known it was cop, he still would have had no idea why he was being stopped, much less shot at. The number of bullets fired matters, as Tracy Rosenburg of Oakland Privacy reports. Something seriously messed up happened after the shooting. A gun was found in the yard several houses away from where Simmons was stopped. Cops tried to tie this weapon to Simmons to justify Ferrigno's deadly force use, despite the gun being located in the opposite direction of Simmons' flight path. Not that it would have mattered if it had been found in the same yard where Simmons lay "playing dead" in order to not get shot again by his unseen assailant.

A Ruger revolver was said to have been recovered at the site an hour or so later. The Ruger did not belong to Silvon Simmons. His fingerprints and DNA were not on the recovered gun. The only shell casings recovered at the site were the four bullets from the officer’s Glock. The Ruger had an empty magazine and it was not in the lockback position, indicating it had not been recently fired.

Simmons offered to give the officers even more evidence, but since it was exculpatory, they weren't interested.

Simmons requested his hands and clothing be checked for gunpowder residue. The request was denied. Simmons repeated the request in writing while intubated at the hospital and was told to stop writing questions.

Having reverse-engineered a narrative to support the shooting, cops set about charging Simmons with attempted aggravated murder, attempted aggravated assault on a police officer, and criminal weapon possession. Simmons spent more than a year in jail before being acquitted on all charges. The wounds he sustained are permanent. The dark and disturbing wildcard in this lawsuit is a Shotspotter gunshot detection device. The sensor reported no shots that night. What it detected during the shooting of Simmons was determined by the device to be "helicopter noise." That alone is concerning, considering the main job of the Shotspotter is to spot gunshots. But that all changed once a police officer got involved. The Shotspotter forensic report says the incident switched from "helicopter noise" to "multiple gunshots" at an officer's request. This officer requested something extra though: an additional gunshot to support the narrative used to charge Simmons with murder/assault and give Officer Ferrigno post-incident permission to shoot the man fleeing from him.

A Rochester police officer acknowledged at the criminal trial of Silvon Simmons that he left the shooting scene after midnight, returned to the fourth floor at the Central Investigations Division of the Rochester Police Department, logged onto a computer and opened a chat session with Shotspotter, where he provided the location, time, the number of possible shots and the caliber of the weapons allegedly fired. Officer Robert Wetzel also testified that Shotspotter responded to him that they found a fifth gunshot at his request.

Shotspotter's forensic analyst certified the report, testifying that five shots were fired. Shotspotter somehow managed to detect another gunshot hours after the incident, using only the guidance of an officer who desperately needed another shot on the record. The company's forensic expert basically admitted this much while testifying.

This conclusion was based solely upon information provided to Shotspotter by the Rochester Police Department.

There may have been a simple way to prove/disprove the existence of another gunshot -- one that can't be traced to the weapon found or have been observed by anyone but the officer who needed a justification for his deadly force deployment. Spotshotter retains recordings… usually. But somehow this essential recording capturing an officer-involved shooting vanished.

[Shotspotter forensic analyst Paul] Greene testified at the criminal trial that there was “no way to go and look at the original file that was recorded and there is no way to listen to all the audio from that day”. The reason there was no way to do this was that both Shotspotter and the Rochester Police Department had lost the audio recording from the night of April 1, 2016.

Whatever doesn't agree with the narrative had to go, and so Shotspotter's recording went. Shotspotter has customers to please and shareholders to earn profits for. If the customer isn't happy with the product, they're unlikely to keep buying more. If keeping a customer happy means deleting recordings and certifying altered forensic reports, so be it. Whatever it takes to ensure the revenue stream keeps flowing -- even if "whatever" means framing a gunshot victim for a crime he didn't commit.

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181204/08442041156/man-shot-cops-claims-shotspotter-found-phantom-gunshot-to-justify-officers-deadly-force.shtml

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; 

Back in action: On-going: Barry Jones: Arizona; Intercept series (by reporter Liliana Segura) on Arizona's ugly efforts to do everything in its power to keep him on death row. (A monumental series. HL)..."The case is the latest in a growing number of cases in which prosecutors have presented false or misleading forensic testimony that have sent defendants to death row for the alleged murder of a child. In April 2018, Vicente Benavides was exonerated after spending nearly 26 years on California's death row for supposedly raping, sodomizing, and murdering his girlfriend’s 21-month-old daughter. In fact, the toddler had not been raped and may have died from internal injuries sustained from being hit by a car. The California Supreme Court called Benevides’s wrongful conviction a product of “extensive,” “pervasive,” “impactful,” and “false” forensic testimony. At least ten men and women have been exonerated from death rows across the United States after having been wrongly convicted for killing a child."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: (From Death Penalty Information Centre entry below.) "On July 31, 2018, U.S. District Judge Timothy Burgess granted a new trial to Jones, who has spent 23 years on Arizona’s death row, finding that if Jones had been competently represented at trial, “there is a reasonable probability that his jury would not have convicted him of any of the crimes with which he was charged and previously convicted.” Jones has consistently maintained his innocence. Jones’s case was tainted by what Judge Burgess called a “rush to judgment” by police investigators. His conviction was based largely on questionable eyewitness testimony from two 8-year-olds, combined with unreliable forensic testimony. A medical examiner who testified against Jones later gave contradictory testimony about the timing of the victim’s fatal injury that would have ruled out Jones as a suspect. Police failed to investigate evidence pointing to other suspects, and Jones’s defense team failed to examine alternative theories of the crime. Jones was also convicted of raping Gray, despite the lack of any evidence that the alleged rape occurred at the time she sustained her fatal abdominal injury. Judge Burgess found that both Jones’s trial lawyer and the lawyer Arizona appointed to represent him in his state post-conviction proceedings were ineffective, and that both failed to conduct professionally appropriate investigations into the case. He wrote that trial counsel “failed to perform an adequate pretrial investigation, leading to his failure to uncover key medical evidence that Rachel’s injuries were not sustained on May 1, 1994”—the day the prosecution said Jones raped and killed her—and unreasonably “fail[ed] to impeach the state’s other physical and eyewitness testimony.”

------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLISHERS' NOTE: Kudos to Intercept scribe Liliana Segura  - an extraordinary criminal justice reporter - for her monumental series on the Barry Jones Case - which  reeks of junk science and other forensic issues of interest to the readers of  this Blog.  Segura frames the series around several pivotal questions: His conviction was overturned: Why is Arizona doing everything in its power to keep Barry Jones  on death row? Rather than allow its case against Jones to withstand the scrutiny of a new trial, the state is determined to undo the order that threw out his conviction. "Readers can find the four parts at the link below: (I will be  following developments closely. HL)

----------------------------------------------------------------- 

(For background see the Death Penalty Information Centre entry at the link below): "A federal district court has vacated the murder conviction of Arizona death-row prisoner Barry Jones (pictured) in the death of 4-year-old Rachel Gray, and has ordered the state to immediately retry or release Jones. On July 31, 2018, U.S. District Judge Timothy Burgess granted a new trial to Jones, who has spent 23 years on Arizona’s death row, finding that if Jones had been competently represented at trial, “there is a reasonable probability that his jury would not have convicted him of any of the crimes with which he was charged and previously convicted.” Jones has consistently maintained his innocence. Jones’s case was tainted by what Judge Burgess called a “rush to judgment” by police investigators. His conviction was based largely on questionable eyewitness testimony from two 8-year-olds, combined with unreliable forensic testimony. A medical examiner who testified against Jones later gave contradictory testimony about the timing of the victim’s fatal injury that would have ruled out Jones as a suspect. Police failed to investigate evidence pointing to other suspects, and Jones’s defense team failed to examine alternative theories of the crime. Jones was also convicted of raping Gray, despite the lack of any evidence that the alleged rape occurred at the time she sustained her fatal abdominal injury. Judge Burgess found that both Jones’s trial lawyer and the lawyer Arizona appointed to represent him in his state post-conviction proceedings were ineffective, and that both failed to conduct professionally appropriate investigations into the case. He wrote that trial counsel “failed to perform an adequate pretrial investigation, leading to his failure to uncover key medical evidence that Rachel’s injuries were not sustained on May 1, 1994”—the day the prosecution said Jones raped and killed her—and unreasonably “fail[ed] to impeach the state’s other physical and eyewitness testimony.” Sylvia Lett, Jones’s former appellate attorney, summarized the judge’s findings, saying, “He saw the state’s investigation for what it was, which was shoddy, the defense investigation for what it was, which was nonexistent, and he said, ‘That’s not fair.’ And that’s how it’s supposed to work.” A decade ago, the federal courts would have considered Jones’s ineffective assistance claim waived because of his prior lawyers’ failures to raise it in state court, and Jones likely would have been executed. However, in 2012 in Martinez v. Ryan, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal habeas corpus courts may review a state prisoner’s claim that his trial lawyer was ineffective if the failure to raise the claim in state court resulted from additional ineffective representation by his state post-conviction lawyer. The federal courts had originally refused to hear Jones’s claim, but after Martinez was decided, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the district court for further consideration. The case is the latest in a growing number of cases in which prosecutors have presented false or misleading forensic testimony that have sent defendants to death row for the alleged murder of a child. In April 2018, Vicente Benavides was exonerated after spending nearly 26 years on California's death row for supposedly raping, sodomizing, and murdering his girlfriend’s 21-month-old daughter. In fact, the toddler had not been raped and may have died from internal injuries sustained from being hit by a car. The California Supreme Court called Benevides’s wrongful conviction a product of “extensive,” “pervasive,” “impactful,” and “false” forensic testimony. At least ten men and women have been exonerated from death rows across the United States after having been wrongly convicted for killing a child."  https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/7166

------------------------------------------------ 

Segura Intercept Series:

1. Part 1

   Twenty-Two Years After Arizona Sent Barry Jones to Death Row, the State’s Case Has Fallen Apart

2. Part 2

   Arizona Prosecutors Double Down on Murder Theory as the Evidence Crumbles Around Them

3. Part 3

   After 23 Years on Death Row, Barry Jones Sees His Conviction Overturned: Arizona Must Retry or Release Him Immediately

4. His Conviction Was Overturned. Why Is Arizona Doing Everything in Its Power to Keep Barry Jones on Death Row

    

    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;