Forensics or junk science? A concise 'primer' by Sophia Kovatch, Pamela Colloff and Brett Murphy (ProPublica) note that dubious forensic techniques have spread throughout the criminal justice system for decades and spell what ProPublica has learned about how junk forensic science techniques and how they proliferate." (An excellent account. HL)..."It’s been decades since the intersection of forensic science and criminal justice first became a pop culture phenomenon, popularized by countless TV shows, movies and books. But the public’s growing awareness of forensic techniques obscures a far more complex field that’s chock full of bogus science — and the people who champion it, often for profit. For years, ProPublica has reported on these dubious techniques as they’ve wormed their way into every corner of our real-life criminal justice system. So, what’s legitimate forensic science and what’s junk? Let’s start with the basics..."

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "How to Spot Junk Science in Forensics:

When ProPublica has reported on junk science, we’ve found many common traits. They could include:

• It has limited or no scientific evidence or research supporting it.
• It is presented as absolutely certain or conclusive, with no mention of error rates.
• It relies on subjective criteria or interpretation.
• It oversimplifies a complex science.
• It takes just a few days to become an “expert.”

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

STORY: "Is it forensics or is it junk science?"by Sophia Kovatch, Pamela Colloff and Brett Murphy; Published by ProPublica, on January 31, 2023. (Sophia Kovatch is an Audience Editor, SEO with ProPublica; Pamela Colloff is a reporter at ProPublica and a staff writer at The New York Times Magazine. Brett Murphy is a reporter at ProPublica.);

SUB-HEADING: "Dubious forensic techniques have spread throughout the criminal justice system for decades. Here’s what ProPublica has learned about how junk forensic science techniques and how they proliferate. 

GIST: "It’s been decades since the intersection of forensic science and criminal justice first became a pop culture phenomenon, popularized by countless TV shows, movies and books. But the public’s growing awareness of forensic techniques obscures a far more complex field that’s chock full of bogus science — and the people who champion it, often for profit. For years, ProPublica has reported on these dubious techniques as they’ve wormed their way into every corner of our real-life criminal justice system. So, what’s legitimate forensic science and what’s junk? Let’s start with the basics.

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

What Is Junk Science?

Junk science refers to any theory or method presented as scientific fact without sufficient research or evidence to support it. Some types of junk science have virtually no supporting evidence, while others are oversimplifications of real but complex science findings.

Adding to the risk they pose to the justice system, many forms of junk science are very subjective and depend highly on individual interpretation.

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

How to Spot Junk Science in Forensics

When ProPublica has reported on junk science, we’ve found many common traits. They could include:

• It has limited or no scientific evidence or research supporting it.
• It is presented as absolutely certain or conclusive, with no mention of error rates.
• It relies on subjective criteria or interpretation.
• It oversimplifies a complex science.
• It takes just a few days to become an “expert.”

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

Examples of Junk Science in Forensics and Law Enforcement

Tracing the spread of junk science through the criminal justice system can be difficult. But ProPublica has followed forensic junk science in various forms for years.

911 Call Analysis. Police and prosecutors trained in 911 call analysis are taught they can spot a murderer on the phone by analyzing speech patterns, tone, pauses, word choice and even the grammar used during emergency calls. These are known as “guilty indicators,” according to the tenets of the program. A misplaced word, too long of a pause or a phrase of politeness could reveal a killer. Analysis of 911 calls appears in the criminal justice system in lots of different ways. Some detectives say it’s a tool to help build a case or prepare to interrogate a suspect. They have used it to help extract confessions. Others present their analyses to prosecutors or enlist Tracy Harpster, the program’s creator and a retired deputy police chief from Ohio, to consult on cases. During Harpster’s career, he had almost no homicide investigation experience or scientific background. He developed the 911 call analysis technique based on a small study for his master’s thesis in 2006. After teaming up with the FBI to promote his findings nationwide, there was enough demand from law enforcement to create a full-fledged training curriculum. Since the technique’s development, 911 call analysis has been used in investigations across the country. ProPublica documented more than 100 cases in 26 states where Harpster’s methods played a role in arrests, prosecutions and convictions — likely a fraction of the actual figure. In addition, Harpster says he has personally consulted in more than 1,500 homicide investigations nationwide. Despite the seeming pervasiveness of the technique, researchers who have studied 911 calls have not been able to corroborate Harpster’s claims. A 2020 study from the FBI warned against using 911 call analysis to bring actual cases. A separate FBI study in 2022 said applying 911 analysis may actually increase bias. And academic studies from researchers at Villanova and James Madison universities came to similar conclusions. Ultimately, five studies have not been able to find scientific evidence that 911 call analysis works. In a 2022 interview, Harpster defended his program and noted that he has also helped defense attorneys argue for suspects’ innocence. He maintained that critics don’t understand the research or how to appropriately use it, a position he has repeated in correspondence with law enforcement officials for years. “The research is designed to find the truth wherever it goes,” Harpster said. Example: ProPublica chronicled how 911 call analysis was used in the case of Jessica Logan, who was convicted of killing her baby after a detective trained by Harpster analyzed her call and then testified about it during trial.

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

Bloodstain-Pattern Analysis

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 reconstruct and even reverse-engineer the crime itself. The reliability of bloodstain-pattern analysis has never been definitively proven or quantified, but largely due to the testimony of criminalist Herbert MacDonell, it was steadily admitted in court after court around the country in the 1970s and ’80s. MacDonell spent his career teaching weeklong “institutes” in bloodstain-pattern analysis at police departments around the country, training hundreds of officers who, in turn, trained hundreds more. While there is no index that lists cases in which bloodstain-pattern analysis played a role, state appellate court rulings show that the technique has played a factor in felony cases across the country. Additionally, it has helped send innocent people to prison. From Oregon to Texas to New York, convictions that hinged on the testimony of a bloodstain-pattern analyst have been overturned and the defendants acquitted or the charges dropped.

In 2009, a watershed report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences cast doubt on the discipline, finding that “the uncertainties associated with bloodstain-pattern analysis are enormous,” and that experts’ opinions were generally “more subjective than scientific.” More than a decade later, few peer-reviewed studies exist, and research that might determine the accuracy of analysts’ findings is close to nonexistent. When MacDonell, who died in 2019, was asked whether he ever considered changing his course structure or certification process after seeing students give faulty testimony, MacDonell answered in the negative. “You can’t control someone else’s thinking,” he said. “The only thing you can do is go in and testify to the contrary.” Example: ProPublica has also reported on how bloodstain-pattern analysis was used to convict Joe Bryan of killing his wife, Mickey.

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

Other Junk Science Examples

ProPublica’s reporting on junk science in forensics goes beyond bloodstain-pattern analysis and 911 call analysis. We’ve also covered:

• The pervasiveness of Scientific Content Analysis, or SCAN, a means of dissecting written suspect statements while looking for markers of deception.
• How the FBI used unproven photo analysis in its investigations for years.
• Why police and prosecutors kept using roadside drug tests with known high rates of false positives.

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

How Does Junk Science Spread in Forensics?

Junk science can spread a lot of different ways, but there are some common patterns in how it spreads across forensics and law enforcement. Often, junk science originates when an individual devises a forensic technique based on minimal or narrow experience and data. For example, the original 911 call analysis training curriculum was based on a study of just 100 emergency calls, most of which came from a single state. The creators of these techniques then put together curriculums and workshops targeting law enforcement at every level around the country. As more police officers take these courses, these techniques are employed more often in investigating crimes and interrogating suspects. When officers testify in court, the impact of junk forensic techniques makes its way into the justice system. Other times, prosecutors call the creators and trainees of these forensic methods as expert witnesses, as was common with bloodstain-pattern analysis. In the courtroom, it’s up to the judge to decide whether certain evidence is admissible. While judges are experts in the law, they aren’t necessarily experts in the scientific disciplines that make up forensics. Once a type of junk science is admitted in a case, other prosecutors and judges can use that as precedent to allow it in future cases too. In this way, new junk science methods like 911 call analysis can spread quickly through the justice system."

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

How Long Has Junk Science Been a Problem in Criminal Justice?

Forensic science has had a junk science problem for decades. In the 1980s and ’90s, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies used faulty microscopic hair comparison in hundreds of cases, only formally acknowledging the problematic science in 2015. Since at least the 1990s, law enforcement has used a written content analysis tool with no scientific backing to interpret witness and suspect statements. The 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences, which reviewed the state of forensic science in the United States, found that a lot of forensic evidence “was admitted into criminal trials without any meaningful scientific validation, determination of error rates, or reliability testing to explain the limits of the discipline.” A 2016 report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology found that despite efforts to fund forensic science research, there was still a major gap in understanding the scientific validity of many forensic methods. In 2017, the Trump administration allowed the charter for the National Commission on Forensic Science to expire, further limiting the progress on validating forensic science methods. Since then, many forensic professionals have critiqued the junk science problems rampant in forensics and criminal justice."

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.propublica.org/article/understanding-junk-science-forensics-criminal-justice

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;

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

(Part 1): Discredited Medical Examiner Michael McGee: (Part One); Minnesota: Another Charles Smith? From our 'Here we go again' department: CBS News Reporter Esme Murphy sheds light on a medical examiner's 34 years of work which are now under investigation (and which will be followed closely by this Blog)...“It’s a scenario that seems out of a movie -- 71 autopsies in murder cases are under review because the Ramsey County Medical Examiner's work has come under question. Dr. Michael McGee served in that position for 34 years, from 1985 to 2019. Earlier this month, Attorney General Keith Ellison vacated the conviction of Thomas Rhodes, who had served 25 years in prison for the murder of his wife. Ellison cited the findings by McGee. This followed the 2021 scathing rebuke of McGee's work in the Alfonso Rodriguez case. Rodriguez was convicted in the 2003 murder of college student Dru Sjodin. A federal judge blasted McGee's work in that case saying McGee was "guessing" on the stand and his testimony was "unreliable, misleading and inaccurate." As a result the death sentence in that case was overturned. Rodriguez's murder conviction, though, still stands. It was after that ruling by Judge Ralph Erickson that Ramsey County Attorney John Choi began looking at McGee's other cases. Choi looked at 270 cases, eliminated those where the death was clear-cut. He was left with 71 cases where the verdict depended on McGee's analysis, which they're now reviewing. Serious questions about McGee's work had surfaced back in 2011."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Choi was a guest on WCCO Sunday Morning at 10:30a.m. and said: "There was a judge in Douglas County who had come to the conclusion that, in an infant death case, his conclusions were false or misleading. So because of that we did a very narrow review around infant death cases and we found a number of things. We found that Dr. McGee hadn't been connected to the latest research on that topic, and he wasn't participating in the Association of Medical Examiners." McGee's work has stretched far beyond Washington County. He regularly performed autopsies for other Minnesota counties that did not have their own medical examiner. He also performed autopsies in Wisconsin counties."

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

STORY: "Talking Points: Medical examiner's 34 years of work now under question, by Reporter Esme Murphy, published by  CBS Minnesota on January 29, 2023. (Esme Murphy, a reporter and Sunday morning anchor for WCCO-TV, has been a member of the WCCO-TV staff since December 1990. Born and raised in New York City, Esme ventured into reporting after graduating from Harvard University. She has won numerous awards during her career, including Associated Press First Place Awards for non-spot news reporting, feature reporting and investigative reporting.)

GIST:  It's a scenario that seems out of a movie -- 71 autopsies in murder cases are under review because the Ramsey County Medical Examiner's work has come under question.

Dr. Michael McGee served in that position for 34 years, from 1985 to 2019.  

Earlier this month, Attorney General Keith Ellison vacated the conviction of Thomas Rhodes, who had served 25 years in prison for the murder of his wife. Ellison cited the findings by McGee.

This followed the 2021 scathing rebuke of McGee's work in the Alfonso Rodriguez case. Rodriguez was convicted in the 2003 murder of college student Dru Sjodin.

 A federal judge blasted McGee's work in that case saying McGee was "guessing" on the stand and his testimony was "unreliable, misleading and inaccurate." As a result the death sentence in that case was overturned. Rodriguez's murder conviction, though, still stands. 

It was after that ruling by Judge Ralph Erickson that Ramsey County Attorney John Choi began looking at McGee's other cases. Choi looked at 270 cases, eliminated those where the death was clear-cut. 

He was left with 71 cases where the verdict depended on McGee's analysis, which they're now reviewing. Serious questions about McGee's work had surfaced back in 2011.

Choi was a guest on WCCO Sunday Morning at 10:30a.m. and said: "There was a judge in Douglas County who had come to the conclusion that, in an infant death case, his conclusions were false or misleading. So because of that we did a very narrow review around infant death cases and we found a number of things. We found that Dr. McGee hadn't been connected to the latest research on that topic, and he wasn't participating in the Association of Medical Examiners."

McGee's work has stretched far beyond Washington County. He regularly performed autopsies for other Minnesota counties that did not have their own medical examiner. He also performed autopsies in Wisconsin counties. 

Over more than three decades, McGee has performed thousands of local autopsies and now there are questions about how many other cases should be reviewed. 

WCCO could not reach McGee for comment."

The entire story can be read at: 

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/medical-examiners-34-years-of-work-under-question/

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

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

READ ALSO: STORY: "Testimony of former coroner cited in decision to free man, also witness in Alfonso Rodriguez case,"  by Reporter Ryan Janke, published by KFGO, on January 13, 2023.

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: " A federal judge recently noted that Dr. McGee “has a well-documented history of providing false or inaccurate testimony in court,” and that his testimony in the case (against Rodriguez) was “so unmoored from a scientific basis that it should not have been received at all.”  After that judge’s opinion was released, the Conviction Review Unit decided to look at the Rhodes case."

GIST: "A man who spent nearly 25 years in prison for murder is the first person in Minnesota to have his conviction reversed after an investigation by the state’s Conviction Review Unit – a division of the State’s Attorney General’s Office.  Thomas Rhodes was convicted in 1998 after a jury found him guilty of 1st- and 2nd-degree murder and manslaughter in the death of his wife Jane who fell overboard and ultimately drowned during a nighttime boat ride on Green Lake in Spicer, Minnesota. Rhodes said Jane fell by accident.  The conviction was based largely on the testimony of former Hennepin County Medical Examiner Dr. Michael McGee. McGee’s credibility has been called into question over the past two decades, including in the trial of Alfonso Rodriguez Jr.  Rodriguez was convicted of the 2003 kidnapping and murder of University of North Dakota student Dru Sjodin, 22. Sjodin was kidnapped from Columbia Mall in Grand Forks. Rodriguez was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to death, but the judge in the case has ruled he should be resentenced. A federal judge recently noted that Dr. McGee “has a well-documented history of providing false or inaccurate testimony in court,” and that his testimony in the case (against Rodriguez) was “so unmoored from a scientific basis that it should not have been received at all.”  After that judge’s opinion was released, the Conviction Review Unit decided to look at the Rhodes case.  In the Rhodes’ case, McGee testified that the death could not have been accidental and, based on that, the State argued Thomas grabbed Jane by the neck, pushed her overboard, and drove over her multiple times.  An independent pathologist and former president of the National Association of Medical Examiners was asked to give an opinion on the Rhodes case and found that Jane Rhodes could have fallen by accident. The Conviction Review Unit, based on the independent review, found McGee’s testimony to be flawed and reversed the 1st- and 2nd-degree convictions, but not manslaughter since evidence shows that Rhodes’ negligence led to Jane’s death.  The Conviction Review Unit said Rhodes drove a small, unstable boat, late at night, at top speed and knew Jane could not swim. Jane was not wearing a life jacket, there were no life jackets within reach. There were also no flashlights on the boat, and no way to quickly call for help.  The nearly 25 years that Rhodes spent at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Moose Lake is nearly double the maximum sentence for his manslaughter conviction. 

Rhodes was released on Friday.

https://kfgo.com/2023/01/13/testimony-of-former-coroner-cited-in-decision-to-release-man-from-minn-prison-also-witness-in-case-against-alfonso-rodriguez-in-dru-sjodin-kidnapping-murder/

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

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;

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

Criminalizing reproduction: ProPublica (Reporter Jennifer Gollan) exposes: How certain websites selling abortion pills are sharing sensitive data with Google and other third parties - and how law enforcement can potentially use this data to prosecute people who end their pregnancies with medication...A New Legal Era Just two states — Nevada and South Carolina — explicitly outlaw self-managed abortion. But that hasn’t stopped prosecutors in other states from charging people for taking abortion drugs. Prosecutors have cited online orders of abortion pills as evidence in cases charging people with illegal abortions in several states, including Georgia, Idaho and Indiana. And in at least 61 cases from 2000 through 2020 spread across more than half the states in the country, prosecutors investigated people or ordered their arrest for allegedly self-managing abortions or helping someone else to do so, according to a report by If/When/How, a reproductive justice advocacy organization. In most of these cases, people had used medication for their abortions. Those prosecutors interested in criminalizing abortion are aided by state and private surveillance. “This is an entirely new era,” said Ari Waldman, a professor of law and computer science at Northeastern University. “We’re moving to a modern surveillance state where every website we visit is tracked. We have yet to conceptualize the entire body of laws that could be used to criminalize people getting abortions.”

CRIMINALIZING REPRODUCTION: (Attacks on Science, Medicine and the Right To Choose): In recent years, I have taken on the  theme of criminalizing reproduction - a natural theme for a Blog concerned with  flawed science in its myriad forms  - as I am utterly opposed to the current movement in the United States (and some other countries) embodied by the overturning of Roe Versus Wade,  towards imprisoning women and their physicians and others who help them secure a safe abortion,  on the basis of sham science (or any other basis). I can’t remember the source, but agree  totally with the sentiment that control over their reproductive lives is far too important to women in America - or anywhere else -  so they can  participate  equally in the economic and social life of their nations without fear for  loss their freedom at the hands of political opportunists and fanatics. (Far too many of those those around these days.) 

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Law enforcement can use people’s behavior when visiting websites that sell abortion pills as evidence to build cases against those suspected of having abortions. Investigations and charges in these cases overwhelmingly stem from reports to law enforcement by health care providers, trusted contacts or the discovery of fetal remains, legal experts say. Once authorities launch an investigation, they can use online searches for abortion pills as part of the evidence. “This information can tell a district attorney that you went to an abortion website and you bought something,” Waldman said. “That might be enough to get a judge to get a warrant to take someone’s computer to search for any evidence related to whatever abortion-related crime they’re being charged with.” This was true even under the more limited abortion restrictions under Roe. For example, in 2017, prosecutors in Mississippi charged Latice Fisher with second-degree murder after she lost her pregnancy at 36 weeks. Prosecutors used her online search history — including a search for how to buy abortion pills online — as evidence. Fisher’s murder charge was eventually dismissed. “We have a private surveillance apparatus that is wide and is largely unregulated,” said Corynne McSherry, legal director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that promotes digital rights. “Now Google knows what you’re searching. This is a real threat. If any third party has your information, it means your data is no longer in your control and it could be sought by law enforcement. This is 100% a worry.”

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

STORY: "Websites Selling Abortion Pills Are Sharing Sensitive Data With Google,"  by Reporter Jennifer Gollan, published by ProPublic, on January 18, 2023.

SUB-HEADING: Some sites selling abortion pills use technology that shares information with third parties like Google. 

GIST: "Online pharmacies that sell abortion pills are sharing sensitive data with Google and other third parties, which may allow law enforcement to prosecute those who use the medications to end their pregnancies, a ProPublica analysis has found.

Using a tool created by the Markup, a nonprofit tech-journalism newsroom, ProPublica ran checks on 11 online pharmacies that sell abortion medication to reveal the web tracking technology they use. Late last year and in early January, ProPublica found web trackers on the sites of at least nine online pharmacies that provide pills by mail: Abortion Ease, BestAbortionPill.com, PrivacyPillRX, PillsOnlineRX, Secure Abortion Pills, AbortionRx, Generic Abortion Pills, Abortion Privacy and Online Abortion Pill Rx.

These third-party trackers, including a Google Analytics tool and advertising technologies, collect a host of details about users and feed them to tech behemoth Google, its parent company, Alphabet, and other third parties, such as the online chat provider LiveChat. 

Those details include the web addresses the users visited, what they clicked on, the search terms they used to find a website, the previous site they visited, their general location and information about the devices they used, such as whether they were on a computer or phone. 

This information helps websites function and helps tech companies personalize ads.

But the nine sites are also sending data to Google that can potentially identify users, ProPublica’s analysis found, including a random number that is unique to a user’s browser, which can then be linked to other collected data.

“Why in the world would you do that as a pharmacy website?” said Serge Egelman, research director of the Usable Security and Privacy Group at the International Computer Science Institute at the University of California, Berkeley. “Ultimately, it’s a pretty dumb thing to do.”

Representatives for the nine sites did not respond to requests for comment.

 All were recommended on the popular website Plan C, which provides information about how to get abortion pills by mail, including in states where abortion is illegal. Plan C acknowledged that it does not have control over these sites or their privacy practices.

While many people may assume their health information is legally protected, U.S. privacy law does little to constrain the kind or amount of data that companies such as Google and Facebook can collect from individuals. 

Tech companies are generally not bound by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, known as HIPAA, which limits when certain health care providers and health plans can share a patient’s medical information.

 Nor does federal law set many limits on how companies can use this data.

Law enforcement can obtain people’s data from tech companies such as Google, whose privacy policies say the companies reserve the right to share users’ data with law enforcement. 

Google requires a court order or search warrant, which law enforcement can obtain with probable cause to believe a search is justified. 

The company received more than 87,000 subpoenas and search warrants in the U.S. in 2021, the most recent year available; it does not provide a breakdown of these requests by type, such as how many involved abortion medication.

In a statement, Steve Ganem, product director of Google Analytics, said: “Any data in Google Analytics is obfuscated and aggregated in a way that prevents it from being used to identify an individual and our policies prohibit customers from sending us data that could be used to identify a user. Google has strict policies against advertising to people based on sensitive information.”

Google pledged last year that it would delete location history data related to people’s visits to abortion and fertility clinics, but the company has not announced any changes since then related to data involving abortion pill providers or how it handles government requests for data.

 A Google spokesperson did not respond when asked whether the company has turned over any data to law enforcement about users of online pharmacies that provide abortion medication or whether it has been asked to do so.

“This is problematic and dangerous — both the potential access that law enforcement has to figure out who is violating our new state bans and that we’ve let tech companies know so much about our private lives,” said Anya Prince, a law professor at the University of Iowa who focuses on health privacy. “It shows us how powerful this data is in scary ways.”

Medication Abortion

Using medications to induce an abortion involves taking two drugs. Mifepristone blocks the hormone progesterone, effectively stopping the growth of the pregnancy. Misoprostol, taken a day or two later, helps the uterus contract, emptying it of pregnancy tissue. This drug combination is the most commonly used method of abortion, accounting for more than half of abortions in the U.S.

Demand for the drugs is expected to grow amid reproductive health clinic closures and the enactment of a cascade of state laws banning abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last June.

At least 13 states now ban all methods of abortion, including medication abortion, though some allow exceptions for medical emergencies, rape or incest. People who are unable to shoulder the cost of traveling to states where abortion is legal are increasingly turning to online pharmacies to buy abortion pills without prescriptions. 

The mail-order pills can be taken at home, and they’re generally cheaper than abortion services provided in clinics — about $200 to $470 from online pharmacies, compared to about $500 for a first-trimester abortion conducted in a clinic.

Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2000, mifepristone — the first tablet in the two-step regimen — can be used to help end pregnancies in their first 11 weeks.

 The agency initially restricted the drug, requiring patients to get it from clinicians in person.

Mifepristone became more accessible during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the FDA temporarily relaxed the requirement that people visit providers in person to get the drug.

 The agency scrapped the requirement altogether in December 2021, allowing people to obtain abortion medication through the mail after a telemedicine appointment.

Then, on Jan. 3, the FDA published new rules allowing retail pharmacies to dispense mifepristone to people who have prescriptions, potentially expanding access to medication abortion. 

But those rules do not help pregnant people in more than a dozen states where abortion bans prevent pharmacies from offering the drug.

A week later, Alabama's attorney general said that anyone using abortion pills could be prosecuted under a state law that penalizes people for taking drugs while pregnant — despite the state’s abortion ban, which excludes abortion seekers and penalizes providers instead. 

He then appeared to back off his statement, saying the law would be used only to target providers.

Nineteen states already ban the prescription of abortion drugs through telehealth, meaning people in those states must see a clinician in person or find abortion medication online on their own. 

Many appear ready to do the latter. 

After a draft of the Supreme Court’s abortion decision leaked last May, internet search traffic for medication abortion surged. Dozens of people have posted descriptions online of their experiences getting abortion pills, some in restrictive states. 

One Reddit user recounted their ordeal on an abortion subgroup in October: “I’m in TX so i ordered through abortion RX. It said it’ll be here soon like 5-6 days. I’m extremely nervous I’m doing this by myself, but I’ve looked and don’t have a lot of time to make a decision. This is the fastest way.”

A New Legal Era

Just two states — Nevada and South Carolina — explicitly outlaw self-managed abortion. 

But that hasn’t stopped prosecutors in other states from charging people for taking abortion drugs.

Prosecutors have cited online orders of abortion pills as evidence in cases charging people with illegal abortions in several states, including Georgia, Idaho and Indiana.

And in at least 61 cases from 2000 through 2020 spread across more than half the states in the country, prosecutors investigated people or ordered their arrest for allegedly self-managing abortions or helping someone else to do so, according to a report by If/When/How, a reproductive justice advocacy organization. In most of these cases, people had used medication for their abortions.

Those prosecutors interested in criminalizing abortion are aided by state and private surveillance.

“This is an entirely new era,” said Ari Waldman, a professor of law and computer science at Northeastern University. “We’re moving to a modern surveillance state where every website we visit is tracked. We have yet to conceptualize the entire body of laws that could be used to criminalize people getting abortions.”

Law enforcement can use people’s behavior when visiting websites that sell abortion pills as evidence to build cases against those suspected of having abortions. Investigations and charges in these cases overwhelmingly stem from reports to law enforcement by health care providers, trusted contacts or the discovery of fetal remains, legal experts say.

 Once authorities launch an investigation, they can use online searches for abortion pills as part of the evidence.

“This information can tell a district attorney that you went to an abortion website and you bought something,” Waldman said. “That might be enough to get a judge to get a warrant to take someone’s computer to search for any evidence related to whatever abortion-related crime they’re being charged with.”

This was true even under the more limited abortion restrictions under Roe. For example, in 2017, prosecutors in Mississippi charged Latice Fisher with second-degree murder after she lost her pregnancy at 36 weeks. Prosecutors used her online search history — including a search for how to buy abortion pills online — as evidence. Fisher’s murder charge was eventually dismissed.

“We have a private surveillance apparatus that is wide and is largely unregulated,” said Corynne McSherry, legal director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that promotes digital rights. “Now Google knows what you’re searching. This is a real threat. If any third party has your information, it means your data is no longer in your control and it could be sought by law enforcement. This is 100% a worry.”

Opting Out

Many people aren’t aware of how to opt out of sharing their data. Part of the problem is that when users visit online pharmacies that share users’ information with third parties such as Google, their information can then be shared with law enforcement if allowed by the privacy policies of those third parties.

“The mere fact that you’ve used the online pharmacy to buy abortion medication, that info is now collected by Google and it is now subject to the privacy policy of Google such that you have no way of opting out of that, because it’s entirely separate from the website you went to,” Waldman said.

Users can install a web browser, such as Brave or Firefox, that offers privacy protections. They can also install browser extensions to block third-party trackers and adjust the privacy settings on their browsers. But these steps aren’t always foolproof. Tech companies can still subvert them using hidden tools that users cannot see, and they likely retain vast troves of data that are beyond users’ control.

“Individuals are not going to solve this problem; technical solutions aren’t going to solve this problem,” said Chris Kanich, associate professor of computer science at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “These trillion-dollar companies of the economy aren’t going anywhere. So we need policy solutions.”

Congressional lawmakers have spent years discussing a national data privacy standard. The bill that has made the most progress is the American Data Privacy and Protection Act. Introduced last June by a bipartisan group of lawmakers who intended to strengthen consumer data protections, the bill limited companies from using any sensitive data, including precise geolocation information or browsing histories, for targeted advertising or other purposes. Companies would have been required to get consumers’ express consent before sharing sensitive data with third parties. The legislation passed out of its assigned House committee in July.

Another bill, the My Body, My Data Act, also introduced last summer, would limit the reproductive health data that companies are allowed to collect, keep and disclose.

But neither bill has passed. The My Body, My Data Act had few, if any, Republican supporters. 

Plus, legislators couldn’t reach an agreement over whether the American Data Privacy and Protection Act should supersede state privacy laws such as the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, which provides data privacy protections for consumers in the state.

ProPublica

She Wanted an Abortion. A Judge Said She Wasn’t Mature Enough to Decide.

Privacy experts say the most effective way to protect users’ data is for online pharmacies that sell abortion medication to stop collecting and sharing health-related data.

Companies selling abortion pills should immediately stop sharing data with Google, said Cooper Quintin, senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

“Web developers may not have thought they were putting their users at risk by using Google Analytics and other third-party trackers,” Quintin said. “But with the current political climate, all websites, but especially websites with at-risk users, need to consider that helping Google, Facebook and others build up records of user behavior could have a potentially horrific outcome. You can't keep acting like Roe is still the law of the land.""

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.propublica.org/article/websites-selling-abortion-pills-share-sensitive-data-with-google?utm_source=The+Marshall+Project+Newsletter&utm_campaign=c0ea7b621a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_01_20_12_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5e02cdad9d-c0ea7b621a-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D

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;

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

Michael Politte: Missouri: (Outdated arson 'science' and much more): Bulletin: Missouri's Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday from the state's attorney general opposing yet another local prosecutor's attempt to argue the innocence of a man convicted of murder, The Missouri Independent reports..."This time the case was for Michael Politte, a man who was charged with murdering his mother in 1999 when he was 15. In May, former Washington County Prosecuting Attorney Joshua Hedgecorth filed a motion arguing Politte was "erroneously convicted." "Michael Politte spent 23 years in prison for the murder of his mother, Rita Politte, based on physical evidence that has now been scientifically proven to be false," Hedgecorth wrote in his motion. Politte was released on parole in April. Previously, if elected prosecutors believed a person was wrongfully convicted, there wasn't anything they could do about it. A state law passed in May 2021 changed that, giving prosecutors a pathway to present evidence of innocence to a judge. Hedgecorth filed his motion a year later, and it's among three of such cases so far. The Missouri Attorney General's Office -- previously under Eric Schmitt and now under Andrew Bailey -- has vehemently opposed the prosecutors' motions. Tuesday was no exception."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The case: On the morning of Dec. 5, 1998, Politte, then 14, found his mother's body face-up on the floor and her body on fire, according to Hedgecorth's motion.  During his 2002 trial, the prosecution relied on expert testimony that claimed scientific analysis confirmed the presence of gasoline on Politte's shoes, Hedgecorth stated. "This was the only physical evidence that connected Michael Politte to his mother's murder," the motion states. "This evidence laid the foundation for the case against him." In 2020, the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) Crime Lab re-evaluated the chromatography analysis of Politte's shoes and concluded there were no ignitable liquids present. "With that analysis, the singular physical evidence against Politte is now universally recognized as false," the Highway Patrol analysis states. Similarly, the trial expert testimony that this fire was started with an accelerant -- which made the alleged gasoline on Politte's shoes damning evidence of guilt -- has been proven false as well. After learning about the chromatography analysis, Hedgecorth wrote that his office undertook a review of the case against Politte and has determined that, in light of the scientific evidence, his conviction "cannot be sustained." Hedgecorth said the new state law allowed him to file the motion. "Mr. Politte has maintained his actual innocence since the morning of his mother's tragic murder," Hedgecorth states. "He has never wavered."

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

STORY: "Supreme Court hears AG's opposition to prosecutor's jurisdiction in case," published by The Missouri Independent, on January 25, 2023.

GIST: "The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday from the state's attorney general opposing yet another local prosecutor's attempt to argue the innocence of a man convicted of murder.

This time the case was for Michael Politte, a man who was charged with murdering his mother in 1999 when he was 15.

In May, former Washington County Prosecuting Attorney Joshua Hedgecorth filed a motion arguing Politte was "erroneously convicted."

"Michael Politte spent 23 years in prison for the murder of his mother, Rita Politte, based on physical evidence that has now been scientifically proven to be false," Hedgecorth wrote in his motion.

Politte was released on parole in April.

Previously, if elected prosecutors believed a person was wrongfully convicted, there wasn't anything they could do about it.

 A state law passed in May 2021 changed that, giving prosecutors a pathway to present evidence of innocence to a judge.

 Hedgecorth filed his motion a year later, and it's among three of such cases so far.

The Missouri Attorney General's Office -- previously under Eric Schmitt and now under Andrew Bailey -- has vehemently opposed the prosecutors' motions.

Tuesday was no exception.

The attorney general's team argued the Washington County prosecutor didn't have the jurisdiction to file the motion.

While Politte was charged in Washington County, his trial took place in St. Francois County. However, the Washington County prosecuting attorney still tried the case.

A jury found Politte guilty of second-degree murder in 1999, and the St. Francois Circuit Court sentenced him to life in prison.

Yet, it was clear by the Supreme Court judges' questions to Assistant Attorney General Andrew Crane on Tuesday that this case is also an opportunity to finally define the attorney general's role in these new innocence proceedings -- something that local judges and prosecutors have struggled to understand.

Though the law clearly states the prosecutor -- and not the attorney general -- represents the state, the attorney general has been allowed to take an outsized role in these cases.

Did the attorney general's office have the authority to challenge Hedgecorth's jurisdiction in the first place, under the new law?

Tricia Bushnell, executive director for the Missouri Innocence Project, argued Tuesday the new state law gave the attorney general a "limited role" in these cases, and he overstepped when he asked for a change of venue in Politte's case.

"We do not concede that the attorney general had the authority to bring this matter before this court," Bushnell said. "They are not a party. ... When we look at how the Missouri constitution and statutes have always held that the criminal trials, the criminal matters are the role of the prosecutor."

Crane argued the new law doesn't limit the attorney general's authority to intervene and appear in any case where the state has an interest.

"And as we just discussed, the state's interests are at stake," Crane said.

Hedgecorth, a Democrat, lost his re-election in November, and the county's new prosecuting attorney John Jones, a Republican, represented the state Tuesday.

In an interview with the Independent on Monday, Jones said he hasn't "made any decision" on whether to continue to pursue the motion to vacate Politte's murder conviction, if his office prevails in the Supreme Court case.

"The case is still under review," Jones said.

The case:

On the morning of Dec. 5, 1998, Politte, then 14, found his mother's body face-up on the floor and her body on fire, according to Hedgecorth's motion.

During his 2002 trial, the prosecution relied on expert testimony that claimed scientific analysis confirmed the presence of gasoline on Politte's shoes, Hedgecorth stated.

"This was the only physical evidence that connected Michael Politte to his mother's murder," the motion states. "This evidence laid the foundation for the case against him."

In 2020, the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) Crime Lab re-evaluated the chromatography analysis of Politte's shoes and concluded there were no ignitable liquids present.

"With that analysis, the singular physical evidence against Politte is now universally recognized as false," the Highway Patrol analysis states.

Similarly, the trial expert testimony that this fire was started with an accelerant -- which made the alleged gasoline on Politte's shoes damning evidence of guilt -- has been proven false as well.

After learning about the chromatography analysis, Hedgecorth wrote that his office undertook a review of the case against Politte and has determined that, in light of the scientific evidence, his conviction "cannot be sustained." Hedgecorth said the new state law allowed him to file the motion.

"Mr. Politte has maintained his actual innocence since the morning of his mother's tragic murder," Hedgecorth states. "He has never wavered."

The Missouri Independent, www.missouriindependent.com, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization covering state government and its impact on Missourians."

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.newstribune.com/news/2023/jan/25/supreme-court-hears-ags-opposition-to-prosecutors/

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;

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