Forensic science: overrated

[Winehole23]

Report questions science, reliability of crime lab evidence (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/19/nation/na-crime-science19)

The National Academy of Sciences says many courtroom claims about fingerprints, bite marks and other evidence lack scientific verification. It finds forensics inconsistent and in disarray nationwide.


By Maura Dolan (http://articles.latimes.com/writers/maura-dolan) and Jason Felch (http://articles.latimes.com/writers/jason-felch)

February 19, 2009 (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/19/nation)

(http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/19/nation)
Sweeping claims made in courtrooms about fingerprints, ballistics, bite marks and other forensic evidence often have little or no basis in science, according to a landmark report Wednesday by the nation’s leading science body.


The report by the National Academy of Sciences called for a wholesale overhaul of the crime lab system, which has become increasingly crucial to American jurisprudence.


Many experts said the report could have a broad impact on crime labs and the courts, ushering in changes at least as significant as those generated by the advent of DNA evidence two decades ago. But the substantial reforms proposed by the academy would take years of planning and major federal funding to enact.



In the meantime, the findings are expected to unleash a flood of new legal challenges by defense attorneys.



“This is a major turning point in the history of forensic science in America,” said Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project, a national organization dedicated to exonerating the wrongfully convicted. He said the findings would immediately lead to court challenges.


“If this report does not result in real change, when will it ever happen?”
The office of the Los Angeles County Public Defender plans to use the National Academy report to file challenges on the admissibility of fingerprint evidence, and is reviewing cases in which fingerprints played a primary role in convictions, officials said.


Separately, the Los Angeles Police Department (http://topics.latimes.com/local/organizations/los-angeles-police-department) has been reviewing 1,000 fingerprint cases after discovering that two people had been wrongfully accused because of faulty fingerprint analyses.


The academy, the preeminent science advisor to the federal government, found a system in disarray: labs that are underfunded and beholden to law enforcement, and that lack independent oversight and consistent standards.


The report concludes that the deficiencies pose “a continuing and serious threat to the quality and credibility of forensic science practice,” imperiling efforts to protect society from criminals and shield innocent people from wrongful convictions.


With the notable exception of DNA evidence, the report says that many forensic methods have never been shown to consistently and reliably connect crime scene evidence to specific people or sources.


“The simple reality is that the interpretation of forensic evidence is not always based on scientific studies to determine its validity,” the report says.


For example, the frequent claims that fingerprint analysis had a zero error rate are “not scientifically plausible,” the report said. The scientific basis for bite mark evidence is called “insufficient to conclude that bite mark comparisons can result in a conclusive match.”


Recent cases of CSI gone awry have underscored the report’s urgency. Of the 232 people exonerated by DNA evidence, more than half of the cases involved faulty or invalidated forensic science, according to the Innocence Project.


Margaret Berger, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School and a member of the panel, explained: “We’re not saying all these disciplines are useless. We’re saying there is a lot of work that needs to be done.”


Said U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Harry Edwards, co-chairman of the panel: “There are a lot of people who are concerned, and they should be concerned. Forensic science is the handmaiden of the legal system… . If you claim to be science, you ought to put yourself to the test.”


Although the panel’s recommendations are not binding, they are considered influential.



Among the recommendations:

* Create a new federal agency, the National Institute of Fore
nsic Science, to fund scientific research and disseminate basic standards.


* Make crime labs independent of law enforcement. Most crime labs are run by police agencies, which can lead to bias, a growing body of research shows.


* Require that expert witnesses and forensic analysts be certified by the new agency, and that labs be accredited. These standards are now optional.



* Fund research into the scientific basis for claims routinely made in court, as well as studies of the accuracy and reliability of forensic techniques.
Those recommendations have been cautiously embraced by leading associations of forensic scientists, which in 2005 helped convince Congress that the study was necessary.


“You can’t continue to do business in 2009 the way you did in 1915,” said Joseph Polski of the International Assn. for Identification, whose members include examiners of fingerprints, questioned documents, footwear and tire tracks. “We knew there would be things in there we’d like and things we didn’t like.”


Many forensic scientists were hesitant to criticize the report for fear of seeming resistant to testing and scrutiny. But there were some delicate complaints.


“It’s not the science of forensic science that is in need of repair, I think; it’s how the results are interpreted in the courtroom,” said Dean Gialamis, head of the American Society of Crime Lab Directors, who was quick to add that his group welcomed the recommendations. The report was hailed by many defense attorneys, scientists and law professors, who for years have been raising scientific and legal challenges.



“The courts were highly skeptical of experts and resistant to hearing their arguments,” said Simon A. Cole, a professor of criminology at UC Irvine who has often testified for defense teams about the limitations of fingerprint evidence. “I feel like I’m Alice coming out of the rabbit hole and back into a world of sanity and reason.”


The report had harsh words for the FBI Laboratory and the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Justice Department, which have shown little enthusiasm for exploring the shortcomings of forensic science.



“Neither agency has recognized, let alone articulated, a need for change,” the report states, adding that they could be subject to pro-prosecution biases.


Eric H. Holder Jr., the new attorney general, signaled in comments to reporters shortly before the report was released that he would take the report’s concerns seriously: “I think we need to devote a lot of attention and a lot of resources to that problem.”



Prosectors on the front lines, however, were more skeptical.


“I know the defense is probably starting bonfires, but this should not in any way shake up anyone’s confidence in forensics,” said Paula Wulff, manager and senior attorney of the DNA Forensic Program of the National District Attorneys Assn.



She called the recommendations a “Cadillac of aspirations,” and expressed doubt that they would be followed given the poor state of the economy.
All sides, however, agreed that the report signals an aggressive reentry of scientists into issues that for decades have fallen to lawyers, judges and juries to resolve.

[DarkReign]

Why am I embracing this as good news?

Is it because I think we are moving toward becoming a police state or is it because in a police state, this wouldnt matter anyway?

IMO, shows like CSI can kiss my ass. Turns everyone into a junior detective because they can pull a print off a plastic surfcae with a book of matches and a fish tank (ty Eddie Murphy).

I am always of the mind of presuming innocence, but thats old school. Dont get me wrong, criminals belong in prison, but its been my experience that the State is is very much gung-ho about locking up any and all criminals, small or big.

It doesnt come as much surprise to hear crime labs are pro-prosecution. The one down the street is owned and operated by the city. How many times do you think that particular lab has produced results that hurt the prosecutions case? Yeah, me neither.

[RandomGuy]

Why am I embracing this as good news?

Is it because I think we are moving toward becoming a police state or is it because in a police state, this wouldnt matter anyway?

IMO, shows like CSI can kiss my ass. Turns everyone into a junior detective because they can pull a print off a plastic surfcae with a book of matches and a fish tank (ty Eddie Murphy).

I am always of the mind of presuming innocence, but thats old school. Dont get me wrong, criminals belong in prison, but its been my experience that the State is is very much gung-ho about locking up any and all criminals, small or big.

It doesnt come as much surprise to hear crime labs are pro-prosecution. The one down the street is owned and operated by the city. How many times do you think that particular lab has produced results that hurt the prosecutions case? Yeah, me neither.

Yup.

There is a danger in giving the nod too much to the state. For all of the abuses of our rights that take place, those rights are there for a reason.

On a somewhat related note, I have pretty much decided that declaring "no contest" to speeding tickets is for suckers.

"Not guilty" and gimmie a jury trial.

I am 3-0 when I have done that.
Once the cop never showed up.
One took over a year and a half to get to trial stage, and the patrolman had since moved out of state.
One was where the prosecutor took a look at the dash cam and noticed right away that it wasn't my car that triggered the radar, I was genuinely innocent.

I didn't bother with the one I got in Schertz though, but I probably should have. That one I did do a no contest with. There were a LOT of people there, and it was readily obvious that ticket income was a large source of revenue for the town.

After that, I was halfway tempted to put a sign up where everyone could read it:

"It is your right to insist on a jury trial for your ticket. Do you think the city of Schertz has enough jurors for EVERYBODY they give a ticket to?"

Sixty people in the court with me. 60*6 (minor offenses generally get a "petit" jury to my understanding) =360 or fewer if one jury handles more than one case.

My observations:

Don't be a dick to the cop when he/she gives you the ticket. If you make them mad and they remember you, they will make it a point to show up.

Don't get a lawyer. This pisses the prosecutor/cops off because traffic ticket lawyers are dicks.

Be polite and friendly to the prosecutor, but remember they are NOT your friend.

[DarkReign]

Don't be a dick to the cop when he/she gives you the ticket. If you make them mad and they remember you, they will make it a point to show up.

Don't get a lawyer. This pisses the prosecutor/cops off because traffic ticket lawyers are dicks.

Be polite and friendly to the prosecutor, but remember they are NOT your friend.

Ha...we think alike. I never plead "no contest" on my tickets. I always fight them and they always get thrown out. The courts dont waste their time on speeding tickets by jury. Theyd just as soon let you walk.

Also, when it comes to being pulled over, Im the nicest person in the world to the cop. I keep my hands on the wheel (where they can see them) and tell them when I am going to reach in my glovebox/backpocket.

It gets them comfortable. They see that I am trying to alleviate their fear of "random stop, cop death" and it usually ends with a "Well, try slowing down through here...its frequented by cops."

Thank you, officer. Have a good day, officer. No, officer. Blah blah blah

I actually respect individual cops a lot. But the old saying holds true for them as a demographic as well...get a bunch of them together and groupthink takes over with the imposition of their collective will.

[DarrinS]

This is why they have the Frye standard and the Daubert standard.


I hope this study doesn't result in a lot of GOOD science getting tossed.

[TDMVPDPOY]

i remember b4 the hype of these cop shows, there was alot of vacancy for forensic jobs...untill the hype came alot of people got hooked on the shows and applied for jobs...and there was none

[DarrinS]

i remember b4 the hype of these cop shows, there was alot of vacancy for forensic jobs...untill the hype came alot of people got hooked on the shows and applied for jobs...and there was none



LOL. Just because people WANT these jobs doesn't mean they're QUALIFIED for these jobs.

[Winehole23]

This is why they have the Frye standard and the Daubert standard.Frye is the "generally accepted" standard, Daubert makes judges gatekeepers and stipulates the "relevancy" and "reliability" of expert testimony.




Empirical testing: the theory or technique must be falsifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable), refutable, and testable.
Subjected to peer review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review) and publication.
Known or potential error rate and the existence and maintenance of standards concerning its operation.
Whether the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.


Forensic scientists asked for this study. If forensic science had minded its p and q's in the area of the third bullet point, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Physician, heal thyself.

[DarrinS]

Frye is the "generally accepted" standard, Daubert makes judges gatekeepers and stipulates the "relevancy" and "reliability" of expert testimony.




Unrelated, but hilarious video of a deposition of an expert witness.

ZIxmrvbMeKc

[Winehole23]

That's pretty funny DarrinS. It's also very Texas.

[doobs]

Unrelated, but hilarious video of a deposition of an expert witness.

ZIxmrvbMeKc

Joe Jamail is a jackass. A very wealthy jackass.

[TDMVPDPOY]

Forensic scientists asked for this study. If forensic science had minded its p and q's in the area of the third bullet point, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Physician, heal thyself.

you know whats bullshit? CSI shows hahhahaa...when they investigatin the angle of the bullets and shit...here a few examples...

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee262/PbNation_bucket/c49af32318d4c89f4ea9aa42c51a25bb-1.jpg

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee262/PbNation_bucket/25b6063888cb2040c57be639df7838e3.png

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee262/PbNation_bucket/3eb12747e940bca4315f390d8715bb67.jpg

:lmao:lmao:lmao

[PixelPusher]

i am always of the mind of presuming innocence, but thats old school. Dont get me wrong, criminals belong in prison, but its been my experience that the state is is very much gung-ho about locking up any and all criminals, small or big.




pennsylvania rocked by 'jailing kids for cash' scandal (http://www.cnn.com/2009/crime/02/23/pennsylvania.corrupt.judges/index.html)
by stephanie chen

(cnn) -- at a friend's sleepover more than a year ago, 14-year-old phillip swartley pocketed change from unlocked vehicles in the neighborhood to buy chips and soft drinks. The cops caught him.
Former luzerne county president judge mark ciavarella pleaded guilty, faces prison and was disbarred.

There was no need for an attorney, said phillip's mother, amy swartley, who thought at most, the judge would slap her son with a fine or community service.

But she was shocked to find her eighth-grader handcuffed and shackled in the courtroom and sentenced to a youth detention center. Then, he was shipped to a boarding school for troubled teens for nine months.

"yes, my son made a mistake, but i didn't think he was going to be taken away from me," said swartley, a 41-year-old single mother raising two boys in wilkes-barre, pennsylvania.

Cnn does not usually identify minors accused of crimes. But swartley and others agreed to be named to bring public attention to the issue.

As scandals from wall street to washington roil the public trust, the justice system in luzerne county, in the heart of pennsylvania's struggling coal country, has also fallen prey to corruption. The county has been rocked by a kickback scandal involving two elected judges who essentially jailed kids for cash. Many of the children had appeared before judges without a lawyer. Video watch the corruption scandal that is rocking pennsylvania »

the nonprofit juvenile law center in philadelphia said phillip is one of at least 5,000 children over the past five years who appeared before former luzerne county president judge mark ciavarella.

Ciavarella pleaded guilty earlier this month to federal criminal charges of fraud and other tax charges, according to the u.s. Attorney's office. Former luzerne county senior judge michael conahan also pleaded guilty to the same charges. The two secretly received more than $2.6 million, prosecutors said.

The judges have been disbarred and have resigned from their elected positions. They agreed to serve 87 months in prison under their plea deals. Ciavarella and conahan did not return calls, and their attorneys told cnn that they have no comment.

Ciavarella, 58, along with conahan, 56, corruptly and fraudulently "created the potential for an increased number of juvenile offenders to be sent to juvenile detention facilities," federal court documents alleged. Children would be placed in private detention centers, under contract with the court, to increase the head count. In exchange, the two judges would receive kickbacks.

The juvenile law center said it plans to file a class-action lawsuit this week representing what they say are victims of corruption. Juvenile law center attorneys cite a few examples of harsh penalties judge ciavarella meted out for relatively petty offenses:

# ciavarvella sent 15-year-old hillary transue to a wilderness camp for mocking an assistant principal on a myspace page.

# he whisked 13-year-old shane bly, who was accused of trespassing in a vacant building, from his parents and confined him in a boot camp for two weekends.

# he sentenced kurt kruger, 17, to detention and five months of boot camp for helping a friend steal dvds from wal-mart.

Several other lawsuits on behalf of the juveniles who have appeared in ciavarella's courtroom have emerged.

The private juvenile detention centers, owned by mid atlantic youth services corp., are still operating and are not a target of the federal investigation, according court documents. The company cooperated in the investigation, the documents said.

A spokesman from the company denied that its current owner, gregory zappala, knew about the kickbacks.

Ciavarella assured the community that he could provide justice. Elected to the bench in 1996, he once ran for judge on the promise that he would punish "people who break the law," according to local reports.

The corruption began in 2002, when conahan shut down the state juvenile detention center and used money from the luzerne county budget to fund a multimillion-dollar lease for the private facilities. Despite some raised eyebrows from the community, county commissioners approved the deal.

The federal government began investigating in 2006.

"it's been a dark cloud hanging over the county for a very, very long time," said luzerne county commissioner maryanne c. Petrilla, whose office approved the judges' budgets during the corruption. "i'm looking forward to the ship turning around now and us moving in the right direction."

the kickback scandal highlights a major problem in the juvenile justice system in luzerne county and across the country, attorneys say. They say hundreds of children who appeared before ciavarella didn't have lawyers.

"kids think very much in the present, and they have limited abilities to understand long-term consequences," said robin dahlberg, an attorney at the american civil liberties union in new york who specializes in juvenile issues.

Dahlberg's recent study in ohio revealed that some of the counties had as many as 90 percent of children going through the court system without a lawyer.

"this pennsylvania case is a sad reminder of why kids need an attorney," she said.

A 1967 supreme court ruling says children have a right to counsel. However, many states allow children and their parents to appear without an attorney by completing a waiver.

Pennsylvania is among about half of the states in the country that allow waivers to be signed for juveniles to appear before a judge without an attorney, legal experts say.

In luzerne county, teens who waived counsel were at greater risk of being sent to placement center than those with representation.

About 50 percent of the children who waived counsel before ciavarella were sent to some kind of placement, the philadelphia-based juvenile law center reports. In comparison, the juvenile court judges' commission in pennsylvania found that 8.4 percent of juveniles across the state wind up in placement.

"when you have this many kids waiving counsel, then that's way out of line," said marsha levick, an attorney at the juvenile law center. "there was no record [ciavarella] was assuring the child and parent about the consequences of not having representation."

minors charged with nonviolent crimes were often given harsher sentences than what probation officers recommended, court documents say. Other investigators say the trials lasted a few minutes at most.

All four of the teens cited in this story say they appeared before ciavarella without lawyers.

"i was sort of shocked and taken aback," hillary transue, the myspace offender who is now 17, said of her experience in ciavarella's courtroom in april 2007. "i didn't really understand what was going on."

the juvenile law center says it first red-flagged ciavarella in 1999 after discovering that a 13-year-old boy was detained without being read his rights and had appeared in court without a lawyer. When the case became public, ciavarella promised the public that every minor in his courtroom would have a lawyer.

Judges must verbally explain the consequences of appearing in court without counsel to minors and parents, lawyers say. Juvenile law center officials say ciavarella neglected to do so in many cases.

Yet in the past five years, attorneys, law enforcement officials and other judges did not report ciavarella's behavior to the judicial conduct board of pennsylvania, says joseph a. Massa jr., chief counsel at the board.

Privatizing detention facilities is a growing in popularity among governments because the companies say they offer lower rates than the state.

Pennsylvania has the second highest number of private facilities after florida, accounting for about 11 percent of the private facilities in the united states, according to the national center for juvenile justice in pittsburgh, pennsylvania.

Critics say private prisons lack transparency because they don't go through the same inspections and audits as a state facility, and this may have allowed payoffs to go so long without being noticed.

"once somebody is going to make more money by holding more kids, there is a pretty good predictable profit motive," said criminal justice consultant judith greene, who heads a nonprofit group called justice strategies. "it's predictable that companies are going to tolerate certain behaviors they shouldn't."

an audit draft obtained by the philadelphia inquirer showed that luzerne county was spending more than $1.2 million in expenses that weren't allowed under state regulations. The pennsylvania department of public welfare, the agency overseeing the audits, says the audit drafts are not final.

The audits also allege that two people paid the judges. Attorneys for former mid-atlantic owner robert powell say that their client is one of those people but that he was pressured by the judges to make payments. The attorneys say powell never offered to pay the judges, never sought to influence any juvenile case and is now cooperating with the investigation. Zappala and powell were partners until zappala bought out powell in 2008.

Senior judge arthur e. Grim of berks county is reviewing the cases for minors who appeared before ciavarella. Court officials say some children may have their records expunged or be granted new hearings.

The philadelphia bar association has expressed outrage, assuring the public that the rest of the judges on the state's bench are "composed of highly qualified, honorable and honest people, who take their responsibilities to the public very seriously."

but some of the children -- many who, like phillip swartley, are now young adults -- have become jaded and believe that their cases were tainted in ciavarella's courtroom.
Advertisement

after being sent to boarding school, phillip, now 15, became withdrawn and depressed, his mother says.

"what do these kids see of the legal system and of authority figures?" amy swartley asked. "these kids see people who abuse their power. Now, we have a whole county and generation of children who have lost trust in the system."

[LockBeard]

That's pretty funny DarrinS. It's also very Texas.

lmao! That video was great.

I love Texas.

[TDMVPDPOY]

those institutions are not the solution for petty crimes commited by minors....all it does is put them in a group of people only to boasts why they're in there and start a gang....

send these clowns to the army imo....

[Winehole23]

Joe Jamail is a jackass. A very wealthy jackass.That is Joe Jamail?

Wow. Are depositions often like that?

[doobs]

That is Joe Jamail?

Wow. Are depositions often like that?

No. It only happens when you're Joe Jamail.

I should let up on him. He's been very generous, and contributed in an indirect way to my education.

Anyway, Joe Jamail is the guy on the right. You can only see his arm.

[Winehole23]

The old guy didn't like the question so rather than answer it he started a big fight with his (admittedly correct) "incipient verbal diarrhea" prediction.

[DarrinS]

Joe Jamail is a jackass. A very wealthy jackass.



Is he famous?

[Winehole23]

Is he famous?Was it Texaco Jamail raked for hundreds of millions? My memory is fuzzy.

[Winehole23]

$11.2 billion (http://www.joejamail.net/Lawyer%20of%20the%20Century.htm)

[TDMVPDPOY]

$11.2 billion (http://www.joejamail.net/Lawyer%20of%20the%20Century.htm)

he made all of that from being a lawyer?

[doobs]

Is he famous?

He's a billionaire trial lawyer. If current trends hold, UT will soon be known as the Jamail-McCombs University of Texas.

[doobs]

he made all of that from being a lawyer?

He made, like, 300-400 million on that case. (The judgment was for 11.2 billion.) He's currently worth a billion or two, I think.

[DarrinS]

$11.2 billion (http://www.joejamail.net/Lawyer%20of%20the%20Century.htm)


Damn. Think of how many Marine One helicopters that would buy.

[Winehole23]

Damn. Think of how many Marine One helicopters that would buy.Only the best for the boss, eh? Isn't that as it should be and won't the helicopters outlast Obama?

[Winehole23]

He's a billionaire trial lawyer. If current trends hold, UT will soon be known as the Jamail-McCombs University of Texas.Not too many other exes could afford it. I wouldn't rule it out. :lol

[DarrinS]

Only the best for the boss, eh? Isn't that as it should be and won't the helicopters outlast Obama?


We need to keep him safe at all costs because Biden and Pelosi are 2nd and 3rd in line.

[TDMVPDPOY]

We need to keep him safe at all costs because Biden and Pelosi are 2nd and 3rd in line.

then everyone would want one.....will this save the recession if everyone started buyin LOLCOPTERS instead of cars from GM.....:lol

[Winehole23]

...nonsensical...

[RandomGuy]

We need to keep him safe at all costs because Biden and Pelosi are 2nd and 3rd in line.

:lmao

Every Republican in this country would unhesitatingly take a bullet for Obama, even if they wouldn't do so for patriotic reasons already...

What a brilliant idea for a politically themed troll:

President Pelosi. :lol

"BOOOGA BOOGA BOOOGA"

Now that I have given the conservatives on the board insomnia and nightmares, I think my work is done here. :p:

[Winehole23]

As scandals from wall street to washington roil the public trust, the justice system in luzerne county, in the heart of pennsylvania's struggling coal country, has also fallen prey to corruption. The county has been rocked by a kickback scandal involving two elected judges who essentially jailed kids for cash. Many of the children had appeared before judges without a lawyer. Video watch the corruption scandal that is rocking pennsylvania



Deserves it's own thread.

I know of something similar that happened in Fulton Tx. A JP was running truants through his courts, fining them without any representation present or any record of the proceedings, then refining and jailing them for nonperformance or recurrence. Revenue went from $40,000 to $240,000 in one year.

Watchale los watchos.

[Winehole23]

Judge convicted, faces ten years:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mark-ciavarella-pa-juvenile-court-judge-convicted-alleged/story?id=12965182

[baseline bum]

Judge convicted, faces ten years:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mark-ciavarella-pa-juvenile-court-judge-convicted-alleged/story?id=12965182

You posted an old link. The piece of shit got 28 years. Hopefully he gets shanked American Me style.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-08-11-pa-courthouse-kickbacks-sentence_n.htm

[ElNono]

Disgusting stuff

[Winehole23]

thanks, BB

[baseline bum]

If I was that mother of the kid who killed himself after having his wrestling career he ruined, I would have shot Ciavarella dead right in front of the camera.

[LnGrrrR]

Wow. Hell of a bombshell report. Good work by those involved with it.

[DarkReign]

Is he going to spend the rest of his sheltered existence in "Club Fed"?

Or is he going to "Pound in the Ass" Federal prison?

I hope its door #2.

Honestly, Ive thought about this a lot.

There should be two sets of laws in this country. One for civilians, one for public officials (elected or not).

Every sentence should be of the mandatory minimum variety for public officials. Basically, take the punishment for a civilian and double/triple it for officials.

[baseline bum]

Asshole should have gotten life. Or even better, death. though he wasn't eligible to be sentenced to the latter. He could have gotten the former though.

[Wild Cobra]

Most people who ruin people's lives for money become politicians.

[mouse]

I hope this study doesn't result in a lot of GOOD science getting tossed.


Good?

Wait until they finally expose your flawed Carbon dating your evolution fossil charts will about useful as an OJ Simpson rookie card.

[DarkReign]

Good?

Wait until they finally expose your flawed Carbon dating your evolution fossil charts will about useful as an OJ Simpson rookie card.

Actually, an OJ Simpson rookie card is probably worth more now than it ever was.

[Agloco]

Good?

Wait until they finally expose your flawed Carbon dating your evolution fossil charts will about useful as an OJ Simpson rookie card.

Tick-tock........tick-tock..........

[mouse]

Tick-tock........tick-tock..........

akRE_J8jclA

[Agloco]

akRE_J8jclA

:wakeup

[mouse]

You can say what you want about that bible thumping homo but he teaches Science and you guys need to have each others backs .......I forgot, unless he supports your theories


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/bored/vlcsnap-155969.png

[DarkReign]

Thats his way of saying, politely, he isnt going to waste time on you explaining the atomic properties of carbon and its damn-near perfectly predictable rate of deterioration.

There are some things you cannot learn from a Youtube video, sadly enough.

[Winehole23]

A reader forwarded me this remarkable 31-page memo (http://www.newenglandinnocence.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ASCLD-Lab-and-Forensic-Laboratory-Accreditation.pdf) (pdf) submitted last year to the New York Forensic Science Commission severely criticizing ASCLD/LAB, which is the primary accreditation body for American crime labs, including in Texas. The memo's' author was Marvin E. Schechter, who several months later was named chair of the criminal justice section (http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News_Center&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=53248) of the New York State Bar. I've always thought ASCLD/LAB's approach seemed a bit squishy and lab-friendly, but Scheichter's memo questions whether lameness too often extends to complicity, and even whether it's appropriate to rely on the private accreditation body at all:
The repeated instances of nationwide lab failures at facilities under ASCLD/LAB accreditation combined with the severity, scope and magnitude of the North Carolina SBI Laboratory scandal, the pending legislative reforms in North Carolina and the San Francisco DNA mix-up/cover-up warrant that the CFS examine precisely what role ASCLD/LAB plays in forensic review, its methodology, the design of its model and the very integrity of the organization itself, including but not limited to potential, if not actual conflicts of interest. Further there must be a serious discussion of whether the CFS can continue to rely on ASCLD/LAB as an accrediting agency.I certainly hadn't realized until reading this piece that ASCLD/LAB is no longer the accreditation body for the United States Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory (USACIL), which dropped ASCLD/LAB after informing them that "one of its DNA Examiner[s] had engaged in repeated misconduct known to supervisors."

Equally damning, as we debate prosecutorial misconduct and Brady issues here in Texas, is the accreditation body's lax attitude toward notification of defendants or sometimes even prosecutors when crime lab errors are discovered:
Transparency does not include notification to District Attorneys (San Francisco, Nassau County) when laboratories engage in misconduct. It does not mean notification to defense attorneys in cases where the representation of their clients is affected.

It would appear to be ASCLD/LAB’s position that notifying anyone other than an affected laboratory is not how transparency, or for that matter accreditation, should be viewed.

Prosecutors can't hand over Brady material they never see, just as defendants can't challenge flawed forensic evidence if its imperfections are concealed.http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2012/03/is-ascldlab-crime-lab-accreditation.html

[101A]

i remember b4 the hype of these cop shows, there was alot of vacancy for forensic jobs...untill the hype came alot of people got hooked on the shows and applied for jobs...and there was none

My wife is in a Chemistry dept at a State University; HAD to develop a "Forensics Science" degree (across departments) in the past 4 years; BIG demand for it. Ridiculous; graduates don't really know enough of any discipline to make them particularly hire-able; NOT that many jobs in Forensics.

[Wild Cobra]

Mouse and Cosmored would be great at it. They have a real good imagination to make up how something went down, and if you look for supporting evidence, it can almost always be found for most hypothesis.

[mouse]

But after my findings will the text books in schools be updated?

[Winehole23]

fake/shoddy forensics have a human cost:


The Timothy Cole Exoneration Review Commission continues to trundle along months after your correspondent left its ranks and is scheduled to meet Thursday, September 15th at 1:00 p.m. in the House Appropriations Committee Room, Texas Capitol Extension Room #E1.030. The Office of Court Administration posted links to the Agenda, Meeting Book, Appendix, and Media clips (http://www.txcourts.gov/organizations/policy-funding/timothy-cole-exoneration-review-commission/meetings-agendas.aspx) for this and prior meetings. The meeting will be broadcast live on the House of Representatives website here (http://www.house.state.tx.us/video-audio/).


Among other documents, the "meeting book" this time contains a joint power-point presentation from the Harris County DA and Public Defender on the rash of drug exonerations in that county stemming from a combination of over-aggressive drug enforcement and faulty field tests. Their update included a reminder that quite a few falsely convicted people in this episode served out their full sentences without ever being notified they were entitled to relief. Just to try out something new, here are a few screenshot-highlights from that presentation collected into a brief slideshow:



The difficulties faced in notifying defendants eligible for relief, much less equipping them with counsel if they have a viable claim, are neither new nor unique to this episode. Rather, it's a problem the state confronts in multiple situations (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2013/12/white-paper-suggests-systemic-reforms.html) where large-scale forensic and/or other errors (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-challenge-of-notifying-defendants.html) potentially taint large classes of cases instead of one or two convictions. These are not problems with obviously great solutions, but identifying them and talking about ways to improve on past failings is a good place to start.http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2016/09/hcdao-many-wrongfully-convicted-drug.html

[boutons_deux]

There is a case where the BLACK guy, of course, was exonerated, and he knew it, but the PIC wouldn't let him go.

[boutons_deux]

DOJ Tells Forensic Experts To Stop Overstating The 'Scientific Certainty' Of Presented Evidence

The DOJ is finally addressing some long-ignored problems with the forensic evidence its prosecutors rely on. For two decades (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150419/13345030722/report-nearly-every-fbi-forensics-expert-gave-flawed-testimony-almost-all-trials-over-20-year-period.shtml), FBI forensics experts handed out flawed testimony (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130723/00563923895/dojfbi-admit-they-may-have-abused-hair-analysis-to-convict-hundreds-to-thousands-innocent-people.shtml) in hundreds of criminal cases, routinely overstating the certainty of conclusions reached by forensic examination. Of those cases, 28 ended in death penalty verdicts.

An earlier attempt to address issues with flawed science and flawed testimony swiftly ran aground. Federal judge Jed S. Rakoff very publicly resigned (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150202/11152629883/judge-resigns-forensic-science-committee-calls-out-dojs-trial-ambush-tactics.shtml) from a committee formed to examine these issues after he was informed by the attorney general's office that he wasn't actually supposed to be examining these issues.

Caleb Mason of Brown, White & Osborn (the "White" is Popehat's Ken White (https://popehat.com/)) reports that the DOJ appears to be taking these problems more seriously (http://brownwhitelaw.com/department-of-justice-directs-forensic-trial-witnesses-to-stop-claiming-scientific-certainty/). It has issued a directive (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3111566/AG-Memorandum-09062016-and-Code-of-Professional.pdf) [PDF] forbidding forensic experts from making claims about "scientific certainty" when presenting evidence.

Directive Number 1 provides that agencies must now “ensure that forensic examiners are not using the expressions ‘reasonable scientific certainty’ in their reports or testimony.” Yes, you read that right. The Department of Justice is telling its forensic expert witnesses to stop claiming “scientific certainty.” Why? Because for most forensic disciplines, there never was any, and DOJ is—after decades of resistance—admitting it.


One of the forms of evidence is fingerprints, the thing every law enforcement agency makes sure to obtain when booking suspects because it's supposedly so infallible. But like almost everything else law enforcement forensic experts claim are reasonably certain, scientifically-speaking, examination of prints no more guarantees a match than examining bite marks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/02/13/how-the-flawed-science-of-bite-mark-analysis-has-sent-innocent-people-to-jail/).

Fingerprint examiners look for “matching points” in prints, but believe it or not, there are no general standards for which points to look at, how many points to look at, or even what counts as a “point.” Not only are there no established standards, there isn’t even general agreement within the forensic analysis community. Some people like eight points, others ten, others twelve. Many examiners insist they can make an identification with just a single point.

Even more amazingly, in stark contrast to DNA matching, no one knows what the statistical likelihood is of two fingerprints sharing particular points, or whether that likelihood is different for different regions or features of the print. This is the crucial question for any identification methodology, because while each person’s fingerprints may be unique, the examiner doesn’t look at every molecule—the examiner looks at whatever five (or eight, or ten) “points” he or she chooses to look at.


Why is this process still so vague even after decades of reliance on it for identifying suspects? Well, it's because the DOJ won't allow anyone other than the government to take a look at the collected records.

Researchers who may have been able to make better determinations on how many points are needed for more definitive matches (or how often false positives are returned by the database) have been locked out by the DOJ.

But the big fingerprint databases are controlled by DOJ, and DOJ has steadfastly refused to let researchers use them for the types of analyses geneticists do with DNA.

That’s what makes print analysis so frustrating: the data exists, so fingerprint analysis could be a genuine scientific discipline, with publicly-available databases, peer-reviewed research, known error rates, and accepted methodologies.

It could be a real body of knowledge about the differential rates of occurrence among populations of particular physical features of our fingerprints. Hopefully one day it will be. But it’s not now, as the DOJ directives finally acknowledge.


https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160921/07335535584/doj-tells-forensic-experts-to-stop-overstating-scientific-certainty-presented-evidence.shtml

[Winehole23]

Fake science was used to convict the San Antonio Four:

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/southwest-of-salem-san-antonio-four-junk-forensic-science-w444481