CLPEX Chat Board

I'm not sure if y'all have seen the NC News Observer's series blasting the SBI. So far nothing on prints, per se, tho much on blood spatter analysis.

Today's story focused on the relationship between the lab and the prosecutors, and some concerning policies regarding contact with defense counsel, and training materials disparaging defense counsel. Needless to say, I'm concerned about the specter of labs shaping testimony to fit the prosecution theory and not testing evidence for fear it might weaken a case (and at the risk of convicting the wrong guy).

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/08/12/ ... n-lab.html

After reading through the article, there are some things that don't sound right and can be blamed on journalist error/leeway. For example, there are more than

16 unique identifiers that make up one's DNA profile.

The forensic community typically uses these 16 as a means to establish a statistical model for identification. There are several loci used in Y-STR analyses that are used for male DNA examinations as well.

I still believe it is important to know some of the details of an investigation before examination of evidence can proceed. I'm pretty sure most medical examiners/forensic pathologists won't perform an autopsy unless something is known about how the body was found, circumstances surrounding the discovery of the body, etc. Like fingerprint examinations: when you see a latent fingerprint, it is helpful to know what object is was removed from; that will assist you in knowing which finger(s) to look at when searching or comparing.

That being said, it is a little wild that they have written instructions in manuals to attempt to minimize grey areas of in investigation so as to bolster the case for the prosecution. I don't think that we should take direct orders/requests from defense attorneys but I don't think we should ever fight to not retest something unless it is in our protocols not to. If there are mistakes in manuals, or revisons are needed, then revise them or fix the mistakes. I think the point of our profession is to continually improve as best as we can. We need to be transparent and not be afraid to be observed.

Now grown to criticism of ASCLAD....

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/09/26/ ... cerns.html


GARNER -- In a humble commercial strip mall in Johnston County, the nation's forensic science power players have built an empire.

In a single office, callers can reach the nation's largest accreditation group for forensic laboratories - and a for-profit consulting agency that coaches those labs on how to pass accreditation. Callers can also contact a trade association for forensic lab directors and the chief national forensic science lobbying group that helps shape the future of the field.

For some of the groups, correspondence is directed to suites that don't exist, but the mail ends up in the same office: headquarters for ASCLD-LAB, the accreditation group under scrutiny for missing problems at the State Bureau of Investigation.


The coziness of ASCLD-LAB and its affiliates is raising the question whether the groups have enough distance to be true to science, not to each other.

"I think it's questionable that they have all these organizations that claim to be separate running out of what appears to be the same office," said Amy Driver, a forensic scientist in Washington, D.C., who blogged about the issue this month. Driver, a Raleigh native, said she doesn't understand who is profiting and exactly who is involved in the groups.

Operations at 139 Technology Drive in Garner are claiming headlines in North Carolina, too, in the wake of problems at the SBI.

The News & Observer has reported that some SBI analysts and agents pushed past the bounds of accepted science to offer results pleasing to prosecutors. An audit commissioned by Attorney General Roy Cooper highlighted 229 cases from 1987 to 2003 tainted by analysts withholding results of more sophisticated blood tests in reports for prosecutors.

ASCLD-LAB certified the work of the SBI lab starting in 1988. It missed many problems in the blood analysis unit. Two leaders of the accreditation agency are retired SBI agents who had key management roles at the lab at the time problems persisted.

Some legislators suggested this month that the SBI shop for another accreditation group.

ASCLD's leaders say that their setup may look unusual to outsiders but that they have separated the interests of the consulting group and the accreditation group. They say sharing space and administrative resources is convenient, not collusive.

"ASCLD-LAB certified the work of the SBI lab starting in 1988. It missed many problems in the blood analysis unit." The problem with the article criticizing ASCLD/LAB is that the Blood Spatter Analyst did not fall under the "LAB". They were considered "Field Agents". The Raleigh Lab is accredited in the disciplines of Controlled Substances, Toxicology, Trace Evidence, Biology, Firearms/Toolmarks, Latent Prints, Questioned Documents, and Digital & Multimedia Evidence.