CLPEX Chat Board

Has anyone seen the new Crime Lab Report?

http://crimelabreport.com/library/month ... -04-05.htm

This publication claims to be independent yet almost all the editorial board has an affiliation with ASCLD or ASCLD/Lab. I believe it’s possible that people can have an affiliation with a group yet still remain impartial but I haven’t seen this from Crime Lab Report.

This issue is about the problem found in the North Carolina lab and how it was reported by the media. Granted, the media skews things a lot to sell stories but it seems to me that Crime Lab Report is doing the same thing.
It’s not that I think they should take responsibility for Greg Taylor wrongfully spending 17 years in prison. Nor do I think they should take responsibility for Floyd Brown spending 14 years in prison. But to state, “Like any human endeavor, mistakes sometimes happen in forensic science” seems to be not acknowledging the severity of the problem. These were not honest mistakes, these people spent all this time in jail due to this lab not disclosing exculpatory evidence that they were aware of! This issue of Crime Lab Report supports not disclosing this information and gives reasons why this was done. In my opinion, there is no good reason for only issuing the results that you prefer.

Not only are they not correctly acknowledging the problem but they are taking credit for finding the problems by saying, “The fact that there is even a paper trail to investigate can be attributed, in large part, to ASCLD/LAB accreditation”. The truth is that they had no part in finding these errors.

It scares me that grown adults can justify such bad actions. I would have preferred to have heard them say how appalled they were by the NC errors, how sorry they are Greg Taylor, Floyd Brown, and any others this situation effected, and that ASCLD/Lab will seriously consider how they can improve their audits to spot indicators in the future.

Looks Good

fingerprint

Welcome to the chat board

You post is quite cryptic. Do you like the report or the post you responded to?

I saw it.

I find the view expressed of the Innocence Project ("the innocence clique") troubling.

We've got 250+ DNA exonerations. One can debate to what extent some of these are black-swan events and to what extent they reveal systemic problems. (I've been part of those sort of discussions about the known mis-ID cases.) We can disagree about what is to be done. But the tone seems to suggest that the IP has some sort of evil intent as to forensics and the justice system. Anyone know how common this view is in the fingerprint field or forensics in general?

I don't the Innocence Project has evil intent, but...they do tend to skew their results with a kind of blanket indictment of the forensic field. They never seem to acknowledge that most of their "DNA exonerations" were not the result of bad forensics...but GOOD forensics! The reasons most of the people were convicted seems to be that DNA was not done at all (how can that be bad forensics?), or the police relied on eye-witness testimony, or bad policing, or bad lawyering. The incidences of actual bad forensics are few.

My two cents...

Bill Schade wrote:fingerprint

Welcome to the chat board

You post is quite cryptic. Do you like the report or the post you responded to?

Sorry about that, was responding to the report

There is little doubt that expert evidence is rightly being put under the spotlight as more and more ‘mistakes’ are found and previous assumptions overturned. For far too long the mantle of infallibility has rested rather too easily on the shoulders of some experts.

As has already been pointed out the other side of the coin is that it has been good forensics that has revealed the poor forensics. My daughter Shirley doesn’t have an Innocence or any other project to thank for her freedom but experts of integrity who choose to use their skill and expertise to uncover others who hardly deserved the title ‘expert’.

I am all for the current spotlight remaining relentlessly focused on the forensic sciences. Ultimately they will survive the probing and will be the better for it.

Another truth is that had it not been for the media in Scotland the lessons for Shirley’s case would never have been publicised and the authorities forced to take reluctant action.

The reality is that years of complacency are at an end. The many good experts will welcome this just as much as the bad experts will fear having to leave the murky shadows and have their dubious 'expertise' tested in the light of the new understanding.

Recently Canadian jurist Thomas Albert Cromwell delivered the annual ‘Macfadyen Lecture’ in Edinburgh under the title, ‘The Challenges of Scientific Evidence’.

[1] Attempts to bring scientific learning and expertise to bear on legal disputes give rise to many sorts of problems. There is concern about the time and expense required to obtain and present expert testimony. There is concern about the objectivity of expert witnesses: are their opinions unduly influenced by the litigant paying their fees? There is disquiet about the capacity of judges and juries, who likely have little scientific training, to sort out disputes between qualified experts. There are concerns that some of what is presented as science may in fact be little more than untested theory or wishful thinking. There is concern that the traditional rule relating to opinion evidence is not a very promising vehicle to address contemporary problems about the reliability of scientific evidence. The different objectives and vocabularies of a trial and a scientific investigation pose many challenges to constructive collaboration between jurists and scientists.
[2] It is not surprising, then, that when law and science meet in the courtroom, the encounter is often not a happy one for either discipline, for the judiciary, the jury or the parties. But if all that these encounters produced were some ruffled professional feathers, large bills and doctrinal conundrums, the subject might not merit urgent attention. However, often much more is at stake. In virtually every jurisdiction, these courtroom encounters between law and science have also resulted in spectacular miscarriages of justice. This, along with the other concerns, have resulted in action by courts, legislatures and law reform bodies in many jurisdictions. It is timely, therefore, to review the law concerning expert and scientific evidence and the various reforms that have been put in place to address these challenges. Ultimately, the key question is how well the law is meeting the challenges posed by scientific evidence.

This lecture is well worth a read for those who welcome challenge to their profession and have the skill and understanding to differentiate between valid and biased comment.

http://www.scottishlawreports.org.uk/pu ... -2011.html

Ian,

I had the good fortune to sit in on a presentation by Pat Wertheim concerning Shirley's case. What a travesty! I remain mystified to this day as to how the "experts" came to the conclusion that the evidence print in question was made by your daughter! We clearly need to make some changes in how fingerprint evidence is examined and ultimately reported in our courts here. I wish I could say that it surprises me when folks point out that things appear "skewed" when reading newspaper articles or what XY&Z project puts forth for data, but it doesn't. The newspapers will put their own spin on things because sensationlism sells copy and XY&Z project may skew their data for any number of reasons... However, I believe we need to remain vigilant in not accepting, without question, what others may purport as the truth and to educate future generations to question, analyze and verify through independent sources before blindly accepting something as fact merely because they read it someplace or because someone said so. There's far too many sheep in the world today... we need more shepherds!

Hi Gary,

There are encouraging signs that things are on the move in the UK.

The law Commission has highlighted the need for better judicial review of expert evidence being given in our courts.

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp190.pdf

This will of course involve a look at how such evidence is presented in our courts and the qualifications and expertise of those giving it. It will also involve a steep learning curve for judges and lawyers some of whom have been far too complacent in the past when assessing expert evidence. This will require a much more hands on approach to expertise than has been evident previously. It will also, I hope, highlight the lack of high quality independent experts available to the defence and the need to increase the funds available to engage their skills. It might also examine the negative effect of the ridiculous adversarial approach to expertise in our courts and have experts called to provide objective evidence to aid the court and not one or other of the parties involved.

The basis for previous beliefs and assumptions is being challenged and it is being realised that the definition ‘science’ has been misapplied to some expertise and the title ‘experts’ to some who clearly aren’t.

The Home Office in England is engaged in a ‘Review of Research and Development in Forensic Science’ to inform the current and future provision of forensic research.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publicatio ... iew=Binary

We also of course await the publication of the ‘Fingerprint Inquiry Report’ which I hope will follow the American Academy of Sciences report in pointing the way ahead for improved, research, training, practice and review.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/05 ... wanted=all

http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... ry/21.html

Valuable as this work is however it is likely to concentrate on the more legal and academic aspects of what we require from our forensic sciences.

While the SCRO debacle was an example of bad science, wrongly applied by bad ‘scientists’ and aided and abetted by a complacent justice system this was only half the story. The culture present within SCRO was the real catalyst in allowing what happened to happen and many miscarriages of justice appear to be rooted in a culture of arrogance and complacency.

It is vital that the findings of the ongoing research being carried out by Itiel Dror and his team into the psychological and emotional factors influencing the expert’s work and the massive effects of culture on the way conclusions are reached are factored into any changes.

Unless we find a way of creating checks and balances to identify and take account of factors like cognitive dissonance and culture then these unconscious and conscious effects will at times continue to frustrate progress.

Best wishes,

Iain

An aside to some of the things Iain brought up - A defense lawyer I knew a long time ago had suggested that the justice system ought to employ professional juries to hear evidence...

I don't know how it could or would ever be implemented but I think the idea has some merit. Training lawyers judges, and revamping the system is a great step but I have always wondered how much is truley comprehended by the jury in the end?