Comments on: Keystone Cops at the Police Lab

By: Tom Mcinerney

Tom Mcinerney — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:22:35 +0000

I have not read the NRC study. The Innocence project’s ongoing work , and reviews of some of the FBI’s forensics over the past 30 years have uncovered troubling failures in our crime labs .Our criminal courts are designed to illuminate ‘truth’ relative to legal cases via an adversarial/partisan system. Prosecutors’ promotions are sometimes favored by a ‘succesful’ record of ‘prosecutions’. In such a situation , an improvement in accuracy/veracity [of both overall criminal justice , and labwork] could likely be achieved by creating a separation between the functions of “prosecution” , and “labwork/forensics”. *Labwork is founded upon the intersubjective/democratic principles of scientific discipline. Criminal/legal procedures include both democratic elements (juries) and personal , subjective suspicion (the hunt for perps&evidence). *If we ensure that neither funding nor personnel decisions regarding the forensics labs are made by active elements in the prosecution section , we should be able to improve overall function of the system.Tom Mac

By: Anonymous User

Anonymous User — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:23:01 +0000

I firmly support the Innocence Project. That is why Steve Weinbergs’ screed against forensics in the crime lab is so painful. Some of his material is taken with minor changes from the Project’s site. To that is added a conspiracy theory narrative as he zeroes in on secondary but serious issues facing the criminal justice system. To get a “fair and balanced” discussion of these issues readers must read his primary sources. Professor Weinberg uses pejorative terms like “keystone cops”, “shill” , shocking and liar while he presumes to “know” the minds of his subjects. Does this kind of journalism meet the “fair and balanced” standards of Fox News?Balance that against the measured statements of the Innocence Project when it discusses “…unvalidated or improper forensic science”. There the reader will find a sober discussion of the issues minus pejoratives. Likewise, the ACLU site discusses important criminal justice issues without the tabloid or talk radio approach. What does the journalist’s touch add to this discussion? For example when the professor discusses the current forensic report to the National Academy of Sciences he adds, it “…shattered my stereotypes about reports by conglomerations of committees”. Should we presume this personal skepticism comes from the professors college faculty committee experience? Do we need to know his personal feelings? Why don’t journalists just stick to the facts and issues? Professor Weinberg teaches “investigative journalism”. Presumably from his computer, he doesn’t say, he has “investigated” the notorious cases discussed at the Innocence Project and the independent study mandated by congress, “…A Path Forward”. After introducing the later study he opines,”Despite the innocuous and even optimistic-sounding title, the overall message of the report is clear: Law enforcement crime laboratories are underfunded, filled with poorly trained and/or technologically backward staff, beset by quality control problems and, too often, complicit in wrongful convictions because criminalists unintentionally misread evidence or intentionally lie.”Herein lies the “spin” the professor gives to this entire topic, it’s a blanket condemnation of crime labs in America. He does have a qualifying statement wherein he assures us there is “some” qualified and decent forensic work being done. But the tone of this article is that America’s crime labs are dungeons doing the devil’s work.Being a “valued added” kind of journalist, the professor discusses a situation from his home state. Here we do not know the source of his information but his implication is that of “government misconduct” as described on the Innocence Project site. Was the memorandum presented here clear evidence of collusion? Did the professor examine the transcript of the case file to see if it resulted in any of the Innocence Project issues discussed about inadequate forensic or faulty testimony? When did the memorandum surface? The 1995 trial was prior to the CSI era and the jury would not have been swayed by the “CSI Effect” discussed in the “…Path Forward” report. Was a criminal brought to justice? Was a case later reversed on review?None of this is discussed because the Professor is not interested in the justice issue. Instead he reports this memorandum is later used by defense attorneys to “allege” governmental misconduct. He states this memorandum has surfaced “…over an over”? Is that two or three times? Is it one attorney or more using the same tactic? We don’t know but we do see the implication. And why would an attorney use this tactic in a case where the professor reports, “…even though her testimony tended to favor the accused murderer in the case at hand.” Clearly this is a defense strategy to plant the idea of government misconduct in the jury’s minds. Does that strategy work when the prosecutor can report that the forensic evidence is not harmful to the accused? How are we to know because the journalist does not really investigate these issues. Is justice being served? How does this memorandum equate to proven misconduct in the courtroom. The professor does not say. He merely implies what he reports defense attorneys have implied. This is investigative journalism?Professor Weinberg has been on the faculty for decades at one of the nation’s most prestigious journalism schools. He teaches investigative journalism. Are we to presume he holds the Nancy Grace Chair for investigative journalism? This article is not worthy of that school or the position he holds.The discussion of public policy issues in the national realm of journalism is a “gong show” of implications and pejoratives. This article could be a special report for the O’Reilly show or talk radio. I have long presumed that corporate America infected the news medium with its emphasis on show business for commercial reasons. But is this what is taught in America’s journalism schools? Does the news have to have a narrative? Does everything have to be spun? Is the plight of journalism this dire? Go to Innocence Project site or read the other primary sources for a sobering and nonjudgmental discussion of the issues presented here.

By: Anonymous User

Anonymous User — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:26:06 +0000

I have been a forensic scientist for over twenty years and I agree whole heartedly with the previous individual’s comments. If a surgeon botches an operation it does not indicate that the whole field of medicine is flawed. Likewise, it is ridiculous to take the actions of a very few and use them as ammunition against the field of forensic science. It is also ludicrous to suggest that evidence exams which “lack the power to identify a suspect to the exclusion of other potential perpetrators” do not have value and are less scientific. It IS valuable to conclude that fibers found on a victim are consistent to fibers from a suspect’s vehicle carpet, and that hairs in that suspect’s vehicle have the same microscopic properties and mitochondrial DNA sequence as the victim’s known hairs. None of these exams provide a positive association between a suspect and a victim/crime, yet they still supply information that (when taken in the proper context and used with other case details), can prove extremely valuable to an investigation. To assert that this type of exam has no value is to say that a witness’s description of their attacker is not useful because they cannot give you the name of the suspect. These types of statements are made by people who are clearly uninformed. Additionally, I have to mention that I happen to know Jenny Smith and I think very highly of her and her work. Over the years Jenny has taught numerous classes, conducted research, presented at scientific meetings, and participated in a number of committees and working groups that strive to better the forensic sciences. She is an excellent example of what a forensic scientist SHOULD be doing and it angers me to see her name mentioned in the same article with the likes of Fred Zain. We would all be better off if there were more forensic scientists like Jenny Smith. Hopefully she doesn’t get fed up with attacks like this and decide it might be nicer to deliver flowers for a living…

By: Anonymous User

Anonymous User — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:28:51 +0000

To point out the wrongdoings of several individuals and to say that their work is a representative sample of the work of ALL the members of the scientific community is not only wrong, but disgusting. Don’t get me wrong – the author DID put in TWO SENTENCES about how ‘many’ criminalists do a good job – so I guess he has covered himself. Also, to try to use the work of dishonest individuals to discredit all the different fields within the forensic sciences and to claim that most laboratories are ‘filled with poorly trained and/or technologically backward staff, beset by quality control problems and, too often, complicit in wrongful convictions because criminalists unintentionally misread evidence or intentionally lie’ is incredibly insulting and an outright lie. The author attacks several of the forensic sciences, stating that they are ‘lack(ing) the rigorous scientific testing that would demonstrate validity and reliability’ and that ‘most of the techniques arose solely to solve crimes; their alleged effectiveness has little basis, other than long-standing belief based on the type of anecdotal evidence that is, scientifically speaking, no evidence at all’. The techniques used in forensic sciences have been, and will continue to be tested and researched as can be found with VERY little research. There have been thousands of articles and research studies that have been done over decades and decades to prove validity and consistancy in these sciences. There are numerous scientific journals and publications in circulation. Just do a LITTLE research before writing two pages of an article of damning forensic sciences as a whole with two sentences of disclaimer to cover yourself against the VAST majority of the scientific community who should feel this article to be incredibly insulting to the work they do every day.

By: Anonymous User

Anonymous User — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:27:34 +0000

Sorry. It was me. Criminalists, especially neutral ones, are very good at “generic tone”. I had one, not numerous misspellings. It appears the writer misspelled “mis-spelling”. I admit I am not, proficient, with the use of, commas. I am familiar with the discovery process. I forgive the criticism because it was not revealed in the article that my note to Mr. Ashens was among his trial notes. Personal trial notes are not subject to discovery rules. In fact, this note was part of a pre-trial interview. As stated below, it is standard practice for attorneys to interview experts prior to trial. I am often disappointed when defense attorneys do not talk to me before trial, especially when they do not ask informed questions upon cross examination. It is vital that jurors learn the limitations as well as strengths of the facts presented without distortion by the attorneys. The criticisms contained in the post below are a distraction from the issue I raise, just as my note to Mr. Ashens is used as a distraction in court. Might I presume the writer is a defense attorney?

By: Anonymous User

Anonymous User — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:39:03 +0000

I find it hard to believe that the previous comment purported to be posted by Ms. Smith is authentic. It is difficult to overlook the obvious and numerous mis-spellings, typographic errors, and overall generic tone. I would hope a crime lab technician who has spent a career authoring reports that go into the public record of a court case would be able to author a sentence using basic sentence structure. Furthermore, it is obvious the writer of the post is unfamiliar with the discovery process in legal cases. “I was stanchly [sic] defending my results…[ ] I did not want my complicated results to be misunderstood or have more expected from me than I was willing to say.” If the writer truly were a criminalist, they would be familiar that both the prosecution and the defense has ample opportunities to interview ALL experts prior to trial to ascertain the extent of their potential testimony, to clarify statements, and to discuss testing and findings.

By: Anonymous User

Anonymous User — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:31:32 +0000

I am Jenny Smith, the criminalist you site in this article. The emphasis of my note to Mr. Ashens was to stress to him the limitations of the trace evidence testing I did in this case. He is a long time friend as reflected in my casual note. But there are public defenders with whom I have had cordial and friendly exchanges as well. Helping a prosecutor or defense attorney understand the evidence is part of my job. In the Ashens case, I was stanchly defending my results, not Mr. Ashens case. I did not want my complicated results to be misunderstood or have more expected from me than I was willing to say. This note has appeared 3 times in court since then. In two of those cases my testimony helped the defense. I found nothing to connect their client to the crime. Why would an attorney want to discredit a friendly witness? Show-boating, perhaps? Certainly it had nothing to do with truth and justice. I have no interest in who my results help or hurt. My first allegiance is to the truth and making sure the jury understands the limitations as well as the strengths of my results. Criminalists have nothing to gain by taking sides and everything to lose. I have testified under oath over 200 times. I have never had a charge of giving false testimony.