[Peace-discuss] And on the Justice Front

[Laurie]

New York Post

'CLUELESS' CRIME LABS

By BRAD HAMILTON and STEFANIE COHEN

 

September 21, 2008 --

 

A federal panel of experts looking into the reliability of CSI tests has
heard damning evidence against some of the most common techniques used to
convict killers, rapists and other criminals, The Post has learned.

 

The analysis of fingerprints, tire tracks and bite marks isn't nearly as
reliable as researchers once believed, crime-scene specialists told the
panel. Some even called it junk science.

 

Many said major changes would be necessary if crime labs want to continue
using the evidence.

 

The National Academy of Sciences report isn't due out until December, but
forensic expert Barry Scheck predicted the study could have blockbuster
implications.

 

"The testimony before them was very compelling," the former O.J.

Simpson "Dream Team" lawyer said.

 

"There were some serious questions raised about the reliability of certain
disciplines - bite impressions, tire tracks and automatic fingerprint
identification.

 

"I'm assuming they're going to make some big recommendations about how
standards are set. A lot of people are anticipating a fairly far-reaching
examination of forensic science."

 

Peter Neufeld, Scheck's partner at the Innocence Project, which works to
clear the wrongfully convicted by using DNA evidence, was among dozens of
experts who spoke before the panel, a blue-ribbon gathering of 17 evaluators
who began their work in 2006.

 

The $1 million effort to assess forensic work is not final; the academy's
report is undergoing a peer review now.

 

But it's already being viewed as a major potential challenge to the
fundamentals of crime-scene investigation.

 

"If the rules change, it could open a Pandora's box for defense lawyers to
challenge what would be considered junk science," said New York attorney
Jeffrey Lichtman, who helped John "Junior" Gotti beat murder charges.

 

"All these cases would be susceptible to a second look. It certainly
happened with DNA. You could end up having thousands of people being
released."

 

Dr. Michael Baden, a former New York City medical examiner, said the
forensic community has long been aware of problems with the techniques under
question.

 

But an official report undermining their validity from a group as
prestigious as the National Academy of Sciences would have "great
implications for guilt and innocence," he said.

 

Panel member Dr. Robert Shaler said there was no consensus among experts who
testified on whether the science could be trusted.

 

"Some people didn't think there were problems, and some did," he said.

"Their opinions are theirs, not necessarily those of the committee."

 

The matching of bite marks, which involves using putty to preserve
impressions and making molds to reproduce suspects' teeth, has been decried
as unreliable.

 

Examiners in one study falsely identified an innocent person as the biter 63
percent of the time.

 

"I think bite marks probably ought to be the poster child for bad forensic
science," said expert David Faigman.

 

Additional reporting by Susan Edelman, Janon Fisher and Reuven Blau

 

brad.hamilton at nypost.com

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080922/d472c14e/attachment.htm