Bullshit forensic science

[PilotsError 2345]

Forensic science used to convict people over the past 50 years is collapsing.  Turns out it's not exactly science.  I'll be using this thread to document the bullshit of pretty much everything cops and DAs use to send innocent people to prison.  

 

Joe Bryan, a former small-town high school principal from central Texas, is serving 99 years in prison for the brutal murder of his wife, Mickey, in 1985 — a crime he probably didn’t commit. Mr. Bryan has been locked up for about 30 years. He has no clear prospects for release other than periodic opportunities at parole, which he has been denied despite being a model prisoner and having a spotless disciplinary record. Many of the prison guards who know him best are convinced that he’s innocent.

So why is Mr. Bryan still behind bars? Because of some tiny specks of what may or may not have been blood on a flashlight that may or may not have been planted in the trunk of his car — a piece of evidence prosecutors introduced at trial through the testimony of an expert witness who may or may not have known what he was talking about.

As a two-part series published by The New York Times Magazine and ProPublica lays out in damning detail, there was essentially no other physical evidence or motive tying Mr. Bryan to the crime. By all accounts, the Bryans had a happy marriage. On the night of his wife’s murder, Mr. Bryan was attending a principals’ conference 120 miles away. Prosecutors dismissed or ignored many pieces of potentially exculpatory evidence, like an unidentified palm print in the bedroom where Mrs. Bryan was shot to death, a cigarette butt on the kitchen floor (neither of the Bryans smoked) and the absence of any bloodstains in Mr. Bryan’s car.

Despite all this, Joe Bryan was convicted on the word of a detective named Robert Thorman, who testified before the jury as an expert in what is known as bloodstain-pattern analysis. Drips, spatters, smears and sprays — the distribution of blood at a crime scene — can provide possibly useful information about what weapon was used, where a victim was positioned and whether he or she was moved before or after being killed. In Mickey Bryan’s case, Detective Thorman testified that the apparent blood specks on the flashlight were “back spatter,” and showed that her killer had shot her at close range.

 

Through the 1960s, analyzing bloodstain patterns was the province of forensic scientists with years of training in fluid dynamics and high-level mathematics. The practice came to national attention in 1966, when it helped to exonerate Sam Sheppard, a neurosurgeon who had been convicted of murdering his wife more than a decade earlier.

But in the 1970s and 1980s, this kind of analysis became popular among members of law enforcement and others with little or no scientific training. People like Detective Thorman got certified as bloodstain-pattern analysts after taking a weeklong course that now costs as little as a few hundred dollars. Pamela Colloff, who wrote the articles on the Times Magazine/ProPublica investigation of Joe Bryan’s case, enrolled in one of these courses, where the instructor told her, “We’re not really going to focus on the math and physics; it just kind of bogs things down.” Ms. Colloff passed the final exam, as did everyone in the class.

Thanks in part to such dubious standards, the interpretation of bloodstain evidence has become notoriously ambiguous. The same patterns can, like a Rorschach test, be read in very different ways; some trials feature two bloodstain “experts,” one on each side, who testify to opposite conclusions. A 2009 report by the National Academy of Sciences found that “the opinions of bloodstain-pattern analysts are more subjective than scientific,” and, “The uncertainties associated with bloodstain pattern analysis are enormous.”

And yet judges in many states have accepted these experts’ testimony as scientifically valid — not because of any concrete evidence that it is, but because other courts have accepted it before. In other words, it’s a good bet that there are other Joe Bryans sitting in prisons around the country because of highly unreliable forensic testimony.

 

That unreliability is not unique to bloodstain-pattern analysis. As DNA testing has revolutionized forensic science and helped to exonerate hundreds of wrongfully convicted people, it has also shined a light on the inadequacy of earlier methods. The National Academy of Sciences report found significant problems with the analysis of bite marks, tire treads, arson and hair samples. In 2015, the F.B.I. released an initial review of hundreds of convictions it had won and found that over two decades, the bureau’s “elite” forensic hair-sample analysts testified wrongly in favor of the prosecution 96 percent of the time. Thirty-two of the defendants in those cases were sentenced to death, and 14 of those were executed or died in prison.

The scientific analysis of forensic evidence can be essential to solving crimes, but as long as the process is controlled by the police and prosecutors, and not scientists, there will never be adequate oversight. Changing this was the goal of a national commission established in the wake of the 2009 report. Unfortunately, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has long sided with prosecutors and rejected efforts to look more critically at forensic sciences, let the commission expire last year.

For now, any hope for greater scrutiny of bloodstain-pattern analysis lies with the influential Texas Forensic Science Commission, which agreed to examine Mr. Bryan’s case, along with another involving the use of bloodstain-pattern evidence. The commission, whose recommendations are watched nationally, in February imposed on Texas a requirement that bloodstain-pattern analysis be performed by an accredited organization, which should make it harder for prosecutors to introduce testimony by analysts with minimal training and qualifications.

Meanwhile, time is running out for Mr. Bryan. He’s 77 and suffers from congestive heart failure. He is currently being considered for parole again, with a decision expected within weeks. He should be released, and his conviction should be re-examined in light of the shortcomings of the evidence used to convict him. Because so much time has passed since Mickey Bryan’s murder, and many people connected to the investigation have since died, the identity of her killer may never be definitively known. That uncertainty should be the state’s burden to carry, not Joe Bryan’s.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/opinion/blood-splatter-evidence.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

[BigHorn'13 3470]

Fucked up on so many levels. Also first thought in my head is Robert Thorman is dexter. 

[bschoolprof 6331]

So much of forensics is pseudo science, and the average juror is not educated/skeptical enough to appreciate this.  Blood spatter evidence, hair matching (before DNA), arson burn patterns, and time of death estimates are particularly subject to all sorts of error and guessing.  

In the Morton case, for example, the only real incriminating "evidence" they had on him was an estimate by the medical examiner that his wife died around 2 or 3 in the morning, when he said he was still at the house.  Turns out the "science" behind that is/was complete bullshit.  To this day, it is still not possible to reliably pin down time of death with the type of precision  often presented at criminal trials.  And it's not just prosecutors that peddle this shit.  Rodney Reed's latest appeal hinges significantly on a time of death estimate from a medical examiner  that did not conduct the autopsy, but is basing his opinion on autopsy photos.  The same guy offered some fantasy time of death bullshit for OJ in his trial as well.  It's quackery.   

The Michael Peterson case out of North Carolina (which is probably getting ready to blow up on the publicity front thanks to an upcoming Netflix documentary), hinged significantly on blood spatter evidence by both sides.  The prosecution expert was a complete doofus and crook that made shit up.  The defense expert - a famous for hire bullshit artist - wasn't much better. We might as well just bring in the shamans and fortune tellers.  

However, I know nothing about this case.  I've learned to be  somewhat skeptical of advocate journalists pushing hard to convince us someone is really innocent.  They have their own narratives to sell and they sometimes don't like to let inconvenient evidence get in the way of that.   

Thanks for posting this story though - interesting.  

 

[PilotsError 2345]

Golden State Killer Book Reveals OC Crime Lab’s Deception in Murder Cases

 

Crime clues occasionally appear at the most unexpected of times and places, which in one particular case isn’t good news for Bruce Houlihan, director of the Orange County Crime Lab.

In part of my research to write a recent cover story related to the Golden State Killer’s ties to Orange County, I read Michelle McNamara’s I’ll Be Gone in the Dark, true-crime reporting on the prolific serial murderer, and discovered a doozy that seemingly undermines Houlihan’s credibility in an ongoing forensic science scandal.

Near the top of page 103, McNamara reported that advances in DNA analysis in the late 1990s prompted crime lab officials here to thoroughly study each of the 2,479 homicides committed between 1972 and 1994.

Here is the key excerpt:

“A strategy was developed for reexamining cold cases,” McNamara recounted after interviews with the crime lab staff. “Homicides involving sexual assaults would be prioritized (my emphasis), as those killers tend to be repeat offenders and leave behind the kind of biological material that lends itself to DNA typing. Mary Hong was one of the criminalists tasked with concentrating on cold cases.”

That history is problematic for Houlihan and Hong. She gave conflicting scientific testimony to help prosecutors win two murder/rape trials out of Anaheim, People v. Lynn Dean Johnson and People v. Wendell Lemond. He vaguely tried to justify her contradiction.

Specifically, at Johnson’s 2008 trial, Hong testified that low quantity of semen left in a victim meant the time range of the deposit must have been zero to 24 hours before police collection at the crime scene, a stance that backed deputy DA Kevin Haskins’ aim to convict this defendant.

But 15 months later in Lemond, Hong flip-flopped without telling jurors. This time she opined that low quantity of semen meant a deposit likely happened at least 24 hours before collection, a stance that backed deputy DA Howard Gundy’s aim to convict his target and clear a second suspect the defense blamed.

When OC Weekly reported the discrepancies in 2016, Hong—who had taken a new job as director of two forensic science labs for the California Department of Justice—refused interview requests.

She also ignored Scott Sanders, the assistant public defender who represented Johnson at trial.

Given that crime lab officials like to portray themselves as neutral players in the criminal justice system, Sanders found himself flabbergasted that neither Hong nor Houlihan would answer questions even in the presence of his opponents inside Tony Rackauckas’ Orange County district attorney’s office (OCDA).

Houlihan finally broke his silence a year-and-a-half into the controversy. In February, he granted The Orange County Register an interview to discredit the scandal by vouching for Hong’s dueling expert opinions. “The conclusion that Mary reached were consistent with the evidence,” he told the paper apparently without providing meaningful supporting evidence.

Sanders understandably had plenty of follow-up questions for the lab director, who’d gone back into hiding. For example, what specific steps had he taken to reach his exonerating conclusion? Had his agency launched a probe into whether faulty semen deposit opinions marred other murder/rape cases that nailed innocent defendants and left killer roaming the streets? What related records had been located? Given the potential high stakes, shouldn’t the search for truth outweigh bureaucratic coverup inclinations?

Earlier this year, deputy DA Avery Harrison suggested a search to answer Sanders’ questions would be overly burdensome for the crime lab. Houlihan’s lawyer, D. Kevin Dunn in the county counsel’s office, raised a more troubling argument. At an April hearing, Dunn also opposed a thorough records search, claiming that Hong’s testimony in the two cases had been previously deemed consistent.

Sanders’ proverbial jaw hit the floor upon hearing Dunn’s false assertion; in March he asked Superior Court Judge Julian Bailey to order Houlihan’s sworn testimony. Over the objections of Harrison and Dunn, Bailey initially agreed. But as months passed, the judge continually postponed the move.

Meanwhile, Houlihan reported what Harrison had already guessed: it would be overly burdensome for his office to fully comply with Sanders’ subpoena. “Because the records are not maintained by subject area and are not otherwise searchable, the records will need to be examined one-by-one by hand to determine if they contain potentially responsive records,” he declared.

Dunn supplemented the assertion, arguing the director faces a “vast universe of potentially responsive documents.”

But McNamara’s book seems to destroy the workload excuse.

Houlihan wouldn’t have to start from scratch studying each file in 3,500 banker boxes because in 1996 the crime lab reviewed all cases between 1972 and 1994 and prioritized creating a list of homicides involving sexual assaults, the timing and focus of Sanders’ inquiry.

Why didn’t the lab director tell Bailey about this list?

What new excuse will he and Dunn—who helped sheriff’s deputies hide embarrassing subpoenaed records in the Orange County jailhouse informant scandal—concoct for an Aug. 17 status report?

The California Court of Appeal is currently reviewing Johnson’s conviction.

https://www.ocweekly.com/golden-state-killer-book-reveals-oc-crime-labs-deception-in-murder-cases/

[Trey3216 15431]

24 minutes ago, PilotsError said:

Golden State Killer Book Reveals OC Crime Lab’s Deception in Murder Cases

 

Crime clues occasionally appear at the most unexpected of times and places, which in one particular case isn’t good news for Bruce Houlihan, director of the Orange County Crime Lab.

In part of my research to write a recent cover story related to the Golden State Killer’s ties to Orange County, I read Michelle McNamara’s I’ll Be Gone in the Dark, true-crime reporting on the prolific serial murderer, and discovered a doozy that seemingly undermines Houlihan’s credibility in an ongoing forensic science scandal.

Near the top of page 103, McNamara reported that advances in DNA analysis in the late 1990s prompted crime lab officials here to thoroughly study each of the 2,479 homicides committed between 1972 and 1994.

Here is the key excerpt:

“A strategy was developed for reexamining cold cases,” McNamara recounted after interviews with the crime lab staff. “Homicides involving sexual assaults would be prioritized (my emphasis), as those killers tend to be repeat offenders and leave behind the kind of biological material that lends itself to DNA typing. Mary Hong was one of the criminalists tasked with concentrating on cold cases.”

That history is problematic for Houlihan and Hong. She gave conflicting scientific testimony to help prosecutors win two murder/rape trials out of Anaheim, People v. Lynn Dean Johnson and People v. Wendell Lemond. He vaguely tried to justify her contradiction.

Specifically, at Johnson’s 2008 trial, Hong testified that low quantity of semen left in a victim meant the time range of the deposit must have been zero to 24 hours before police collection at the crime scene, a stance that backed deputy DA Kevin Haskins’ aim to convict this defendant.

But 15 months later in Lemond, Hong flip-flopped without telling jurors. This time she opined that low quantity of semen meant a deposit likely happened at least 24 hours before collection, a stance that backed deputy DA Howard Gundy’s aim to convict his target and clear a second suspect the defense blamed.

When OC Weekly reported the discrepancies in 2016, Hong—who had taken a new job as director of two forensic science labs for the California Department of Justice—refused interview requests.

She also ignored Scott Sanders, the assistant public defender who represented Johnson at trial.

Given that crime lab officials like to portray themselves as neutral players in the criminal justice system, Sanders found himself flabbergasted that neither Hong nor Houlihan would answer questions even in the presence of his opponents inside Tony Rackauckas’ Orange County district attorney’s office (OCDA).

Houlihan finally broke his silence a year-and-a-half into the controversy. In February, he granted The Orange County Register an interview to discredit the scandal by vouching for Hong’s dueling expert opinions. “The conclusion that Mary reached were consistent with the evidence,” he told the paper apparently without providing meaningful supporting evidence.

Sanders understandably had plenty of follow-up questions for the lab director, who’d gone back into hiding. For example, what specific steps had he taken to reach his exonerating conclusion? Had his agency launched a probe into whether faulty semen deposit opinions marred other murder/rape cases that nailed innocent defendants and left killer roaming the streets? What related records had been located? Given the potential high stakes, shouldn’t the search for truth outweigh bureaucratic coverup inclinations?

Earlier this year, deputy DA Avery Harrison suggested a search to answer Sanders’ questions would be overly burdensome for the crime lab. Houlihan’s lawyer, D. Kevin Dunn in the county counsel’s office, raised a more troubling argument. At an April hearing, Dunn also opposed a thorough records search, claiming that Hong’s testimony in the two cases had been previously deemed consistent.

Sanders’ proverbial jaw hit the floor upon hearing Dunn’s false assertion; in March he asked Superior Court Judge Julian Bailey to order Houlihan’s sworn testimony. Over the objections of Harrison and Dunn, Bailey initially agreed. But as months passed, the judge continually postponed the move.

Meanwhile, Houlihan reported what Harrison had already guessed: it would be overly burdensome for his office to fully comply with Sanders’ subpoena. “Because the records are not maintained by subject area and are not otherwise searchable, the records will need to be examined one-by-one by hand to determine if they contain potentially responsive records,” he declared.

Dunn supplemented the assertion, arguing the director faces a “vast universe of potentially responsive documents.”

But McNamara’s book seems to destroy the workload excuse.

Houlihan wouldn’t have to start from scratch studying each file in 3,500 banker boxes because in 1996 the crime lab reviewed all cases between 1972 and 1994 and prioritized creating a list of homicides involving sexual assaults, the timing and focus of Sanders’ inquiry.

Why didn’t the lab director tell Bailey about this list?

What new excuse will he and Dunn—who helped sheriff’s deputies hide embarrassing subpoenaed records in the Orange County jailhouse informant scandal—concoct for an Aug. 17 status report?

The California Court of Appeal is currently reviewing Johnson’s conviction.

https://www.ocweekly.com/golden-state-killer-book-reveals-oc-crime-labs-deception-in-murder-cases/

I mean, they did have the boys down there working in shifts...