Professor ‘unreservedly’ apologies for false accusation against police DNA scientists. : Melbourne Indymedia

Readers may recall an article by DNA Info a couple of weeks ago which called into question the use of DNA evidence in criminal trials. Selective information from a television documentary comprised the bulk of the ‘evidence’ to justify their claim that police were planting DNA evidence on suspects in order to secure convictions. Astute readers will also recall that no actual evidence was produced to support this claim. Just plenty of allegations.

A champion of DNA Info’s cause was one Professor Barry Boethcher, a former biology professor at Newcastle University. Bazz had alleged that police at the Victorian Forensic Science Center had deliberately contaminated the DNA sample found on Jaiden Leskie’s clothing. Serious stuff indeed. The good professor expressed hope that he would be summoned to appear before the coroner investigating Jaiden’s murder so that he could expound his theories in the public domain and bring to light a disgraceful episode in Victorian policing history.

Well, dear readers, the professor got his wish. He received his summons, duly presented himself before a video camera for a link to the court and….promptly offered ‘unreserved’ apologies to the scientists he had wrongly accused of deliberate contamination. You see folks, the good professor had made the mistake many armchair critics often do in cases involving the police; he opened his trap before apprising himself of all the facts. No doubt the learned proff would deduct marks from a student’s essay for such shoddy research and preparation. He expressed an uninformed opinion, which like an arsehole, most people have but few are interested in seeing. After reading all relevant documentation, you see, he realized his big mistake. He had spoken from an uniformed position. Ballistic podiatry I think it’s called. Shooting one self in the foot.

Questioned if there was any evidence (you know, DNA Info, that awful word that keeps rearing its ugly head) of deliberetae contamination, Professor Boetcher bowed his head and replied, No. None at all.

Case dismissed. Next!

DNA Info, you are like many people at this year’s Melbourne Cup. You backed the wrong horse. And did your cause no good at all.

As an example of pure strawmanning your post would be hard to beat south of spinifex country however the good proff mantained that deliberate contamination remained a possibility, (as, indeed it does) also well known criminologists have suggested that dna evidence alone should not be sufficent to convict and there are documented cases where there have been dna led miscarriage's of justice. ( see Google if you don't believe me.)
While I applaud this attempt to raise the publics concsienceness on this isssue Jeff, you may want to leaven your next article with some more facts next time, after all the best disinformation is 95% or even more true, right?

Astute readers would recall that I offered to fully explain how the DNA analysis carried out by Brian McDonald in 'R v Lisoff' offered strong evidence of police tampering with exhibits, but that Jeff Clements seemed uninterested in appraising himself of enough basic facts of the case to ask an intelligent question.

What I was, and am not, interested in doing was engaging with his trollish redefinitions of the word 'evidence' by which he seeks to exclude anything which has not been admitted and tested at trial (as even Detective Mark Fuhrman's 18 videotaped admissions of planting evidence presented at the OJ Simpson trial does not constitute 'evidence' of police corruption in Mr Clements' mind I can't imagine what I could offer that would satisfy him).

Yes, it was irresponsible of Professor Boettcher to make allegations of deliberate contamination if he was unable to substantiate them to the coroner - although it should be recognised that his statements were based in part on false claims of the sequence of events at the VFSC made by Michael Tovey, QC to the coroner. If the exhibits really had been processed 7 months apart as Tovey claimed, deliberate contamination would have been the most reasonable conclusion to reach (although the motive would still be inexplicable).

To go on and characterise Professor Boettcher - one of the pioneers of forensic DNA evidence in this country and someone who has presented expert DNA evidence in numerous criminal trials - as "champion of the anti DNA lobby" is ignorance bordering on the absurd.

To characterise me as part of the 'anti-DNA lobby' is even more absurd. As I told the 7:30 Report this week, I am extremely sympathetic to difficulties faced DNA analysts and the use of forensic DNA evidence - in fact several cases I am working on depend on it for a favourable outcome - it is the unrealistic claims of infallibility for it - and the inappropriate uses that flow from such claims - that I am opposed to.

"Royal Commissions and ongoing controversies over police fabrication of evidence have dotted the criminal justice landscape in every state and territory as well as the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority for the past two decades.

"Are we seriously expected to believe that the sometimes significant minority of police who fabricate evidence won’t do so with DNA samples?

"Only the blinkered, the foolish and those who are myopically pro police would discount the possibility of fabrication of DNA evidence"
- ACCL submission to NSW SCLJ Inquiry into forensic DNA laws, 1 June 2001.

You do not get it do you!
Having a alien person DNA on a babies garment is a very serious state of affairs, especially when it is an item involved in a murder case.

Cock-up's like that must not happen at all if the DNA testing process is to retain is allmost un-challanged status. It is now shot down like a plane in flames!

If it happened ba "accident" or deliberately is of little consequence, because we do know it has happened. If it has happened it kan happen again!!!!

If we lack "evidence" to the exact reason to what happened (a tainted DNA process) then we are justified to asume that it can happen again by deliberate och "accidental" actions.

The DNA forensics is now reduced to a "maybe" and of little real value UNLESS all testing is done in two INDEPENDENT laboratories CONCURRENTLY and the results are provided SIMULTANEOUSLY.

This is nessesary to provide the security that any good really professional DNA lab is able to provide internally. The Police Lab is simply unable to operate without ONGOING external checking.

DNA should never have had an 'unchallenged status' and publicly acknowledged errors like this one (as opposed to the many more forensic DNA errors that are kept behind lab doors) can only be for the good of the system.
The problem has been that the public, media and legal fraternity have never seen DNA testing as a science at all, but rather a superstitious blood ritual beyond comprehension in which white coated acolytes conclusively separate the good from the evil and ensure justice is done.
When you chuck out the fantasies like that, and the policies that flow from it (such as arrests based almost solely on DNA database cold hits), instead seeing DNA evidence gathering and analysis as just another fallible human exercise in the messy business of trying to discover an approximation of truth, then you might be in a position to use it constructively.
Of course, given the dumbed down media moral panics that dictate criminal justice policy in this country, there is none and buckley's of that really happening.
The Australia has now joined NZ and the UK in having high profile cases in which DNA evidence has suggested the impossible. At least those lucky enough to have decent legal representation with some degree of scientific competence can now hope to find a chink in the bogus veneer of forensic infallibility as promoted on TV.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/dna_info/dna/JA_DNA_LegSci_6.html
http://home.iprimus.com.au/dna_info/dna/JA_DNA_Easton_case.html
http://www.femail.co.uk/pages/standard/article.html?in_article_id=161404&in_page_id=2
http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/page.cfm?objectid=12647756&method=full&siteid=50061
http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/page.cfm?objectid=12718961&method=full&siteid=50061

Aust. Law Reform Genetics Inquiry findings, published in “Essentially Yours”, tabled in Parliament May 2003.

Ref:
35.29 “The inquiry received a number of submissions expressing concerns about alleged paternity testing fraud, by which men procure false paternity test results to avoid legal responsibility for their children.”

35.32,33 Parentage testing may be used to rebut a presumption arising under the Act or to establish evidence in circumstances where no presumption arises.

33.63,64,65 Indicate that tampering and deliberate fraud can, and do, occur

35.70 Current accreditation standards focus mainly on technical proficiency and do not address the ethical issues associated with testing.

35.71 make [provision for protecting the integrity of the samples ……by adopting the requirements of the F.L. Regulations

35.79 brings up the importance of protecting the integrity of the samples and backed up by the Inquiry’s recommendations and views 35.85,35.2 and 35.3).

Recommendations to address injustices of the past
Recommendations to ensure the detection of tampering with tests or confirmation of results claimed as erroneous – “do it yourself” without police or financial help

GENUINE SOLUTION mediation with all parties under current laws and court recommendations - response to this? Labs threatening legal action (incl police lab!) Strange – I have a beef with police lab – supposed to be an inquiry – no one contacted me.

Response of Labs – threats, intimidation and indifference
A recent application made possible by new laws failed – not because of lack of evidence but because the main witness died before the evidence was put before the court. Thus ensuring a genuine forum of inquiry into the labs where witnesses and evidence of fraud can be presented is even more essential and the only way scientists will be brought to account.

NATIONAL INQUIRY NEEDED URGENTLY INTO INJUSTICE, ERRORS, FUDGING & COVERUPS - DNA TESTS AS EVIDENCE ARE CAUSING HUGE LEGAL, FINANCIAL TANGLES AND ALL THE RESULTANT SUFFERING INJUSTICE AND INDIFFERENCE BRINGS.

Substantial case histories, witnesses and evidence confirm that the culture of indifference and coverup exposed by investigative journalist Ann Werner’s efforts in the US relating to errors and fudging of DNA evidence (other journalists in relation to paternity tests) is alive and well in Oz!.

In view of intolerable suffering to victims of erroneous and fraudulent DNA tests, exacerbated by police inaction and political indifference I seek your support for a National forum of inquiry where independent scientists, victims and/or their lawyers, and other witnesses nominated by those claiming error or fraud are given appropriate systematic protection of a Senate inquiry, a forum where the basic right to be heard will not be denied them.

Victims of DNA stuffups and other problems in Victoria labs. are not all in this State. (Justice Action) I draw your attention to Houston Chronicle extract relating to exposure of problems in the US by Ann Werner and referring to systematic inaction in relation to claims of erroneous and fudged results .
.
“… State Rep. Kevin Bailey, D-Houston, chairman of the legislative committee … "I'm not sure there was criminal activity, but there sure was a lack of interest and concern that is surprising of people in (leadership) positions," said Bailey. "And I guess you can't indict people for that. But they sure failed the public and failed the criminal justice system by not being concerned with what was going on (at the crime lab)."

Stan Schneider with the Harris County Criminal Defense Lawyers Association was more critical.

"I think (the blame) includes everyone in the system," he said. "And it's not a ringing endorsement of any of the leaders of our community." Full text available on internet. Or by request.

Quote from letter to Haemeyer “when I sought mediation (as recommended in several inquires related to justice) with scientists, including the police lab., their response was to threaten legal action”. *Correspondence confirms.

Please take the time to consider what you personally can and will do to support that the “leaders of our community” should be calling for a National independent forum of inquiry. Patricia Farnell and daughter Victim of serious crime, compounded by a further serious crime, exacerbated by widespread systematic inaction. Contact: transparencyinjustice@yahoo.com.au