The Daily Journalist.
After reading this document, one has to conclude, that the real CSI is about as fantizidal as the story of Alice in Wonderland. Unfortunately real scientific standards are not applied in forensic science, as shown in popular shows.
The document written by the National Academy of Sciences will explain how many of these unreliable techniques are presently used to trace criminals in court cases. And how the so call scientifically based procedures applied in criminal investigations, concur in faith and guessing, rather than logic and real certainty.
By The National Academy of Sciences.
Introduction.
On November 22, 2005, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 became law.
Under the terms of the statute, Congress authorized “the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on forensic science, as described in the Senate report.”
The Senate Report to which the Conference Report refers states: While a great deal of analysis exists of the requirements in the discipline of DNA, there exists little to no analysis of the remaining needs of the community outside of the area of DNA. Therefore . . . the Committee directs the Attorney General to provide [funds] to the National Academy of Sciences to create an independent Forensic Science Committee. This Committee shall include members of the forensics community representing operational crime laboratories, medical examiners, and coroners; legal experts; and other scientists as determined appropriate.
The Senate Report also sets forth the charge to the Forensic Science Committee, instructing it to:
(1) assess the present and future resource needs of the forensic science community, to include State and local crime labs, medical examiners, and coroners;
(2) make recommendations for maximizing the use of forensic technologies and techniques to solve crimes, investigate deaths, and
protect the public;
(3) identify potential scientific advances that may assist law enforcement in using forensic technologies and techniques to protect the public;
(4) make recommendations for programs that will increase the number of qualified forensic scientists and medical examiners available to work in public crime laboratories;
(5) disseminate best practices and guidelines concerning the collection and analysis of forensic evidence to help ensure quality and consistency in the use of forensic technologies and techniques to solve crimes, investigate deaths, and protect the public;
(6) examine the role of the forensic community in the homeland security mission;
(7) [examine] interoperability of Automated Fingerprint Information Systems [AFIS]; and
(8) examine additional issues pertaining to forensic science as determined by the Committee.
In the fall of 2006, a committee was established by the National Academy of Sciences to implement this congressional charge. As recommended in the Senate Report, the persons selected to serve included members of the forensic science community, members of the legal community, and a diverse group of scientists.
Operating under the project title “Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community,” the committee met on eight occasions: January 25-26, April 23-24, June 5-6, September 20-21, and December 6-7, 2007, and March 24-25, June 23-24, and November 14-15, 2008. During these meetings, the committee heard expert testimony and deliberated over the information it heard and received. Between meetings, committee members reviewed numerous published materials, studies, and reports related to the forensic science disciplines, engaged in independent research on the subject, and worked on drafts of the final report.
Experts who provided testimony included federal agency officials; academics and research scholars; private consultants; federal, state, and local law enforcement officials; scientists; medical examiners; a coroner; crime laboratory officials from the public and private sectors; independent investigators; defense attorneys; forensic science practitioners; and leadership of professional and standard setting organizations (see the Acknowledgments and Appendix B for a complete listing of presenters).
SUMMARY
The issues covered during the committee’s hearings and deliberations included: (a) the fundamentals of the scientific method as applied to forensic practice—hypothesis generation and testing, falsifiability and replication, and peer review of scientific publications;
(b) the assessment of forensic methods and technologies—the collection and analysis of forensic data; accuracy and error rates of
forensic analyses; sources of potential bias and human error in interpretation by forensic experts; and proficiency testing of forensic experts;
(c) infrastructure and needs for basic research and technology assessment in forensic science;
(d) current training and education in forensic science;
(e) the structure and operation of forensic science laboratories;
(f) the structure and operation of the coroner and medical examiner systems;
(g) budget, future needs, and priorities of the forensic science community and the coroner and medical examiner systems;
(h) the accreditation, certification, and licensing of forensic science operations, medical death investigation systems, and scientists;
(i) Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) and their practices;
(j) forensic science practices— pattern/experience evidence o fingerprints (including the interoperability of AFIS)
– firearms examination
– toolmarks
– bite marks
– impressions (tires, footwear)
– bloodstain pattern analysis
– handwriting
– hair
analytical evidence
– DNA
– coatings (e.g., paint)
– chemicals (including drugs)
– materials (including fibers)
– fluids
– serology
– fire and explosive analysis
– digital evidence;
(k) the effectiveness of coroner systems as compared with medical examiner systems;
(l ) the use of forensic evidence in criminal and civil litigation—
– the collection and flow of evidence from crime scenes to courtrooms
– the manner in which forensic practitioners testify in court
– cases involving the misinterpretation of forensic evidence
– the adversarial system in criminal and civil litigation
– lawyers’ use and misuse of forensic evidence
– judges’ handling of forensic evidence;
(m) forensic practice and projects at various federal agencies, including NIST, the FBI, DHS, U.S. Secret Service, NIJ, DEA, and DOD;
(n) forensic practice in state and local agencies;
(o) nontraditional forensic service providers; and
(p) the forensic science community in the United Kingdom.
The testimonial and documentary evidence considered by the committee was detailed, complex, and sometimes controversial. Given this reality, the committee could not possibly answer every question that it confronted, nor could it devise specific solutions for every problem that it identified. Rather, it reached a consensus on the most important issues now facing the forensic science community and medical examiner system and agreed on 13 specific recommendations to address these issues.
Challenges Facing the Forensic Science Community For decades, the forensic science disciplines have produced valuable
evidence that has contributed to the successful prosecution and conviction of criminals as well as to the exoneration of innocent people. Over the last two decades, advances in some forensic science disciplines, especially the use of DNA technology, have demonstrated that some areas of forensic science have great additional potential to help law enforcement identify criminals. Many crimes that may have gone unsolved are now being solved because forensic science is helping to identify the perpetrators.
Those advances, however, also have revealed that, in some cases, substantive information and testimony based on faulty forensic science analyses may have contributed to wrongful convictions of innocent people. This fact has demonstrated the potential danger of giving undue weight to evidence and testimony derived from imperfect testing and analysis. Moreover, imprecise or exaggerated expert testimony has sometimes contributed to the admission of erroneous or misleading evidence.
Further advances in the forensic science disciplines will serve three important purposes. First, further improvements will assist law enforcement officials in the course of their investigations to identify perpetrators with higher reliability. Second, further improvements in forensic science practices….
To continue reading: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf
