On May 18, 5:53=A0pm, "Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post
script )" wrote:
> There are too many vested interests in it to let it
> get expunged from the forensic canon.http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Con=
troversy-dogs-man-who-puts.40953...
>
> Controversy dogs man who puts DNA in the dock
>
> Published Date: 18 May 2008
> By Marcello Mega
> THEIR evidence can consign the accused to a lifetime behind bars - or it c=
an
> give the convicted a new chance of liberty. DNA experts have emerged as th=
e
> superstars of the witness box, bringing scientific near-certainty to the
> courtroom.
> The techniques have inspired countless fictional plots, from Patricia
> Cornwell's Dr Kay Scarpetta mysteries to TV's CSI. But a division has open=
ed
> up in the real world of DNA evidence, centred on the work of a controversi=
al
> Scottish scientist.
>
> Professor Allan Jamieson has built a high-profile reputation for his work
> challenging convictions based on DNA evidence. The Glasgow-based scientist=
> gave pivotal testimony in the Omagh bombing trial that saw the case collap=
se
> and provoke a Home Office review.
>
> And Jamieson was contacted recently by the legal team of Bradley Murdoch,
> jailed for the murder of Peter Falconio in the Australian outback seven
> years ago. They hope the Scot can help them win Murdoch's appeal against
> conviction.
>
> But Jamieson's work has made him many enemies. And behind the scenes, riva=
l
> scientists and police detectives are briefing against Jamieson, calling in=
to
> question his qualifications to give expert evidence and dragging up
> incidents earlier in his career, including a criminal conviction that led
> him to resign from his post at Lothian and Borders Police.
>
> At issue is the safety of Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA evidence. LCN DNA
> testing can analyse samples 1,000 times smaller than a grain of salt, a fe=
w
> cells being replicated over and over again to create sufficient quantity f=
or
> analysis.
>
> LCN DNA evidence represented a crucial breakthrough in the prosecution of
> serious crime, especially long-unsolved cases. It was vital in securing th=
e
> conviction of Tony Jasinskyj in May 2002 for the 1981 murder of Marion
> Crofts, 14, from Aldershot.
>
> Jamieson argues the technique is unsafe, mainly because of the risk of
> cross-contamination. As well as Omagh, he advised the defence team that
> secured the acquittal of Vincent Simpson at the end of last year over the
> 1980 murder of Elizabeth McCabe in Dundee. Again, Jamieson's attack on LCN=
> DNA evidence in the case was seen as crucial, and revolved around possible=
> cross-contamination in the police laboratory between the clothing of the
> victim and the accused.
>
> Jamieson justifies his work, pointing to a double-first in biology and
> genetics, as well as a PhD in forensic science, but his detractors complai=
n
> he has not conducted the laboratory-based research necessary to make him a=
n
> expert court witness in the field of DNA.
>
> His critics also question the status of the Forensic Institute in Glasgow,=
> which Jamieson set up, and which some view as little more than a one-man
> band.
>
> One scientist, who asked not to be named, said: "Look at the website of th=
e
> Forensic Institute and you get the impression that it is a massive
> organisation, claiming expertise in just about every area of science.
>
> "Scratch beneath the surface and you find it's made up of a handful of
> people. Can so few people really have everything covered? Most practitione=
rs
> have clearly defined limits. We will give evidence only in areas that we
> genuinely have expertise in. If more is required, we tell the people posin=
g
> the questions they need another expert. The Institute will take anything a=
nd
> everything on."
>
> Paul Hackett, a DNA expert at the Forensic Science Service (FSS), declined=
> to discuss concerns about any specific individual, but he acknowledged tha=
t
> there was growing concern within the profession about the ease with which
> people could set themselves up as experts.
>
> He said: "The FSS has grown and developed forensic science in the UK with
> genuine commitment and massive investment to the tune of some =A315m a yea=
r.
> We lead the field in this type of work. We do not simply put scientists
> forward as experts. We put forward the people who have done the work in th=
e
> lab, who understand every part of the process and who can speak with
> authority about it.
>
> "A science degree, even a PhD, does not make you an expert, and we are
> concerned about the fact that the courts appear to attach similar weight t=
o
> the testimony of genuine experts and those who simply purport to be
> experts."
>
> One senior police officer said he feared for justice if the row continued.=
> He said: "The FSS are the experts, not only in the UK but in the world. If=
> our courts continue to give a platform to those who are not genuine
> accredited experts in the field, juries will be confused, and justice will=
> not be served. The regulator needs to act."
>
> Jamieson had been falling out with his peers long before his recent attack=
s
> on LCN DNA evidence. Formerly a member of the FSS, he lost his seat after =
a
> motion of no confidence against him was supported.
>
> Jamieson was previously head of the Lothian and Borders Police laboratory.=
> In 1996, he was sacked by the force over an incident that saw him land a
> criminal conviction. He was charged with placing a female motorist in a
> state of fear and alarm, allegedly having waved her to the roadside and,
> flashing his police-issue identification, lectured her on her driving. As =
a
> civilian employee of the police, he had no such authority.
>
> He was fined =A3300 at Airdrie Sheriff Court, but his dismissal by the for=
ce
> was later replaced with a written warning and he returned to his post. He
> quit his post some six years ago to establish the Forensic Institute.
>
> Jamieson told Scotland on Sunday: "As a scientist, and a very good one, I
> believe I'm entitled to look at and ask questions about anything. Just
> because I haven't done the work in the lab doesn't mean to say I don't
> understand it, or I can't ask pertinent and relevant questions about the
> methodology."
>
> He was scathing about the Caddy Report, which cleared LCN DNA for use
> despite recent failures: "If it's so reliable, why doesn't the FBI use it?=
> We hear a lot of nonsense about it because the FSS has a warped view, but
> most countries don't trust it, with good reason.
>
> "I could shake your hand, then brush against a table and leave a tiny
> particle of your DNA on that table and none of mine, yet you've never
> touched it. DNA is safe in high volume. Semen, blood, saliva tends to be
> safe, but when there is a tiny fragment of skin or a single hair, I'm
> entitled to ask how the crime samples were stored and is there any way the=
y
> could have been contaminated?
>
> "The review reached a conclusion that is not justified when you read it in=
> full."
>
> Jamieson added that, as a member of the council of the FSS, he had been
> instrumental in pushing for a regulatory body, but he said he was not in
> favour of accreditation. "Those with vested interests will simply find way=
s
> to guard their patch," he said. "I recognise that I do have limits, but my=
> role is primarily to test the evidence others have presented.
>
> "I am very well aware of what people say about me and the institute, but
> none has accepted an invitation to come and find out what we are about."
> Asked how many scientists worked at the institute, he said: "Three. No fou=
r,
> four in all."
>
> He added that the no confidence vote against him as a member of the
> society's council had been taken in front of only five members and he had
> not been present. Despite that, one of the members in attendance had spoke=
n
> up for him.
>
> Of his criminal conviction, he said: "It was a misunderstanding. The woman=
> was driving dangerously, I flashed my lights and she pulled over. I stoppe=
d
> and explained why I'd flashed and she made a complaint. It was nothing. Th=
e
> bottom line is, the police gave me my job back."
>
> The full article contains 1326 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday
> newspaper.
> Page 1 of 1
>
> =A0 =A0 * Last Updated: 17 May 2008 11:10 PM
> =A0 =A0 * Source: Scotland On Sunday
>
> ps
> What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
> and what Special Branch don't want you to know.http://www.nutteing.chat.ru=
/dnapr.htm
> or nutteingd in a search engine.
>
> Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
> Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
> it is defunct due to spam.
The Birmingahm Forensic Lab can be very dishonest in statistics debate
and in fact on at least one occassion there dishonesty led directly to
a murder.
The facts are these:
Dr A Morton FRS was the acknowledged expert in stylometry and taught
at Edin burg University, his work on authentication was used by the
Queen herself and on one occasion Morton was asked to authenticate a
police verbal of 26 pages and found it to be a fake a confession
planted by police, police retaliated and ask the Home Secretary
himself to ask for all Mortons work to be sent to the BFSS lab.
The head of the lab Dr Werret informed me that all that was wanted was
the notes and records proving Dr Morton had done the work so that the
FSS could duplicate and authenticate the result, what Werrett did not
say was that he had engaged Dr Hardcastle specifically to debunk
Morton and he needed the 26 page verbal which was acknowledged as
Mortons best work to verify Hardcastles findings.
Cutting along story down, the challenge came in the High Court after
Hardcastle had published his findings in several scientific papers
saying in effect Mortons work was rubbish, Hardcastle gave his reasons
in front of the High Court and lost, Hardcastle was never elected as
an FRS for his dishonest input, but plod tried very hard to present
Hard castles work as better and best, the same stats are being used
again in the DNA debate.
|