Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Friday June 13 2014, @03:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the Injustice-for-All dept.

In 2009, a National Academy of Sciences committee embarked on a long-overdue quest to study typical forensics analyses with an appropriate level of scientific scrutiny--and the results were deeply chilling. Aside from DNA analysis, not a single forensic practice held up to rigorous inspection.

Far from an infallible science, forensics is a decades-long experiment in which undertrained lab workers jettison the scientific method in favor of speedy results that fit prosecutors' hunches. No one knows exactly how many people have been wrongly imprisoned--or executed--due to flawed forensics. But the number, most experts agree, is horrifyingly high. A complete overhaul of our evidence analysis is desperately needed.

Related Stories

Jiu Jitsu Club Helps Advance Forensic Research into Fiber Transfer During Assaults 12 comments

Phys.org has a short summary of research into patterns of fiber transfer across clothing during different types of assaults. The club members wore specially dyed uniforms and then enacted various styles of assault and defense to allow researchers to observe how clothing fibers transferred as a result.

Researchers from Northumbria University and King's College London have published findings outlining the extent that textile fibers transfer during controlled assault scenarios.

Their work, recently published in the academic journal Science & Justice, is the first time the number of fibers transferred between garments during physical assaults has been assessed by simulating the act with real people through Northumbria University's Jiu Jitsu club.

[...] "The importance of this research is that many experimental studies in forensic science are often a far cry from real-life situations, and we wanted to address that in this study," [lead study author Dr. Kelly] Sheridan said. "We wanted to investigate the extent of fiber transfer during different types of physical assaults using real people for the first time and Dr. David Chalton, who leads the Jiu Jitsu club, made it possible."

Apparently thousands of fibers were cross-transferred between the participants' garments each time, varying per attack/defense scenario.

Journal Reference:
Sheridan, Kelly J., Ray Palmer, et. al, A quantitative assessment of the extent and distribution of textile fibre transfer to persons involved in physical assault, Science & Justice (DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2023.05.001)


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Redundant) by Zinho on Friday June 13 2014, @03:20PM

    by Zinho (759) on Friday June 13 2014, @03:20PM (#54994)

    Id love to see this as a season storyline arc on Bones >=]

    --
    "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by emg on Friday June 13 2014, @03:22PM

    by emg (3464) on Friday June 13 2014, @03:22PM (#54996)

    Next you'll be claiming that CSI is fiction.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13 2014, @03:31PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13 2014, @03:31PM (#55002)

    During trial prep for my sex offense case, the public defender hired a computer forensic examiner to look over my hard drive. Not only did the examiner make statements of opinion where he was only to be reporting on facts, but he reported and promptly dismissed multiple file time modifications (AOL IM buddy icons, System Restore change logs, Indexing Service files, and more) that proved the drive was tampered with after seizure as "an anomaly of the installation." They (at a minimum) booted the drive and had instant message conversations with people. This grossly taints the forensics and can render the evidence unusable in court, but the forensic examiner (obviously being tainted himself, as prosecutors regularly ask such examiners to help them "get this bad guy") did everything he could in his report to try to prevent such evidence from being useful to my attorney.

    Since I never actually got my day in court, I suppose we'll never know if that would have been taken into account.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday June 13 2014, @03:38PM

      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday June 13 2014, @03:38PM (#55005) Journal

      Interesting.

      I read TFA but there was no mention of computer forensics, but it stands to reason that computer forensics would be on even shakier ground than the other kind. After all, most folk regard computers to be some kind of high wizardry, and will happily swallow whatever they are told by someone wearing the appropriate priestly robes.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by skullz on Friday June 13 2014, @03:39PM

      by skullz (2532) on Friday June 13 2014, @03:39PM (#55007)

      Well, if they didn't use a read-only cable or at least boot it up in read only mode and do all their "analysis" on an exact bit copy it was already tainted. What I've seen LEO's usually do is slap the original drive into an external HD case, plug that USB right on in and do their analysis under Windows with some COTS software. On a normally mounted NTFS partition. On Windows. NTFS ON WINDOWS, FOLKS. Might as well just boot it up and "hack" the Windows login.

      • (Score: 1) by linuxrocks123 on Saturday June 14 2014, @08:06AM

        by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Saturday June 14 2014, @08:06AM (#55239) Journal

        That's disturbing. I thought best practice in forensics cases was to bitcopy the drive while mounted read-only, store the original drive in an evidence locker, and do all forensics on the copy. What specific organizations are you aware of that do not use this standard?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Alfred on Friday June 13 2014, @06:19PM

      by Alfred (4006) on Friday June 13 2014, @06:19PM (#55078) Journal

      The examiner was probably certain of your guilt and just looking for leads for his own "investigation." At the very least he did a geek squad grab all the media for later use.

    • (Score: 1) by linuxrocks123 on Saturday June 14 2014, @07:56AM

      by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Saturday June 14 2014, @07:56AM (#55235) Journal

      I hate it when posts like this are by AC. I'm not blaming you particularly, it's just really hard to know what to believe with posts like this. A competent examiner wouldn't have dismissed all that. An incompetent one I wouldn't expect to have even noticed. So I guess we're dealing with a malicious one? I don't know what to think.

      Why didn't you find a buddy who changed his buddy icon after the drive was seized? That would have proven tampering if the new buddy icon was on the drive.

      Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the solution here, as elsewhere, is full disk encryption. Only wholesale reformatting and planting of evidence could get around that. Of course, wholesale reformatting and planting of evidence could get around that, so I don't know. There's supposed to be a chain of custody, and everything I've heard before is the drive is imaged before being examined, to prevent tampering. It's difficult to know what to think when anonymous people on the Internet challenge what I've heard from other sources.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @01:53PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @01:53PM (#55295)

        I'm a sex offender and the last thing I want to do is perma-post "This Guy's Full Name is a felony sex offender!" all over the Internet, especially since I will eventually be eligible for removal from this useless paranoia-fueling government shit list.

        Regarding the buddy icon thing, it doesn't matter; AOL IM back in the early 2000s would only download a buddy icon from a buddy if there was a "conversation," as in someone sends one or more messages, the other buddy sends one or more messages, and the same someone sends yet another message. That triggers the "buddy icon download from the buddy" process *even if the buddy icon was already cached.* The fact that it happened about five months after the hard drive was taken away indicates someone booted my drive, used my saved password to get on my account, and talked to that particular buddy and said buddy talked back.

        The buddy's word isn't needed to prove this because that's just how the software does it. It ALWAYS downloads the icon. That's all the evidence one needs to challenge the forensics. There were a whole lot of other supremely fucked up things, one of which was the SBI agent flipping through the alleged child porn in front of me in a room in a big bound book they had made for the case...and I didn't see a single "child porn" image go by my eyes.

        I've learned a lot in the 14 or so years since all this and when I found out about the Kelly Hoose case I realized that a lot of kiddie porn possession cases could easily be bullshit. Kelly Hoose was charged with kiddie porn possession by the Feds for having company-watermarked pictures of "Melissa Ashley" from ALS Scan on his machine. ALS Scan had 18 USC 2257 records for her. She was something like 22 years old when she was photographed. It took him four years and having the actress flown in to testify herself to get the case dismissed. The same thing has happened with other young-looking porn stars such as "Little Lupe." Legal, watermarked, 2257-compliant images can be used to throw you in prison with a federal felony.

        I took a "sweet plea" and later learned that I made the best decision where there were no good decisions. Fuck me, right?

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @02:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @02:19PM (#55297)

        As for the forensic examiner thing, an episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! covered the tainting of examiners by prosecutors (and the whole episode is really worth watching): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmW3HzAyEB0 [youtube.com]

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Friday June 13 2014, @03:48PM

    by Sir Garlon (1264) on Friday June 13 2014, @03:48PM (#55012)

    In my opinion, the root problem in the US is that the laboratories are funded by the executive branch, and I believe accountable to and under control of the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor is paying for confirmation bias to convict the suspect he's indicted, not for a fair trial that could reveal the prosecutor chose the wrong suspect.

    If I'm right, then the solution would be to make the laboratories independent: put them under control of the judicial branch.

    I don't think this will realistically happen, because the legislators would have to make it happen and *their* incentives are screwed up. Locking up "bad guys" (oh how I hate it went adults use that label to describe real people) is an achievement you can measure and take to the polls no matter whether the evidence used to convict was dodgy. Making sure trials are fair so no one gets railroaded by prosecutorial overreach? Not exactly a catchy campaign slogan, that.

    Ultimately, meaningful improvement to the justice system will require the public to reject politicians who claim to be "tough on crime" as the enemies of freedom and decency that they truly are.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by davester666 on Friday June 13 2014, @05:04PM

      by davester666 (155) on Friday June 13 2014, @05:04PM (#55049)

      Everything about investigations now slants it for conviction.

      Getting proof person X did Y = positive
      Getting proof person X did NOT do Y = you wasted time when you could be finding who did do Y, stop wasting time.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by emg on Friday June 13 2014, @05:42PM

        by emg (3464) on Friday June 13 2014, @05:42PM (#55064)

        The fundamental problem is the shift from the original police goal of preventing crime to the current system of solving crimes that already happened.

        You don't need forensic science to solve a crime which didn't happen because the cops were patrolling the area the criminal planned to rob. Nor do you need forensic science to prove Joe Burglar was robbing a house if the cops caught him red-handed leaving with his loot as they patrolled the street.

        But that's boring work that's far less exciting than car chases, smashing down doors, or CSI.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday June 14 2014, @03:54AM

          by frojack (1554) on Saturday June 14 2014, @03:54AM (#55197) Journal

          There was never a time when the police were tasked with preventing crime. And you wouldn't want to live in a society where that was indeed the way things we we organized.

          To serve and protect is folly. There aren't enough cops to prevent every mugging, theft, or murders.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Friday June 13 2014, @05:47PM

        by Sir Garlon (1264) on Friday June 13 2014, @05:47PM (#55066)

        The way I see it, we're on a historical progression from totally unfair courts toward increasingly fair ones. In the 1300s you could get convicted easily because what passed for "evidence" was basically your reputation: the royal magistrate would ask your neighbors if you were a good and honest person, and if they said no, then off to the pillory or the gallows with you! In the 1800s the only evidence available was circumstantial evidence, eyewitness testimony, and maybe footprints. In the 1900s we got fingerprints and blood typing and the expectation started to emerge that to get "beyond a reasonable doubt" the prosecutor would need to produce some physical facts to establish the defendant was present at the scene of the crime. But especially in the first half of the century it was common to stack the jury and ask leading questions and all kinds of shenanigans. So today even with all the bias, an innocent person has a much better chance of exoneration than he had in 1314 or 1814 or 1914. There is reason to believe that in 2114, the courts will be much fairer than they are today, and there is enough of a gap between where we are and where we want to be that there's cause to get angry and agitate for change.

        --
        [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
        • (Score: 2) by DrMag on Friday June 13 2014, @09:19PM

          by DrMag (1860) on Friday June 13 2014, @09:19PM (#55123)

          Unfortunately, a court can be fair and corrupt--they're not mutually exclusive.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 13 2014, @10:02PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 13 2014, @10:02PM (#55134) Journal

          There is reason to believe that in 2114, the courts will be much fairer than they are today, and there is enough of a gap between where we are and where we want to be that there's cause to get angry and agitate for change.

          Without asking for a change, it won't happen.
          Fingerprints and blood type testing are simple enough for anyone to understand and can be performed in a "non wizard mode" - no longer so with the current day techniques.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @02:20AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @02:20AM (#55172)

            I think you'd be surprised to find out that fingerprints aren't so simple. Especially partials.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Friday June 13 2014, @06:54PM

      by sjames (2882) on Friday June 13 2014, @06:54PM (#55091) Journal

      Actually, the root problem is that prosecutors no longer do their job. Their job is NOT and never has been to get people convicted. Their job is to serve justice by getting guilty people convicted. They have forgotten that one little qualifier. They seem entirely dis-interested in the potential defendant's actual guilt or innocence. They care only for getting the conviction at all costs.

      This shows plainly in cases where a prisoner is exonerated by incontrovertible new evidence. Amazingly, in those cases the prosecutor's office frequently tries to argue against a hearing on the evidence or tries to get the evidence rejected. They seem willing to say nearly anything to avoid the conviction being overturned. I have even seen cases in the news where after all of that fails and the conviction is overturned, they STILL delay the innocent prisoner's actual release for as long as possible.

      Perverting the forensics lab is just one more manifestation of that fundamental problem.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @02:33AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @02:33AM (#55173)
        Maybe they should be called Inquisitors now, but the first Inquisitors probably had a less villainous role too ;).
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13 2014, @04:16PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13 2014, @04:16PM (#55030)

    Far from an infallible science

    Everything is far from an infallible science, even science. Science is by its very definition not infallible; it actually actively looks for falsification. "Infallible science" is an oxymoron.

    Of course that doesn't imply that forensics is anywhere near real science.

    • (Score: 2) by Kell on Saturday June 14 2014, @01:56AM

      by Kell (292) on Saturday June 14 2014, @01:56AM (#55168)

      Anything billed as "Infallible science" is arguably not science at all - be very suspicious of anyone who claims 100% that some science fact is unimpeachable. That said, there are some things of which we are very very sure (eg. evolution, non-relatavistic newtonian mechanics, climate change*) but all it takes is one solid counter example and we would have to rewrite the text books.

      *Yes, I'm trolling you.

      --
      Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @03:16AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @03:16AM (#55188)

        No, "climate change" is certainly an inarguable fact. The climate does change, nobody can deny that. The "issue" is whether or not humans can change the climate through geoengineering.

        • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday June 14 2014, @08:00AM

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Saturday June 14 2014, @08:00AM (#55237) Journal

          The climate does change, nobody can deny that.

          Oh, of course you can deny it. (What do you mean, ice age? Every creationist can tell you there was no ice age because back then the earth didn't yet exist, and anyway, where does the bible talk about the ice age?)

          Whether it is rational to deny it is a different question, of course.

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Friday June 13 2014, @05:28PM

    by evilviper (1760) on Friday June 13 2014, @05:28PM (#55059) Homepage Journal

    I highly recommend watching this episode of Frontline:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/ [pbs.org]

    --
    Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13 2014, @06:09PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13 2014, @06:09PM (#55070)

    If it's routinely used in court cases, it's a quackery.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13 2014, @06:53PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13 2014, @06:53PM (#55090)

    This is a known issue; a whistleblower revealed serious flaws in the FBI lab way back in the WTC bombing case (the parking garage bomb, not 9/11):

    https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/04/17-3 [commondreams.org]

    The Washington Post did a good investigation of the forensic science & the FBI's internal investigation into the whistleblower's findings, although they failed to inform defense lawyers of their findings in all cases, even when they should have:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/doj-review-of-flawed-fbi-forensics-processes-lacked-transparency/2012/04/17/gIQAFegIPT_story.html [washingtonpost.com]

    They also took a look at the so-called science itself:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/forensic-analysis-methods/ [washingtonpost.com]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @03:49AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @03:49AM (#55195)

    About half a decade or so ago, a homeless man got into a confrontation with two or three Eureka police officers and was beaten and kicked until he died.

    Because the homeless person was found to have LSD in his blood stream, the coroner announced that the homeless guy had died of an LSD overdose.

    Someone challenged this on Craigslist and did an extensive analysis suggesting that in order for the homeless guy to have died of an LSD overdose he would have had to have had his stomach swollen with paper tabs and in any case, if he was the sort of person to carry around millions of dollars worth of LSD, and use it ... why was he homeless?

    The coroner's report, I'm pleased to say, was reversed. The county had someone else come in and redo the analysis. The coroner lost his job.

    I haven't had too much respect for coroners (or Humboldt County, for that matter) ever since.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday June 14 2014, @05:06AM

      by frojack (1554) on Saturday June 14 2014, @05:06AM (#55215) Journal

      On Craigslist?

      I wouldn't buy a used bicycle off of Craigslist.
      Why would i buy a scientific analysis off of Craigslist.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @10:55AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @10:55AM (#55260)

        If this is true, then you are prejudiced against craigslist.

        This is typical of people; To erroneously over-associate points of data which are actually unrelated.

        I like to think it's a necessary feature for any intelligence to be capable of self-learning.

        There is a pickup-artist "mind-hack" that is used to great effect: A stranger, upon meeting you for the first time, will associate you with any feelings they have at the time. If you get them to merely think about nice past experiences, enough to feel good - they will associate the "goodness" with you, and consequently will like you.
        Repeat ad-nauseum if you want them to marry you. It is brutally, terrifyingly effective.

        But it only works if they don't know about the technique. If they know you are only trying to manipulate them, they will be inoculated against it.

        Craigslist is just a service. It is full of scum, because people couldn't be bothered helping cleaning it up. It has a mechanism to report scams, but most people couldn't be bothered. Once they realize they've "fallen for it" they just want to have nothing to do with anything associated with "it", and this includes even reporting the scam.

        "The standard you set is the one you walk past."

        Posting as AC as my identity rightly ought have nothing to do with the quality of expressed ideas - the latter is for you to establish.

        If you're prejudicial against "AC", well....