CBI finds DNA scientist manipulated data

[Ranb]

Colorado Bureau of Investigation finds DNA scientist manipulated data in hundreds of cases over decades
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/09/us/c...n-data-scientist-manipulation-case/index.html

A now-former forensic scientist with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) manipulated or omitted DNA test results in hundreds of cases, an internal affairs investigation found, which prompted a full review of her work during her nearly 30-year career at the agency.

The CBI released the findings of the investigation into Yvonne “Missy” Woods Friday, which concluded Woods’ handling of DNA testing data affected 652 cases between 2008 and 2023, including posting incomplete results in some cases. A review of her work from 1994 to 2008 is also underway, according to the CBI.

“This discovery puts all of her work in question, and CBI is in the process of reviewing all her previous work for data manipulation to ensure the integrity of all CBI laboratory results,” the agency said. “CBI brought in third-party investigative resources to protect the integrity of the inquiry.”

This sucks. I wonder how many innocents are in prison due to her work? It is possible some actually guilty people may be released also.

https://cbi.colorado.gov/news-artic...ses-findings-from-internal-affairs-probe-into

Ranb

 

[gabeygoat]

Colorado Bureau of Investigation finds DNA scientist manipulated data in hundreds of cases over decades
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/09/us/c...n-data-scientist-manipulation-case/index.html


This sucks. I wonder how many innocents are in prison due to her work? It is possible some actually guilty people may be released also.

https://cbi.colorado.gov/news-artic...ses-findings-from-internal-affairs-probe-into

Ranb

This kind of thing is one of the main reasons I don't support the death penalty. There's just too much doubt to make such an irrevocable decision.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Colorado Bureau of Investigation finds DNA scientist manipulated data in hundreds of cases over decades
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/09/us/c...n-data-scientist-manipulation-case/index.html


This sucks. I wonder how many innocents are in prison due to her work? It is possible some actually guilty people may be released also.

https://cbi.colorado.gov/news-artic...ses-findings-from-internal-affairs-probe-into

Ranb

From the CBI link:

CBI’s DNA forensics team identified the following types of manipulation in Woods’ work:

Deleted and altered data that concealed Woods’ tampering with controls
Deleted data that concealed Woods’ failure to troubleshoot issues within the testing process
Failed to provide thorough documentation in the case record related to certain tests performed

These manipulations appear to have been the result of intentional conduct on the part of Woods.

The review did not find that Woods falsified DNA matches or otherwise fabricated DNA profiles. She instead deviated from standard testing protocols and cut corners, calling into question the reliability of the testing she conducted.

Just for more information for those who haven't clicked the link.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

From the CBI link:



Just for more information for those who haven't clicked the link.

However:

From October 3, 2023 to present, CBI’s Quality Management team has been reviewing all of Woods’ work. At this time, 652 cases have been identified as affected by Woods’ data manipulation between 2008 and 2023. A review of Woods’ work from 1994 to 2008 is also underway.

It looks like a judicial review of these case would be in order. The potentially inaccurate results my require new trials.

 

[Orphia Nay]

However:


It looks like a judicial review of these case would be in order. The potentially inaccurate results my require new trials.

Yep. Could lead to A LOT of appeals.

 

[Roboramma]

Seems one way to avoid this sort of thing would be for all cases that use DNA evidence to require results from at least two labs.

Of course, whether or not that's reasonable depends on how common this sort of thing is. But I doubt that the case that's been discovered is the only case that exists.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

it's just like fingerprints, shoeprints or phrenology: cops and prosecutors convincing themselves and a jury that they don't need to build a case if they have a Magic piece of evidence.
None of that stuff should be admissible as a key piece of evidence.

 

[smartcooky]

it's just like fingerprints, shoeprints or phrenology: cops and prosecutors convincing themselves and a jury that they don't need to build a case if they have a Magic piece of evidence.
None of that stuff should be admissible as a key piece of evidence.

Are you sure you want to go with this?

A man rapes and murders a young girl. The man's seminal fluid is found on and inside the girl's body. Its is the only evidence found and it is only evidence they have.

How about now? Still inadmissible?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Are you sure you want to go with this?

A man rapes and murders a young girl. The man's seminal fluid is found on and inside the girl's body. Its is the only evidence found and it is only evidence they have.

How about now? Still inadmissible?

I didn't say inadmissible - but it should not be a slam-dunk, the way it is usually portrayed.
It's trivially easy to introduce foreign DNA into your own crime scene, even in case of rape.

 

[rjh01]

I didn't say inadmissible - but it should not be a slam-dunk, the way it is usually portrayed.
It's trivially easy to introduce foreign DNA into your own crime scene, even in case of rape.

I agree. There should be some other evidence that the person did the crime. Plus the lab should be given several samples, but only one is from the suspect.

 

[smartcooky]

I agree. There should be some other evidence that the person did the crime. Plus the lab should be given several samples, but only one is from the suspect.

A double blind test? Would that not create a chance for contamination?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

A double blind test? Would that not create a chance for contamination?

if there was some, that would be double reason not to trust the laboratory's work.

 

[PitPat]

FBI lab work has been under scrutiny for a time, especially hair (non-DNA) and fiber. A lot of cases got overturned for that due to faulty premise. Not really a precise science for now.

 

[Checkmite]

It sounds like it's not being alleged that results were fabricated, but rather that this particular tech just cut a lot of corners and did a lot of shoddy work, and omitted or changed portions of the data that would've revealed that.

If that's true then it seems less likely that innocent people were convicted on false evidence and that makes me feel better - but, there's a lot of room now for reasonable doubt for sure, so I imagine any competent defense attorneys are going full nose-to-the-grindstone right now.

 

[Donal]

Sadly, even if it were enough to overturn a conviction, judges are not often looking to negate the work of the courts. They will tell themselves "the prosecution would have gotten the conviction anyway".

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

This has some similarity to the case of Charles Smith (pathologist)^WP here in Ontario. Though the results of his "errors" were more obviously serious.

Smith diagnosed every baby death that came to him as a result of "shaken baby syndrome". This lead to multiple parent convictions and the removal of children from their parents.

After it was all over:

Justice Goudge's report, released on October 1, 2008 concluded that there were serious problems with the way suspicious deaths involving children are handled in Ontario. He pointed to the problems that had been found with the 20 or so problematic cases that Charles Smith had handled as evidence of serious problems in the Ontario system.

Also in 2008, the chief forensic pathologist for Ontario began a public inquiry into 220 cases of shaken baby syndrome to determine if anyone was wrongfully convicted in the babies' deaths.

Individuals that were wrongly accused by Smith were entitled up to $250,000 as a "recognition payment".

 

[smartcooky]

if there was some, that would be double reason not to trust the laboratory's work.

Just going back to this for a moment - how do you reconcile these two statements you made?

None of that stuff should be admissible...

I didn't say inadmissible...

I think its is a very bad idea to go introducing extra opportunities for contamination by having additional contaminant, unrelated DNA, in the lab? I'm sure glad you aren't running any crime labs!

No, I would go along with Roboramma's suggestion, that the samples be submitted to two separate labs for parallel, independent testing. I would add that the samples must be split at the points of collection - both at pathology and from the suspect. It would be very simple to do.

The person doing DNA collection will have specially marked evidence bags for "in-lab" and "out-lab" . The tech dealing with the victim takes two swabs and puts one in each, putting the first swab into a bag and sealing it before taking the second swab - same when collecting from the suspect. Those bags are from then on dealt with by two different people so that there can be no chain of custody issues, the "in-lab" bag is taken directly to their local lab, the "out-lab" bag is sent directly by courier to whatever lab will be doing the parallel testing.

Its not absolutely foolproof, but it would sure be an improvement on what is happening now, and it requires nothing more that some minor changes to procedure and some additional consumables. With the cost of DNA testing being what it is, a few more evidence bags and some courier fees are not going to significantly impact anyone's budget!

 

[lobosrul5]

A double blind test? Would that not create a chance for contamination?

The DA's office or whomever, submits a DNA sample from the crime scene. And 4 DNA samples marked "A", "B", "C", "D", one of whom is from the suspect the other 3 are from samples from non-suspects. They ask the question which of these 4 samples, if any, match the crime scene DNA. If a lab cannot do this without cross contamination, then its not a lab worth relying on.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Just going back to this for a moment - how do you reconcile these two statements you made?





I think its is a very bad idea to go introducing extra opportunities for contamination by having additional contaminant, unrelated DNA, in the lab? I'm sure glad you aren't running any crime labs!

No, I would go along with Roboramma's suggestion, that the samples be submitted to two separate labs for parallel, independent testing. I would add that the samples must be split at the points of collection - both at pathology and from the suspect. It would be very simple to do.

The person doing DNA collection will have specially marked evidence bags for "in-lab" and "out-lab" . The tech dealing with the victim takes two swabs and puts one in each, putting the first swab into a bag and sealing it before taking the second swab - same when collecting from the suspect. Those bags are from then on dealt with by two different people so that there can be no chain of custody issues, the "in-lab" bag is taken directly to their local lab, the "out-lab" bag is sent directly by courier to whatever lab will be doing the parallel testing.

Its not absolutely foolproof, but it would sure be an improvement on what is happening now, and it requires nothing more that some minor changes to procedure and some additional consumables. With the cost of DNA testing being what it is, a few more evidence bags and some courier fees are not going to significantly impact anyone's budget!

I have worked in a lab, and there is zero risk of cross contamination if you follow a protocol. Furthermore, you split your sample before you do anything, keeping as much of the original as you can and test only from a fraction. That way, you can and will retest before submitting a positive result, as well as leave enough for someone else to repeat the test.

If you need to rush things, you can mix fractions of all samples, and test the mixture - if that doesn't match, you only have to do that one test to get a negative.

 

[smartcooky]

The DA's office or whomever, submits a DNA sample from the crime scene. And 4 DNA samples marked "A", "B", "C", "D", one of whom is from the suspect the other 3 are from samples from non-suspects. They ask the question which of these 4 samples, if any, match the crime scene DNA. If a lab cannot do this without cross contamination, then its not a lab worth relying on.

1. Do you have any idea how much DNA testing costs? Well, now multiply by four.

2. Who is going to volunteer their DNA for these three additional samples to be tested by the police lab?

3. Keep in mind the fact that these samples will be evidence related to the case (evidence as to the veracity of the target DNA) and all evidence has to be retained for some period of time after the case is done. This means the volunteers' samples and the results are going to be in an evidence locker somewhere, and if the case is never solved, that could be decades. How are you going to guarantee to those people that their samples and tests will NEVER be retained and later used against them?

No, I still think Roboramma's idea to send the samples off for parallel independent testing by a separate lab is the best solution.

 

[smartcooky]

I have worked in a lab, and there is zero risk of cross contamination if you follow a protocol. Furthermore, you split your sample before you do anything, keeping as much of the original as you can and test only from a fraction. That way, you can and will retest before submitting a positive result, as well as leave enough for someone else to repeat the test.

If you need to rush things, you can mix fractions of all samples, and test the mixture - if that doesn't match, you only have to do that one test to get a negative.

Ok, but if you want to be sure that something like the subject of this thread doesn't happen, then surely you would have to ensure that any testing of a second split from the remaining sample MUST be done by a different lab tech.

I still think the best option with the fewest questions is to send a second sample to a different lab for parallel testing. That means a different lab tech, and different equipment, and it is certainly cheaper than testing four samples at the same lab.

 

[novaphile]

A double blind test? Would that not create a chance for contamination?

I have seen arguments that all forensic laboratories should be secretly tested, frequently, to establish the rate of error by laboratory.

Those which perform poorly should be tested more frequently.

Similarly, DNA swab tests should always travel in pairs, one used and one not used, and both tested for DNA.

The problem in Germany (IIRC)* where all DNA swabs had been contaminated in the original packaging facility, would have been picked up much earlier if that DNA was found in routine testing of unused collection material.

Edited to add:

* Austria, France and Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn

 

[dann]

Are you sure you want to go with this?

A man rapes and murders a young girl. The man's seminal fluid is found on and inside the girl's body. Its is the only evidence found and it is only evidence they have.

How about now? Still inadmissible?

Your example mimics that of a biased detective or prosecutor: Even before there's any real case, you have decided that the man has done what you have said he has done: raped and murdered a woman.

That is not how a real-life investigation should take place:
1) A body of a woman has been found.
2) The forensic investigation determines that she was raped and killed.
3) Seminal fluid is found.
4) In DNA registers investigators find a man with the same DNA.

The story of a Danish serial rapist and killer: Marcel Lychau Hansen (Wiki)
After his conviction, he sent a sample of his own sperm to one of his sons and tried to convince him to rape a woman and use the sample to make it seem as if there was another rapist, still on the loose, with the same DNA.

There is no reason to assume that another rapist/killer couldn't use a similar trick: Leave behind DNA from somebody else at the crime scene. As The Great Zaganza wrote: "It's trivially easy to introduce foreign DNA into your own crime scene, even in case of rape." (I wouldn't call it trivially easy, but it obviously can and probably already has been done.
In your scenario where "Its is the only evidence found and it is only evidence they have," they would convict the wrong guy.

There are also cases like this one: Framed for Murder by His Own DNA (Wired, April 19, 2018)

Marcel Lychau Hansen also sent samples of his own spit and hair to his son to be used to lead the investigators astray.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Negative controls in DNA profiling

NBC News reported that "she interfered with controls". There is an article in The Champion by William Thompson about DNA called "Tarnish on the Gold Standard." IIRC he said that the negative controls were the most common form of tampering with DNA evidence. As Donald Riley pointed out, negative controls cannot detect every contamination event; they can find gross but not sporadic contamination.

 

[smartcooky]

Your example mimics that of a biased detective or prosecutor

Nope! You couldn't be more wrong if you tried!

"A man rapes and murders a young girl" is stated, by me, as a fact before the narrative, not as an assumption or a conclusion from an investigation.

It is the equivalent of stating "In the vast prison of Auschwitz, the Nazis had shackled their victims, starved, tortured, and murdered millions of innocent souls." - the opening line of "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Only I get to decide what my words mean and how they are to be interpreted, not you!

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Too bad Courts don't have the same level of certainty.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

stay tuned

From what I can gather, this is an ongoing investigation; therefore, details are not being released to the general public.

 

[Suddenly]

No, I still think Roboramma's idea to send the samples off for parallel independent testing by a separate lab is the best solution.

A forensic crime lab should not be under the law enforcement chain of command and should be a wholly independent arm of the government with a board including representatives nominated both by the AG's office and the public defender services who then agree upon actual scientists (not forensic technicians; phd types in relevant fields) to join them.

Even then allow a defendant to have their own retained expert either retest material or closely observe testing.

As to double blind that can be done at the data profile level. If different technicians are independently doing the testing of samples to create the profiles that eliminates a whole bunch of opportunities for chicanery.

 

[Suddenly]

This has some similarity to the case of Charles Smith (pathologist)^WP here in Ontario. Though the results of his "errors" were more obviously serious.

Smith diagnosed every baby death that came to him as a result of "shaken baby syndrome". This lead to multiple parent convictions and the removal of children from their parents.

After it was all over:

When it comes to forensic "science" DNA is the least of our problems, really.

It's gets all the pub but a lot of what goes on in a forensics lab is about as sound as astrology. I've seen handwriting analysis reports that were basically some guy with a sociology degree from 30 years who looks at two samples and says they look the same. He's an "expert" because he completes the lab's workbooks and dresses this up in fancy language.

This stuff really needs to not be under the thumb of the cops.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

When it comes to forensic "science" DNA is the least of our problems, really.

It's gets all the pub but a lot of what goes on in a forensics lab is about as sound as astrology. I've seen handwriting analysis reports that were basically some guy with a sociology degree from 30 years who looks at two samples and says they look the same. He's an "expert" because he completes the lab's workbooks and dresses this up in fancy language.

This stuff really needs to not be under the thumb of the cops.

Exactly! I have watched enough true crime shows to know the police can get fixated on a suspect to the exclusion of all contrary evidence and reason. A dispassionate civil body is needed for purposes of quality control.

 

[attempt5001]

A few points from someone who has worked in a lab quite a bit.

There will always be "other DNA" samples incorporated into the test protocol, which are known as positive controls. These are likely purchased standards, not samples from volunteers. Also, analyses will be carried out in batches, not for one individual at a time. As Zaganza says, batch protocols that include blanks, replicates, positive controls, negative controls, spikes (and standard curve samples if there is a quantitative output) are all used to monitor for contamination or other false positive or false negative outcomes. Furthermore, accredited laboratories (which would be required for this sort of analysis) are required to participate in inter-lab proficiency testing, to ensure that they continue to demonstrate capability to perform the accredited tests within allowable tolerances for accuracy and precision. Accreditation also includes verifying and documenting analyst competencies.

None of this protects against a deliberate cutting of corners, although data trails are automatically saved and not accessible to lab staff, which is probably how this problem was identified and is being followed up on.

This report is concerning for sure, but unless results were falsified, it's unlikely that the outcome would actually result in incorrect outcomes or convictions.

Not sure I buy into the idea that it's trivial to contaminate a crime scene in a typical sexual assault scenario either. Conceivable, sure, but carrying around a spare vial of genetic material to spike the crime scene with seems like a pretty rare likelihood.

 

[novaphile]

A few points from someone who has worked in a lab quite a bit.

There will always be "other DNA" samples incorporated into the test protocol, which are known as positive controls. These are likely purchased standards, not samples from volunteers. Also, analyses will be carried out in batches, not for one individual at a time. As Zaganza says, batch protocols that include blanks, replicates, positive controls, negative controls, spikes (and standard curve samples if there is a quantitative output) are all used to monitor for contamination or other false positive or false negative outcomes. Furthermore, accredited laboratories (which would be required for this sort of analysis) are required to participate in inter-lab proficiency testing, to ensure that they continue to demonstrate capability to perform the accredited tests within allowable tolerances for accuracy and precision. Accreditation also includes verifying and documenting analyst competencies.

None of this protects against a deliberate cutting of corners, although data trails are automatically saved and not accessible to lab staff, which is probably how this problem was identified and is being followed up on.

This report is concerning for sure, but unless results were falsified, it's unlikely that the outcome would actually result in incorrect outcomes or convictions.

Not sure I buy into the idea that it's trivial to contaminate a crime scene in a typical sexual assault scenario either. Conceivable, sure, but carrying around a spare vial of genetic material to spike the crime scene with seems like a pretty rare likelihood.

Re the latter...

Apparently DNA replication is quite easy to do with temperature controlled equipment, and it has been done with a kitchen stove and a thermometer.

So making a batch of someone else's DNA is within the realms of possibility, especially for someone who has access to a suitable lab where DNA replication is already being done.

From there, all that is needed is a squirty bottle.

I'm surprised that this hasn't happened.

I'm biased because I know people who perform DNA replication every day, and know that they're more than capable, but fortunately, they're not criminals.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

anomalies and more

"The agency has not explained the specific anomalies found in Woods’ DNA testing or offered any detail about how they occurred. But the budget request notes that the re-testing could reveal situations in which prior “testing by the former scientist was inaccurate” and that the re-testing could create “substantial evidence” to retry prior criminal cases." Greely Tribune

If a forensic worker takes a reference sample and treats it as if it were a questioned sample, then that is surely a serious infraction. Missy Woods has been alleged (not in this article) to have done this.

 

[smartcooky]

When it comes to forensic "science" DNA is the least of our problems, really.

It's gets all the pub but a lot of what goes on in a forensics lab is about as sound as astrology. I've seen handwriting analysis reports that were basically some guy with a sociology degree from 30 years who looks at two samples and says they look the same. He's an "expert" because he completes the lab's workbooks and dresses this up in fancy language.

This stuff really needs to not be under the thumb of the cops.

And yet it was primarily handwriting analysis that brought down Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber.

To be clear, proper handwriting analysis is not just some guy looking at two sample sentences of handwriting and trying to decide if they are by the same person. That is the extreme simplifications you see on TV police procedurals because they only have 45 minutes to tell the story. Actual analysis usually requires a LOT of samples, in which use of language, style of prose, spelling, grammar and phraseology all contribute to the comparison. In Kaczynski's case, his manifesto (which he has publicized) was compared with letters and writings given to the FBI by his younger brother David.

Proper handwriting analysis is sound science, not pseudo science!

 

[smartcooky]

Re the latter...

Apparently DNA replication is quite easy to do with temperature controlled equipment, and it has been done with a kitchen stove and a thermometer.

So making a batch of someone else's DNA is within the realms of possibility, especially for someone who has access to a suitable lab where DNA replication is already being done.

From there, all that is needed is a squirty bottle.

I'm surprised that this hasn't happened.

I'm biased because I know people who perform DNA replication every day, and know that they're more than capable, but fortunately, they're not criminals.

The problem with this is, what are you going have that DNA masquerading as? You can't just put it in a squirty bottle and spread it around a crime scene. Whatever medium it is in, such as a saline solution, or distilled water, is also going to be detected.

This DNA of yours has to actually be in something that came from a person, like blood, or semen or sweat or epithelials. If you contaminate those things with your replicated DNA, those things will still contain their original DNA, so at best, all your faked evidence is going to be an admixture. The fakery would be obvious to a year-one student of forensics.

IF you unfuse blood

 

[attempt5001]

Agreed with smartcooky's points above. And the idea that DNA replication is a simple, stovetop procedure is an over simplification as well. It's true that once all the proper ingredients are prepared and mixed, the amplification process is a simple thermal cycling pattern (temp A for duration X, temp B for duration Y, temp C for duration Z - repeat), but I think novaphile's contacts are glossing over a lot of technical details. You have to start with an isolated and purified DNA sample for starters and people doing routine DNA replication (as I have also done, albeit many years ago) are typically working with constructed DNA plasmids, not just a sample of someone's entire genome extracted from some hair or fluid, which is not a simple, at home, process. You also need to design and manufacture (or order commercially) primers, which are short DNA sequences that anneal to the start point for replication (typically in both the 3' and 5' directions since DNA is two-stranded), you also have to purchase and prepare oligonucleotides solutions (which are not cheap) in the proper manner and concentrations to provide the base building block materials for replication. You then have to store and transport the solution in buffers and at temperatures that ensure it's stability. So not trivial at all.

Even the idea presented above of someone trying to ship their own genetic sample out of prison and have it planted at another crime scene to fool the experts into thinking there is another person with the same DNA on the loose is flawed. The likelihood of that is so statistically improbable that the only reasonable assumption would immediately be the correct one, that the sample had come from the same person.

 

[attempt5001]

(and I forgot to mention the requirement for purchasing, storing, preparing and using the actual enzymes that mediate and catalyze the process of knitting together the nucleotide building blocks. As I mentioned, it's been a while since I've done this work.)

 

[lobosrul5]

1. Do you have any idea how much DNA testing costs? Well, now multiply by four.

2. Who is going to volunteer their DNA for these three additional samples to be tested by the police lab?

3. Keep in mind the fact that these samples will be evidence related to the case (evidence as to the veracity of the target DNA) and all evidence has to be retained for some period of time after the case is done. This means the volunteers' samples and the results are going to be in an evidence locker somewhere, and if the case is never solved, that could be decades. How are you going to guarantee to those people that their samples and tests will NEVER be retained and later used against them?

No, I still think Roboramma's idea to send the samples off for parallel independent testing by a separate lab is the best solution.

Just getting back to this.

1. ... the fact that it will cost more is no reason for the state to abrogate its duties to use factual evidence.
2. Deceased people perhaps? Sort of like a donate your body to science deal.
3. See above.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Laboratory reform

This stuff really needs to not be under the thumb of the cops.

This is too important a point not to highlight. A recent job posting reads, "Lead a dedicated team of forensic scientists in our state-of-the-art lab. Leverage their expertise to deliver critical evidence, helping detectives solve crimes and secure convictions. Champion justice for victims through timely, accurate analysis." The proper role of a forensic expert is not to be an advocate for the prosecution or the defense. His or her role is to educate the trier of fact. Much ink is spent on the bad apples in forensic science; more ink should be spent on fixing its culture. One reform is to remove labs from the law enforcement chain of command. Calls for this go back at least as far as the Lindy Chamberlain case.

 

[smartcooky]

This is too important a point not to highlight. A recent job posting reads, "Lead a dedicated team of forensic scientists in our state-of-the-art lab. Leverage their expertise to deliver critical evidence, helping detectives solve crimes and secure convictions. Champion justice for victims through timely, accurate analysis." The proper role of a forensic expert is not to be an advocate for the prosecution or the defense. His or her role is to educate the trier of fact. Much ink is spent on the bad apples in forensic science; more ink should be spent on fixing its culture. One reform is to remove labs from the law enforcement chain of command. Calls for this go back at least as far as the Lindy Chamberlain case.

I agree, and the testing should be blind. The independent lab should not know who the samples they are testing comes from or what case it is related to.