Posted: 4/16/2003 3:41:56 AM EDT
|
I'm so happy to see this. I feel much safer.[url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-15-dna-usat_x.htm[/url] WASHINGTON — DNA profiles from juvenile offenders and from adults who have been arrested [red]but not convicted [/red] would be added to the FBI's national DNA database under a Bush administration proposal. |
|
Things seems a bit off at the FBI Laboratory More problems appear at FBI lab Copyright © 2003 AP Online E-mail this story By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press WASHINGTON (April 15, 2003 6:06 p.m. EDT) - Reformed after controversy in the mid-1990s, the FBI crime lab is dealing with new wrongdoing by employees that has opened the door for challenges of the lab's science in scores of cases involving DNA and bullet analysis, internal documents show. One FBI lab scientist, who connected suspects to bullets through lead analysis, has been indicted after admitting she gave false testimony, and a technician has resigned while under investigation for alleged improper testing of more than 100 DNA samples, according to records and interviews. In addition, one of the lab's retired metallurgists is challenging the bureau's science on bullet analysis, prompting the FBI to ask the National Academy of Sciences to review its methodology, the records obtained by The Associated Press show. FBI Lab Director Dwight Adams said detection of the problems illustrates that reforms are working. "The difference is these are being caught and dealt with swiftly. Our quality assurance program is in place to root out these problems, incompetence and inaccurate testimonies," Adams said in an interview. "These weren't fortuitous catches; they were on purpose." Defense lawyers are already mounting challenges in high-profile cases handled by the two employees and are questioning the FBI's project to build a national DNA database that will help law enforcement identify suspects based on their genetic fingerprints. "We all have assumed the scientists are telling the truth because they do it with authority and tests. And as a result FBI scientists have gotten away with voodoo science," said Lawrence Goldman, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The Justice Department's internal watchdog is investigating FBI lab technician Jacqueline Blake for allegedly failing to follow proper scientific procedure when analyzing DNA in at least 103 cases over the past few years, officials said. The officials said they have found that the technician failed to compare the DNA evidence with control samples, a required step to ensure the accuracy of tests. Blake resigned from the FBI lab recently. Blake's work has become an issue in a prominent case in New Jersey, where five police officers are challenging blood evidence she analyzed that was used to convict them of federal civil rights violations in the death of a prisoner. FBI officials have already taken steps to protect the national DNA registry in light of the allegations against Blake and separate revelations of problems in DNA analysis at the Houston police crime lab. In Blake's case, 29 DNA samples that she placed into the database were removed and are being reanalyzed. The review so far has not found any instances in which her DNA analysis was inaccurate, and those samples have now been re-entered, Adams said. In addition, FBI officials recently banned the Houston police lab from entering new DNA samples into the national registry. Judges in the Houston area have requested a grand jury investigation into that lab's practices. The FBI made widespread changes in the mid-1990s after its lab was rocked by a whistleblower's allegations and an investigation that found shoddy science by several lab examiners. AP reported last month that Justice officials have identified about 3,000 cases that might have been affected by those earlier problems and have let prosecutors decide whether to notify convicted defendants. The new problems surfaced in the last year. FBI lab scientist Kathleen Lundy, an expert witness in murder trials who performs chemical comparisons of lead bullets, was indicted earlier this year on a charge of misdemeanor false swearing by Kentucky authorities after she acknowledged she knowingly gave false testimony in a 2002 pretrial hearing for a man accused of murdering a University of Kentucky football player. Lundy informed her FBI superiors of the false testimony a couple of months after it occurred. By that time she had corrected her pretrial testimony at the trial and had been questioned about it by defense lawyers. Federal authorities decided not to prosecute her, but Kentucky prosecutors brought the misdemeanor charge. In memos and a sworn affidavit, Lundy stated she had an opportunity to correct her erroneous testimony at the hearing, but didn't. "I had to admit it was worse than being evasive or not correcting the record. It was simply not telling the truth," Lundy wrote in a memo to a superior. "I cannot explain why I made the original error in my testimony ... nor why, knowing that the testimony was false, I failed to correct it at the time," Lundy wrote in a subsequent sworn affidavit. "I was stressed out by this case and work in general." Lundy also disclosed she was increasingly concerned that a former lab colleague, retired metallurgist William Tobin, was beginning to appear as a defense witness in cases and openly questioning the FBI's science on gun lead. "These challenges affected me a great deal, perhaps more than they should have. I also felt that there was ineffective support from the FBI to meet the challenges," Lundy wrote. Lundy's written declarations have already been turned over in the Kentucky case and may have to be disclosed elsewhere where lead bullet analysis is being questioned. In New York, state prosecutors cited the allegations when they dropped plans to call Lundy as a prosecution witness in a murder retrial. "Her value as a witness would be negated," New York City Assistant District Attorney James Rodriguez explained to the judge. Adams, the lab director, said the FBI remains confident that its lead bullet analysis is based upon "a proper foundation" but nonetheless has asked the National Academy of Sciences to review the lab's work. "We do anticipate some suggestions, ways to improve what we already do and we'll gladly look at that," Adams said. "We want correct any unassailable results and objective testimony, and to do that we've got to be open to outside scrutiny and outside review." Tobin retired in 1998 as an FBI lab metallurgist after 27 years. He was part of the government team that concluded the TWA Flight 800 explosion over New York was caused by a mechanical problem, not a bomb or missile In an interview, Tobin said he remains a staunch supporter of the FBI lab but long suspected while working alongside the bureau's lead bullet analysts that they were engaged in inaccurate science. After retiring, he said, he conducted research that substantiated his concerns. Tobin said he also has gathered evidence that FBI lab experts are stretching their conclusions beyond lab reports when they reach the witness stand. "Defense lawyers are being ambushed and jurors are being misled," he said. "There is no comprehensive or meaningful data whatsoever to support their analytical conclusions." FBI officials dispute Tobin's assessment, saying there have been nearly a dozen published articles or presentations to scientific peer groups in the past couple of years that validate the FBI's science on bullets. [url]http://www.nandotimes.com/politics/story/855407p-5991610c.html[/url] |
|
Quoted: I'm so happy to see this. I feel much safer.[url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-15-dna-usat_x.htm[/url] WASHINGTON — DNA profiles from juvenile offenders and from adults who have been arrested [red]but not convicted [/red] would be added to the FBI's national DNA database under a Bush administration proposal. Impossible! Kin-errr..President Bush would [b]never[/b] allow such a thing... [rolleyes] Scott |
|
FBI Lab Director Dwight Adams said detection of the problems illustrates that reforms are working. I always think it is cool when someone claims "You caught us doing bad things, which shows the system is working." Of course, the poor innocent sap who got ass-raped in prison behind some phony evidence might have a different point of view. He might ask that the system work well enough to have saved him the grief in the first place. |
|
Is this much different from [b]fingerprinting[/b] arrested but not yet even arraigned persons? Those records are kept as well, regardless of the disposition of the case. Frankly, if I could chose one or the other, I would rather the Gov't have a DNA sample than my fingerprints. YMMV. |
|
Attention critics!!! Due to terrorisim, and the ending war in Iraq, criticisim of our government and its policies, has been hereby deemed unpatriotic. All prior and current actions have been and will be for your protection, and the protection of your loved ones. Do you not love your mother? I can't believe you silly boys are so unAmerican. |
|
Quoted: Is this much different from [b]fingerprinting[/b] arrested but not yet even arraigned persons? Those records are kept as well, regardless of the disposition of the case. Frankly, if I could chose one or the other, I would rather the Gov't have a DNA sample than my fingerprints. YMMV. What he said. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Is this much different from [b]fingerprinting[/b] arrested but not yet even arraigned persons? Those records are kept as well, regardless of the disposition of the case. Frankly, if I could chose one or the other, I would rather the Gov't have a DNA sample than my fingerprints. YMMV. What he said. Really? Because ya know, most Americans are about one inch away from being described as congenital idiots. If they are told something in a courtroom by an EXPERT, they will believe it, especially if ordered to believe it by a judge. I may be able to spot logical fallacies and bad science, and so might you, but most of these mouth breathing sheep? It might as well be quantum theory crossed with alchemy for them. Lets say the cops arrested you, and just KNEW it was you, but they had no evidence. All they have to do is convince the lab weenies AKA the experts that you are the guy, and they can run a PCR from pre-existing frozen samples, contaminate whatever evidence they need to, and then "find" the DNA on the damning bit which will then be verified independently by a second lab. See the problem? Remember all the guys framed by LEOs in IL that walked because of fraudulent lab work linked to unscrupulous LEOs? There have been a great many cases of this occuring throughout the US hat have been reported, and I would strongly suspect, never reported. The AG on MD refused to retry cases where DNA proved innocence because "It would not serve justice to do so." What a fuckwad. They got along with no DNA info for this long, they don't need it now. You only need crap like that if you are intending to have a police state the likes of which Stalin, Pol Pot, Nero, Mussolini, and Hitler could have only hoped for. |
|
soylent, you are describing some real, and some hypothetical perversions of the justice system. All well and good. May I point out that such criminal abuse of the system pre-dates both fingerprinting and DNA sampling? But the question remains: how is this greatly different from fingerprinting arrestees? |
|
Quoted: soylent, you are describing some real, and some hypothetical perversions of the justice system. All well and good. May I point out that such criminal abuse of the system pre-dates both fingerprinting and DNA sampling? But the question remains: how is this greatly different from fingerprinting arrestees? Re-read what I wrote. If they need a patsy or the cops don't have any real evidence, but believe that you did it and want to sink you, all they have to do is run a PCR from the pre-existing sample and taint the evidence. Once they plant the sample, the DNA is verified by an independent lab and you go to prison. |
|
Quoted: soylent, you are describing some real, and some hypothetical perversions of the justice system. All well and good. May I point out that such criminal abuse of the system pre-dates both fingerprinting and DNA sampling? But the question remains: how is this greatly different from fingerprinting arrestees? What he said. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: soylent, you are describing some real, and some hypothetical perversions of the justice system. All well and good. May I point out that such criminal abuse of the system pre-dates both fingerprinting and DNA sampling? But the question remains: how is this greatly different from fingerprinting arrestees? Re-read what I wrote. If they need a patsy or the cops don't have any real evidence, but believe that you did it and want to sink you, all they have to do is run a PCR from the pre-existing sample and taint the evidence. Once they plant the sample, the DNA is verified by an independent lab and you go to prison. But if they wanted to "disappeared you" they could do it at any time. Either you trust the system or not. If you do not you try to stay out of it. They get your prints and DNA when you join the military. It is the cost of doing business. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: soylent, you are describing some real, and some hypothetical perversions of the justice system. All well and good. May I point out that such criminal abuse of the system pre-dates both fingerprinting and DNA sampling? But the question remains: how is this greatly different from fingerprinting arrestees? Re-read what I wrote. If they need a patsy or the cops don't have any real evidence, but believe that you did it and want to sink you, all they have to do is run a PCR from the pre-existing sample and taint the evidence. Once they plant the sample, the DNA is verified by an independent lab and you go to prison. But if they wanted to "disappeared you" they could do it at any time. Either you trust the system or not. If you do not you try to stay out of it. They get your prints and DNA when you join the military. It is the cost of doing business. he's not talking about out of the blue no contact with the cops getting dissapeared by the gov he's talking about where, somehow or another, you end up being a suspect in a case even though you're innocent. the cops don't think you are. they can guarantee a conviction by planting DNA evidence generated from the sample they already have. An independant lab will find "a match". I think it would be harder to plant fingerprints. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: soylent, you are describing some real, and some hypothetical perversions of the justice system. All well and good. May I point out that such criminal abuse of the system pre-dates both fingerprinting and DNA sampling? But the question remains: how is this greatly different from fingerprinting arrestees? Re-read what I wrote. If they need a patsy or the cops don't have any real evidence, but believe that you did it and want to sink you, all they have to do is run a PCR from the pre-existing sample and taint the evidence. Once they plant the sample, the DNA is verified by an independent lab and you go to prison. But if they wanted to "disappeared you" they could do it at any time. Either you trust the system or not. If you do not you try to stay out of it. They get your prints and DNA when you join the military. It is the cost of doing business. he's not talking about out of the blue no contact with the cops getting dissapeared by the gov he's talking about where, somehow or another, you end up being a suspect in a case even though you're innocent. the cops don't think you are. they can guarantee a conviction by planting DNA evidence generated from the sample they already have. An independant lab will find "a match". I think it would be harder to plant fingerprints. My point is what is being suggested is illegal. If the cops want to play dirty then you are screwed. At that point you better plan on bugging out. |
|
I believe the Brits already take DNA samples from those detained as a matter of course. I recall a few months back that a very young child was detained for having a toy gun and as part of the process they created a contact record (which will stay in the system forever) and retained a DNA sample. Doesn’t surprise me at all that we are on that path as well. Look to the UK for the roadmap of what the USA will look like in 50 or so years. |
|
The very idea that we should have to bug out when we are innocent shows that you actually understand the underlying potential for abuse that this plan engenders. Remember that the IRS and the FBI will never be used for political purposes, unless you are a blue dress spuging democrat president who needs to avoid being prosecuted. Ever wonder why all those politicos chickened out? They buckled under the threat of state gathered info being used to ruin them Ever wonder why Bob Livingston suddenly resigned? He didn't buckle, he just quit. The state has too much power as it stands. Addfing another easily abused power to the heap doesn't do a damned thing for us, but it does pose a huge threat to everyone, not just crooks. If you don't believe me, check out a little organization called the STASI. They had files on everyone in East Germany. You had to fear them no mater what. I guarantee you I could hard fuck every person on this board with a convincing tale told to the IRS, ATF, FBI, DEA, etc etc etc. Having people who have nothing better to do than harm people around is not a good idea, giving them better tools to do it with is an even worse one. Get it? |
|
Quoted: The very idea that we should have to bug out when we are innocent shows that you actually understand the underlying potential for abuse that this plan engenders. Remember that the IRS and the FBI will never be used for political purposes, unless you are a blue dress spuging democrat president who needs to avoid being prosecuted. Ever wonder why all those politicos chickened out? They buckled under the threat of state gathered info being used to ruin them Ever wonder why Bob Livingston suddenly resigned? He didn't buckle, he just quit. The state has too much power as it stands. Addfing another easily abused power to the heap doesn't do a damned thing for us, but it does pose a huge threat to everyone, not just crooks. If you don't believe me, check out a little organization called the STASI. They had files on everyone in East Germany. You had to fear them no mater what. I guarantee you I could hard fuck every person on this board with a convincing tale told to the IRS, ATF, FBI, DEA, etc etc etc. Having people who have nothing better to do than harm people around is not a good idea, giving them better tools to do it with is an even worse one. Get it? 100%. That is why I say steer a wide course from the system. If it looks like you are going to get sucked in. Time to start moving, and moving fast. |
|
Who can say if the authorities will actually have a physical sample of an individual's DNA to store forever? Wouldn't it make sense to analyze an individual sample, and render it into an inexpensively digitalized series of numbers? Or some kind of other easily stored digital representation? I think that those people concerned that "their" sample will be secretly whisked from the refrigerated caverns at point X (and it would be a gargantuan task to store physical samples, not to mention the cost) so that the cops plotting against you at point Y can sprinkle it on the evidence are going overboard a bit. Aside from the initial sample, which will be discarded after digitalization, the authorities will never have a physical sample again. I'm not arguing FOR the adoption of this scheme, just pointing out that some of you are seeing things that may not be there. |
|
Why would it be costly to store the samples raf? I could store close to a half million quite easily in my garage. Why would they have to be refrigerated? As far as sprinkling the material, first a PCR would have to be run, but what is your point with that? I am seeing things that very much are there, thanks. I can see our government that has abused its power many times in the past abusing it in the future. Giving it another tool that is even more effective is a bad idea. Making people disappear isn't good for the government, because it helps to forment rebellion. Finding a violent criminal isgood for the government because it makes the sheep believe the government is protecting them. If a corrupt government wants to make people disappear the best way to do it is in plain sight. Plant evidence on a "scumbag" like say an effective tax protestor or a true patriot and blame him for serial rapes or a murder, and you discredit the "scumbag's" message and remove him from the public eye and ear at the same times that you make the government look like a good guy for getting a madman off the street. Get it now? Consider this, what if Gary Condit was innocent? What if Gary Condit had pissed off the right people who then proceeded to take his DNA sample, run a PCR, then taint some bloody panties taken from Levy's drawer? An impartial independant verifying lab would then show Levy and Condit's DNA being present on her bloody panties. It would be a bit hard to explain, wouldn't it? Or maybe you simply take an amplified sample and spray it onto his children's underwear, then claim an anonymous tip told you he was abusing his kids sexually. The judge could then rule that the children would not be permitted to testify due to age and/or the trauma of testifying against their Dad when they would actually say they had never been raped. The DNA on the underroos would be enough to nail any man's ass to the wall. Can you see now the potential for abuse? |
|
Quoted: What if Gary Condit had pissed off the right people who then proceeded to take his DNA sample, run a PCR, then taint some bloody panties taken from Levy's drawer? An impartial independant verifying lab would then show Levy and Condit's DNA being present on her bloody panties. It would be a bit hard to explain, wouldn't it? Or maybe you simply take an amplified sample and spray it onto his children's underwear, then claim an anonymous tip told you he was abusing his kids sexually. Can you see now the potential for abuse? Why not get him drunk and take a sample? |
|
Quoted: Why not get him drunk and take a sample? |
|
Quoted: Why would it be costly to store the samples raf? I could store close to a half million quite easily in my garage. Why would they have to be refrigerated? As far as sprinkling the material, first a PCR would have to be run, but what is your point with that? I am seeing things that very much are there, thanks. I can see our government that has abused its power many times in the past abusing it in the future. Giving it another tool that is even more effective is a bad idea. We're talking Gov't here, right? Ever known them to do anything like this on the cheap? Maybe you can store 1/2 mil samples in your garage. What's your security? Got a guaranteed chain-of-custody plan set up and running? How about staffing? Remember, we're talking maybe 300 [b]million[/b] samples here. No, the samples will be reduced to digitized form, and discarded. The whole thing will be in a small building and commensurately small staff, except for the intake processing, which will probably be done on a local or regional basis, as is the case with fingerprints. Your concept of the Gov't storing individual samples just doesn't make financial sense, nor is it even practical. Can you imagine the intake mail room in a facility dealing with that many physical samples? Boggles the mind. Making people disappear isn't good for the government, because it helps to forment rebellion. Finding a violent criminal isgood for the government because it makes the sheep believe the government is protecting them. If a corrupt government wants to make people disappear the best way to do it is in plain sight. Plant evidence on a "scumbag" like say an effective tax protestor or a true patriot and blame him for serial rapes or a murder, and you discredit the "scumbag's" message and remove him from the public eye and ear at the same times that you make the government look like a good guy for getting a madman off the street. Get it now? Consider this, what if Gary Condit was innocent? What if Gary Condit had pissed off the right people who then proceeded to take his DNA sample, run a PCR, then taint some bloody panties taken from Levy's drawer? An impartial independant verifying lab would then show Levy and Condit's DNA being present on her bloody panties. It would be a bit hard to explain, wouldn't it? Or maybe you simply take an amplified sample and spray it onto his children's underwear, then claim an anonymous tip told you he was abusing his kids sexually. The judge could then rule that the children would not be permitted to testify due to age and/or the trauma of testifying against their Dad when they would actually say they had never been raped. The DNA on the underroos would be enough to nail any man's ass to the wall. Can you see now the potential for abuse? I can see your point. Assuming that it is a possibility to abuse physical samples, the whole thing fails when the much more likely and less-costly digitalization process is introduced. In fact, If this thing ever flies, I think the digitalization of the DNA samples will be used as a selling point, as it would tend, greatly, to inhibit abuse. Again, I am not advocating such a system. I just feel that, with the samples safely digitized, the potential for abuse is greatly lessened. Lessened to the point of not being a big deal, in and of itself. |