Thursday, November 26, 2020

Court to weigh dubious evidence

Must read

Egyptian blue delivers fingerprint boost to modern forensic science

Researchers from Perth's Curtin University and the US brought together art and science to make the discovery. Their work showed Egyptian blue, the earliest known...

New steam technology beats luminol at detecting blood at crime scenes

In films or television police procedurals, the detectives go in, spray up a crime scene with luminol, and sometimes bring over a black light....

DNA matches not possible for remains believed to be missing Mexico students’

Forensic scientists trying to identify remains believed to belong to some of 43 missing students missing in Mexico have failed to find sufficient usable...

FBI notifies crime labs of errors used in DNA match calculations since 1999

The FBI has notified crime labs across the country that it has discovered errors in data used by forensic scientists in thousands of cases...
Michael Whyte
Crime Scene Officer and Fingerprint Expert with over 7 years experience in Crime Scene Investigation and Latent Print Analysis. The opinions or assertions contained on this site are the private views of the author and are not to be construed as those of any professional organisation or policing body.
- Forensic Podcast -

FORENSIC experts hope the High Court will set new limits on the use of questionable scientific evidence in courtrooms in two ­upcoming cases.

In the first, Honeysett v The Queen, the High Court has been asked to consider whether “face mapping” or “body mapping” from CCTV footage constitutes “specialised knowledge” within the meaning of the NSW Evidence Act.

Anthony Charles Honeysett, an Aboriginal man, was accused of being one of three men involved in an armed robbery of a hotel in Sydney’s northern beaches in 2008. At his trial, an anatomy professor testified there were eight common features between Honeysett and the offender in CCTV footage.

The offender wore a pillowcase or T-shirt over his head, a long-sleeved top and long pants. There was also some DNA evidence linking the accused to the crime, but he argued this was circumstantial.

Gary Edmond, a legal professor at the University of NSW, said body mapping was one of many identification techniques — including those used to match bite marks, ballistics, soil, voices and foot, shoe and tyre prints — that had never been validated. He said such techniques were routinely used in courts in ways that no scientific study could support. “The specialised knowledge in this case is the interpretation of images,” he said.

“Yes, he’s a highly qualified professor of anatomy, but the question is, how do you interpret low-quality CCTV images where the person’s wearing a disguise? We don’t know whether he can do it or how well he can do it.” He said such techniques could be evaluated, but that had not happened. “We’ve been allowing these people in and we get the same problem in case after case,” he said.

Professor Edmond said research on unfamiliar face-matching had shown it to be very error-prone, and those with experience, such as anatomists and passport officers, performed no better than ordinary people. He said courts needed to read the need for reliability into specialised knowledge, as they had done in other jurisdictions. “The danger is that the evidence will be misunderstood by the jury and that may lead to wrongful convictions,” he said.

The ABC’s Radio National Program discusses this in the link below. Press play to listen to the Podcast.

In the second case, Fitzgerald v The Queen, the High Court has been asked to decide whether a mixed sample of DNA from two or three people, taken from what appeared to be a blood stain on a didgeridoo, was enough on its own to convict the accused.

Daniel Glenn Fitzgerald was convicted of murder and causing aggravated harm, as one of a ­larger group involved in a family brawl that left one man dead and one with brain injuries. Other than his DNA being found on the didgeridoo in the home, he was not linked to the group, and the prosecution did not proffer a ­motive for him being involved.

Charles Sturt University professor Jane Goodman-Delahunty said the problem was that scientific evidence of a DNA match, even if strong, was not proof an accused was at a crime scene.

She said, in Fitzgerald, the question was whether the mere fact of a DNA match was unduly persuasive to the jury and overwhelmed other considerations about potential innocent explanations for the match.

“Juries are usually cautious about relying on circumstantial evidence, and prefer direct evidence,” she said. “In the case of forensic scientific evidence, and DNA profiles in particular, research has shown that they do not show the same degree of caution and may infer that evidence of a match establishes that the ­accused was at the crime scene and committed the crime.”

She said jury research showed jurors could be “blinded by ­science” — and mere evidence of a DNA match could increase their tendency to convict.

Independent DNA consultant Brian McDonald said he believed courts should not use DNA to convict someone with a total lack of corroborating evidence.

The ABC’s Radio National Program discusses this in the link below. Press play to listen to the Podcast.

Further Information:

Source: Australian Business Review & ABC Radio National

- Advertisement -

More articles

- Advertisement -

Latest article

Trees and shrubs might reveal the location of decomposing bodies

Plants could help investigators find dead bodies. Botanists believe the sudden flush of nutrients into the soil from decomposition may affect nearby foliage. If...

Are Detectives discounting the associative value of fingerprints that fall short of an identification in their investigations?

Every day, Fingerprint Experts in every latent office across the globe examine fingermarks that they determine to fall short of an identification....

Using the NCIC Bayesian Network to improve your AFIS searches

This National Crime Information Centre (NCIC) Bayesian network is based on the statistical data of general patterns of fingerprints on the hands...

DNA decontamination of fingerprint brushes

Using fingerprint brushes across multiple crime scenes yields a high risk of DNA cross-contamination. Thankfully an Australian study has discovered a quick and easy way to safely decontaminate fingerprint brushes to prevent this contamination risk and allows the brushes to be safely reused even after multiple cleaning cycles.

Detection of latent fingerprint hidden beneath adhesive tape by optical coherence tomography

Adhesive tape is a common item which can be encountered in criminal cases involving rape, murder, kidnapping and explosives. It is often the case...