www.theguardian.com/uk...utsourcing

"In her annual report, Gillian Tully highlighted her growing concerns about the failure of some forensic firms used by the police to meet basic quality standards. It means innocent people could be wrongly convicted and offenders escaping justice."  

"There is a criminal investigation into claims that data at the Randox laboratory in Manchester may have been manipulated, causing the biggest recall of samples in British criminal justice history."

Fails to mention that this company complied with the FSR codes under 17025 for many years!  

- minime2k9

Fails to mention that this company complied with the FSR codes under 17025 for many years!

The article doesn't but the FSR's Annual Report does;

"Although RTS held accreditation to the appropriate quality standard, the malpractice was not discovered by the usual quality checks".  

True, but the way the article reads it almost sounds like it wouldn't have happened if the FSR has statutory powers and this lab was forced to comply with the regulations  

- minime2k9

True, but the way the article reads it almost sounds like it wouldn't have happened if the FSR has statutory powers and this lab was forced to comply with the regulations

IMHO, yes and no.

ISO 17025 is a (senselessly applied to forensic labs) norm, but the issues lamented should have been found/evidenced/noticed by much less stringent norms not only ISO 9001, but also the un-named, un-explicited and very un-common good ol' ones called "integrity", "knowledge", "professionalism" and "common sense".

The recent rape cases dropped because evidence of them being consensual intercourses came out (while already in the hands of the investigators or however easily obtainable by them) show - IMHO and well before the use of industry norms - a preoccupying lack of competence in the investigations.

jaclaz
_________________
- In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. - 

jaclaz,

I was referring specifically to the Randox situation as opposed to the rape cases.
I'm not sure whether the 'labs' dealing with the mobile devices were under ISO 17025, but I'm sure Randox was.  

"The recent rape cases dropped because evidence of them being consensual intercourses came out (while already in the hands of the investigators or however easily obtainable by them) show - IMHO and well before the use of industry norms - a preoccupying lack of competence in the investigations."!

Do we know exactly what happend with these cases? Were there errors within the forensic process or within the wider investigation? We need to ensure that mistakes made possibly elsewhere do not reflect on the topic of forensics.

The media (wrongly IMHO) seen quite happy to put the whole topic into one melting pot.

"The regulator said she would be examining whether failures to follow correct procedures in digital forensic science could have played a role in a number of high-profile rape cases that collapsed before going to trial. “I have formally requested more information on those recent cases,” she said."

A little spin here perhaps as these cases are being referenced before any evidence at all has been received or reviewed by the regulator. "COULD" being the operative word.

Why rush to judgement and suggest a possible link before any evidence has been reviewed? Could it be because it fits a certain agenda that the media are happy to repeat and, therefore, re-enforce?