Isn't the real problem here an overly aggressive culture within some sections of law enforcement which puts undue pressure on forensic scientists? Surely separation of labs from the police is treating the symptom rather than the cause?
Jamie
I couldn't agree more. I have been the brunt of pressure from a lead investigator and his manager a couple of times about 'it has to be there' when clearly it isn't. When you have a lot of years of service you can tell them that you don't care what they think but in some circumstances where a guy is new and doesn't have his 'hooks' he can be subtly pressured into unknowingly skewing his perceptions. I think it is clearly a matter of deliniating who is responsible for what in the service and how the results are going to be bias-neutral and everyone buying in and understanding that.
It is funny this has come up here as one of our scientists from the document examination section is in town and we were discussing these issues of perceived and factual neutrality over lunch.
Something that is off topic a bit that came up over lunch as well, to those interested, is the Goudge inquiry report found at goudgeinquiry.ca especially chapters 16 17 and 18 about expert witness testimony and the roles of the parties. Although involving pathologists it is a pretty informative read on these relationships.
Surely separation of labs from the police is treating the symptom rather than the cause?
From what I have read over time I suspect that is because there is no one cause to solve the dilemma that has been unfolding for quite sometime.
It isn't just simply about bias opinions, although that is one explicit matter, but causes behind bias such as money (too much money going to too few independents, which has been one problem in the UK also). Equally, poorly experienced individuals handling the science evidence; the latter is another particularly bad problem in the UK and everyone speaks of it, such as, how did that group get the contract when they are relatively inexperienced in the area (where was the parliamentary/government monitoring?) and the experienced ones are kept on the outside? How on earth did that one write the guidelines, etc? How did that group get to dictate what standards are when we know they are inexperienced to deal with the subject matter?
Another cause with a symptom needing treatment, that being those who pick the ones for the contract perhaps because they can be manipulated to say what the allegation says or their relative or ex-public service buddy works for the group.
Therefore treating the symptoms, on a symptom by symptom basis, maybe the only way to solve the problems.
Maybe things are different in the rest of the world, but after 33 years in law enforcement (Southern California) and 3 years in computer forensics, I don't see an issue here.
A CFE can't go into court and testify that there's evidence on the image of a hard drive if there isn't any. A CFE has to be able to point to a file location or a sector offset in unallocated space and say, "There it is."
The issue as to whether or not the suspect hard drive was properly handled or not, or whether what the examiner is pointing at isn't what he purports it to be isn't a law enforcement issue. It's a defense issue. (OK…it's also about peer review, supervisory oversight or review by the prosecutor's office before charges are filed, but that's not the issue here.)
No competent examiner is going to face a defense attorney in open court if he can't point to a local on the hard drive and be able to competently answer questions from the defense. If he does, he (or she) is not really competent and probably won't be working in the field for very much longer.
If there is an issue beyond this, then it's not an issue of "bias", it's a question of either corruption or incompetence. And the solution to those problems is the same as it would be for any other kind of forensic examination, such as fingerprint examination, questioned document, DNA, arson investigation, etc. There are already processes in place to deal with corruption or incompetence in those contexts.
Separating the lab from the investigator is not the answer, I don't think. (I realize that my example (HD examination) is somewhat limited, but I think my point applies broadly across the topic of computer forensics.
Another cause with a symptom needing treatment, that being those who pick the ones for the contract perhaps because they can be manipulated to say what the allegation says or their relative or ex-public service buddy works for the group.
Let me get this straight. are you saying that Constabularies in the UK engage in major outsourcing contracts based on wether or not the contractor can be persuaded to see things their way?
I'm not sure you understand the procurement system!
Another cause with a symptom needing treatment, that being those who pick the ones for the contract perhaps because they can be manipulated to say what the allegation says or their relative or ex-public service buddy works for the group.
Let me get this straight. are you saying that Constabularies in the UK engage in major outsourcing contracts based on wether or not the contractor can be persuaded to see things their way?
I'm not sure you understand the procurement system!
Generally, I was referring to what I had read from complaints, investigation reports and cases in the US. Wholesale reforms are needed. I also highlighted some similar problems we have here in the UK.
I understand the system of procurement. I am not sure you are fully au fait with what is and has been happening with evidence.
Technically speaking, yes there is that factor involved. Why do you think there are so many requests for evidence being made directly to the courts because of procedures adopted and followed by some police outsources. When asked why they did not clarify certain issues before testing, for example, the reply given is that is because the police wanted it that way. When the police were asked why did they not clarify the accuracy of the technical case, the reply is their expert didn't ask for technical information. So both parties were playing a ping-pong blame game. The key here is why wasn't the procurement contract with the contractor terminated straightaway knowing these problems existed and was being perpetuated in numerous cases, when the lawful requirement was to nip it in the bud at the outset?
I am not sure you are fully au fait with what is and has been happening with evidence.
Fair enough, from the sounds of it you may be right!
I can only speak from my own experience. I think one of the biggest problems with outsourcing is ensuring continuity of business process. Having said that, if you take LE out of the picture, that's one problem solved!
Something that is off topic a bit that came up over lunch as well, to those interested, is the Goudge inquiry report found at goudgeinquiry.ca especially chapters 16 17 and 18 about expert witness testimony and the roles of the parties. Although involving pathologists it is a pretty informative read on these relationships.
Thanks for the link.
Very, very interesting. )
But as I see it, it revolves around the issues that mwp2008 brought forward
If there is an issue beyond this, then it's not an issue of "bias", it's a question of either corruption or incompetence.
Unfortunately it is more common than it should be that even in good faith, an "expert witness" "drops by" during testimony "pearls of wisdom" that are not directly connected to the issue at hand or are outside the scope or specific field of the testimony or of his own direct experience and knowledge, and this can influence a jury (though rarely a Judge) in one or the other direction.
I have no experience with Criminal cases, but in Civil Lawsuits here in Italy where usually three "Technical Consultants" are called, one for the plaintiff, one for the defendant and one "super partes" appointed by the Judge, and there is rarely a testimony in Court (everything is done in written memories) the way the arguments are carried on and the facts are explained (or failed to) can make a difference. (and none of the consultant is part or connected to Police or Law Enforcement Agencies)
I would say that good scientists are good scientists, no matter whether they are part of the Law or independent, and as well, bad scientist are bad scientists.
jaclaz
It would be nice to have a poll on the issue to get people’s opinion with questions similar to
Are you Private Sector Examiner Yes/No
Do you support the separation of … Yes/No
I am not sure you are fully au fait with what is and has been happening with evidence.
Fair enough, from the sounds of it you may be right!
I can only speak from my own experience. I think one of the biggest problems with outsourcing is ensuring continuity of business process. Having said that, if you take LE out of the picture, that's one problem solved!
The issue that none of us have addressed here is that almost all rank and file LE do not have a high level of trust in people that are not "one of them". There may be cases where pertinent information is not passed on to a non-LE party that could effect the analysis. I can only speak from my own experieince with working on JFOs but I can tell you that other LE are more comfortable with you and your results if you are a member of the community. There is also the issue of statutory restrictions on passing information to non-authorized parties for some agencies. Although this can be built into a contract it is very hard to police such restrictions when they aren't your staff and you can't effectively control the work. We almost never out-source because of this.
It would be nice to have a poll on the issue to get people’s opinion with questions similar to
Are you Private Sector Examiner Yes/No
Do you support the separation of … Yes/No
No and
No