Unintended consequences
Texas lawmakers want tougher criminal penalties for possession of delta-8 and fentanyl. But that would mean much more work for the forensic laboratories handling most of the drug testing for the state’s 254 counties. Of the 50 crime labs in Texas, only 30 — including the Houston Forensic Science Center — are accredited to handle drug evidence in Texas. In recent years, there have been frequent tweaks to state drug laws. With each legislative change, there’s more, or different, testing equipment to buy and more retraining of staff to be done.
Politicians and Control Over Science*
Republicans in the North Carolina House are seeking to reduce the governor’s influence over the State Bureau of Investigation and give legislators more power over the bureau. They also want to move the State forensic laboratory out of the attorney general’s purview to a separate, cabinet-level department. There may be political shenanigans afoot. Watch this space.
Meanwhile, DC’s Mayor has proposed to move the District’s Crime Scene Science Division of the Department of Forensic Sciences (DFS) under the purview of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), moving it from civilian control to police control. That runs counter to the original point of the agency’s creation. The transfer amounts to a more than $10 million reduction in the crime lab’s budget, and moves more than 80 employees from DFS to MPD. The budget also proposes moving the Public Health Laboratory from DFS to the DC Health Department. In a small detail, the budget proposal act also includes a provision to amend the 2011 legislation that established DFS. Under the proposed legislation, the definition of the agency would be changed from an “independent agency within the executive branch,” to “a subordinate agency within the executive branch,” suggesting a narrowing of the laboratories’ independence.
Sadly, I predicted this outcome a long time ago. :-(
A Concerning Profile of A Profiling Fraud
Richard Walter was hailed as a genius criminal profiler. How did he get away with his fraud for so long? Richard Walter is many things and little that he claims. Since at least 1982, he has touted phony credentials and a bogus work history. He claims to have helped solve murder cases that, in reality, he had limited or no involvement with — and even one murder that may not have occurred at all. These lies did not prevent him from serving as an expert witness in trials across the country. His specialty was providing criminal profiles that neatly implicated defendants, imputing motives to them that could support harsher charges and win over juries. Convictions in at least three murder cases in which he testified have since been overturned. In 2003, a federal judge declared him a “charlatan.”
Another tidbit: Walter was brought up on ethics charges as a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in a 13-page report. The Academy’s response? A single paragraph: “Most of the issues do not involve the Academy’s Code of Ethics … The Committee has concluded unanimously that there was no misrepresentation and therefore no Code violation.” Internal memos demonstrate that AAFS acknowledged that Walter had lied in his résumé, but decided to reveal as little as possible about their internal deliberations. “We do have to worry about public appearances,” wrote the then-chairman of the ethics committee.
Ahem.
Admissible: Shreds of Evidence
I am definitely NOT a true crime fan (there are indications that it has done damage socially and legally) but this is an interesting twist on the idea: The discovery of preserved samples hidden away for decades in a Virginia records facility and the forensic scientist responsible for them: Mary Jane Burton. Burton was hailed as a hero for saving the evidence, but the story behind "the Mary Jane files" is far more complicated and darker than it appears. Although there are some misunderstandings (like perhaps the evidence, which Burton squirreled away in case files, violating laboratory procedures and accreditation, could have been found by “the right phone call”), it is an interesting history lesson on forensic science* at the time, possible laboratory fraud, and the exoneration of 13 men.
Listen and learn, please.