LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  December 2011

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE December 2011

Subject:

Re: Murder Cases Put Questionable Evidence to Test

From:

Jim West <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 25 Dec 2011 10:08:00 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (121 lines)

How can we trust this article which tells us nothing about the "junk science" it 
mentions?  We are expected to accept this journalist's prima facie claims.  What hypocrisy.  Apparently the point of this article is to hype new technology 
("DNA") and promote the role of judge as "gatekeeper". 

Yet DNA studies are easily corrupted.  So we are back to square one, the 
dilemma of all judge-sessions going back thousands of years -- the honesty 
and competence of the judge, jury and defense, who in this case are all 
lacking.

Oh, I get it.  This is The NY Times!  The tech sales tabloid, also lacking.  
Generally, its board members share representation with chemical, pharma and 
other high tech firms who profit from churning the public.

Jim West
http://harpub.co.cc

===
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:40:54 -0600, Phil Gasper <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/us/murder-cases-put-questionable-
evidence-to-test.html
>
>December 24, 2011
>Murder Cases Put Questionable Evidence to Test By BRANDI GRISSOM
>
>Undigested bits of mushrooms and tomatoes from Christine Morton�s last 
meal
>� a celebratory birthday dinner she had with her husband � were still in
>her stomach when the medical examiner performed his autopsy in 1986.
>
>Those remnants, the prosecutor told the jury during Michael Morton�s trial,
>�scientifically proved� that Mr. Morton had beaten his wife to death.
>
>Twenty-five years later, DNA science revealed that someone else had
>actually killed Mrs. Morton and that her husband�s murder conviction and
>more than two decades in prison were a tragic mistake. His exoneration
>based on DNA 
evidence<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/d/dna
_evidence/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>is
>the 45th in Texas.
>
>Before he dismissed the wrongful murder charges against Mr. Morton last
>week, Judge Sid Harle recounted the faults the case exposed in the Texas
>justice system. Among them: the use of so-called junk science in the
>courtroom.
>
>�The courts and the sitting judges need to be ever mindful about their role
>as gatekeeper in regard to the admission of science,� Mr. Harle said. �Your
>case illustrates the best and the worst of what can happen.�
>
>Despite scientific advancements like DNA testing, the use of unreliable
>scientific techniques in the criminal justice system persists. While some
>judges say they work to ensure only reliable scientific evidence is
>presented to juries, criminal justice advocates say that more must be done
>to root out an array of pseudoscientific practices that can have
>life-or-death consequences.
>
>�What passes for science in courtrooms is not always, in fact, science,�
>said Kathryn Kase, interim executive director of the Texas Defender
>Service, which represents death row inmates.
>
>In recent weeks, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has agreed to review
>cases that indicate it may also see a need to address the types of evidence
>that meet scientific standards.
>
>In November, the state�s highest criminal court agreed to review the case
>of Megan Winfrey, who is serving a life sentence for murder. She was
>convicted largely on the testimony of a sheriff�s deputy who said his
>bloodhounds �alerted� to her scent on the murder victim�s clothing. The
>court has previously ruled that dog-scent evidence, used to convict Ms.
>Winfrey�s father for the same murder, was insufficient without
>corroborating evidence. The court acquitted her father on appeal.
>
>This month, the court also agreed to review the cases of two men awaiting
>execution. Both men, convicted of murder, were sentenced to death after a
>psychologist who was an expert witness in several death penalty cases told
>jurors that they were mentally competent to face execution.
>
>Lawyers for the men � Steven Butler and John Matamoros � argue they are
>mentally handicapped and therefore ineligible for the death penalty. In
>April, the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists reprimanded the
>psychologist, Dr. George Denkowski, and he agreed to never again conduct
>evaluations in criminal cases.
>
>Though Ms. Kase said the court�s willingness to review the cases is a
>hopeful sign, she and other criminal justice advocates said other
>relatively simple changes could help prevent the use of such evidence.
>
>Judges, who ultimately decide what is allowed in court, should approve
>adequate money for indigent defendants to hire experts to refute scientific
>experts whom prosecutors present at trial, she said. It can cost thousands
>of dollars to hire experts, and Patrick McCann, a Houston defense lawyer,
>said judges worry that voters would not take kindly to such expenses.
>
>�They act as if funding each defendant�s efforts to have a fair trial comes
>out of their own children�s pockets somehow,� Mr. McCann said.
>
>In recent years, Jeff Blackburn, chief counsel at the Innocence Project of
>Texas, has pushed to ban evidence that does not conform to national
>scientific standards. He will try again in 2013 when lawmakers reconvene.
>�These are problems that can be fairly easily solved,� he said.
>
>Senator Rodney Ellis, Democrat of Houston, said another key solution
>already exists: the Texas Forensic Science Commission. For more than two
>years, the commission was bogged down in a national political controversy
>over its investigation of arson science used to convict and execute Cameron
>Todd Willingham for a 1991 fire that killed his three daughters. That issue
>was resolved this year with a plan to review past arson cases to see
>whether similar faulty evidence led to questionable convictions. Now, Mr.
>Ellis said, he hopes the commission will address other questions of
>courtroom science.
>
>�To have a justice system we can have faith convicts the guilty and
>protects the innocent, we need scientific evidence that�s based on real
>science,� Mr. Ellis said, �not some guy saying he has magic dogs that can
>solve crimes.�
>
>[log in to unmask]
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager