The Chronicle has the latest report from Houston’s overzealous and not-too-bright crime lab, and once again, it’s not pretty.
The special investigator trying to get to the bottom of the Houston Police Department crime laboratory debacle reports today that 43 DNA cases and 50 serology cases dating back to 1980 have now been identified as having “major issues.”
Previously, he had identified a total of 27 cases.
Writing like that gives me headaches. I have to be precise and clear in what I write for a living (what I write here is for fun, and does not go through a lengthy edit procedure.) Does the above mean that there are a total of 43 and 50 cases with major problems, or are there 43 and 50 new cases? Furthermore, how does the above fit with the following, from January:
Over 1,000 cases reviewed.
20% of serology tests had problems. Serology is an older technology that was replaced by DNA testing.
40% of DNA tests had problems. Three are death penalty cases.
There was some mention of the Ballistics lab but I didn’t catch if it was positive or negative.
It could be that the January report (which was on TV) included all problems; not just “major problems.” Considering that we’re talking about death row crimes in some cases, I’d like some clarification of what “major” is considered to be. Oh, what do you know… for once, the reporters come through:
According to investigator Michael Bromwich’s latest report on the crime lab, released online at 11 p.m. Wednesday, major issues are defined as “problems that raise significant doubt as to the reliability of the work performed, the validity of the analytical results, or the correctness of the analysts’ conclusions.”
However, the only example given isn’t “major” in my opinion, it’s crippling and deeply suspicious. In the death row case of Derrick Lee Jackson:
The report states that initial DNA testing was by former DNA lab chief James Bolding, who found the evidence was “inconclusive.” However, when Jackson became a suspect, Bolding’s interpretation of the evidence changed, said the report.
“Without performing any additional testing, Mr. Bolding altered his worksheets … and issued a new report stating that (blood evidence) consistent with Mr. Jackson’s (blood) type was found in two blood stain samples recovered from the crime scene.”
When you consider that our previous mayor was formerly the chief of police, this is nothing less than an indictment of his leadership ability:
The DNA division of the crime lab was shuttered in December 2002 after an independent audit exposed widespread problems with protocols and personnel in that division. In the years since then, errors have been exposed in the work of four other lab divisions that test firearms, body fluids and controlled substances such as drugs.
Two men have been released from prison, with one receiving a pardon on the basis of innocence.
The problems with the crime lab were brought to Lee Brown himself, and he buried them, as chief. But here’s what I find the most interesting:
Police Chief Harold Hurtt suspended three crime lab analysts after Bromwich’s January report . . . . They remain suspended with pay while HPD’s internal affairs division investigates allegations against them.
Guess it’s a good thing for them that they were only sending people to death row with bogus evidence. If they’d embarassed any politicians, the book might have been thrown at them, instead of a paid vacation.
Update: How serious is this? From the conclusions, on page 106 of the report:
The case reviews we have completed…continue to reveal widespread problems with the Crime Lab’s analysis of biological evidence…during the entire peroid of our review from 1980 through 2002. In the cases we have reviewed…we have found additional examples of serologists and DNA analysts failint to report … results that might have helped identify and convict the guilty as well as results that might have exonerated the innocent. We have found a clear and troubling pattern of reluctance in the Serology and DNA sections to report typing results that were not consistant with the blood types or DNA profiles of either the victim or a known suspect; in many such cases, the serology or DNA results were reported as inconclusive.
(emphasis added)
I’ll state it more bluntly. If the test results indicated that someone else other than the “chosen suspect” might have done it, they lied and said the test results were inconclusive. What’s more, the section never did any kind of analysis that might have revealed that monkey business was going on. (What a surprise–not.)
The Crime Lab never issued written reports containing the statistical significance of its serology typing results, and the frequency estimates presenty by DNA analysts in cases involving mixtures of body fluids were often overstated by orders of magnitude. We have found no semblance of an effective technical review program or quality assurance regime to detect and correct these problems.
(Emphasis here is in the original.)