Forensics Journal - Stevenson University 2013 | Page 61

STEVENSON UNIVERSITY

and is regarded as a cautionary tale for employing proper techniques
and following procedure when documenting a crime. According to
William C. Thompson, a member of Simpson’s defense team, the
“not guilty” verdict rendered by the jury was reasonable and just based
on the quality of physical evidence presented during the trial. He
cites multiple errors made on multiple dates during the investigation including an LAPD criminalist spilling Simpson’s blood from
a reference vial facilitating cross contamination of Simpson’s blood
with samples from the victims, Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.
Also, criminalists from the LAPD used wet cotton swabs to collect
blood from the crime scene, sealed them in plastic bags, and left the
samples in a hot truck for hours thus degrading the quality of the
DNA. The frequency of collection, handling and storage errors is
largely unknown however high profile cases, such as Simpson’s, have
increased general awareness that these errors can happen anywhere,
even in cases where forensic professionals know the world is watching.

themselves who have been promoted into the crime lab (Koppl, p. 6).
The relationship between law enforcement and the crime lab can be
problematic. Forensic science relies on impartial judgments based on
the rigorous application of experimental controls designed to ensure
precision, accuracy and independence, all of which are subverted by
the power of bias. Although unintentional, the implications of bias
can be far-reaching in the criminal investigation.
Different forms of bias have been identified as contributing to errors
within the forensic workplace. “Observer effects” is a type of bias that
recognizes the human tendency to interpret data in a manner that
supports expectations (Risinger, et al). “Role effects bias” explains
how people’s perceptions of their occupational roles can influence
their decisions, more so in ambiguous situations (Giannelli, 2010).
“Contextual bias or information pollution” occurs when extraneous information regarding a case is inappropriately shared with the
forensic worker (Koppl, p. 4). The power of contextual bias is illustrated by the 1995 bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma. In
this case, ammonium nitrate fuel oil was allegedly purchased by one
of the defendants; this information became the speculative basis for
the F.B.I.’s explosives experts claims regarding the type of explosive
used for the main charge for which there existed no proof at the crime
scene rendering the claims wholly unscientific (Office of Inspector
General, 1997, pt.III sec. F). It is apparent that bias, even in its most
subtle forms, is a threat to the scientific validity of forensic science
and its application to the criminal justice process.

The third type of forensic evidence error deals with sampling mix-ups
and/or mislabeling of evidence. An example of this type of error happened at the Kansas Bureau of Investigation where one suspect’s DNA
was mislabeled as that of another suspect by a lab technician before
it was sent out to the FBI. As a result, no suspect was identified and
charged with the rape. The initial suspect went on to commit firstdegree murder and four additional sexual assaults in the twelve years it
took to discover the error and apprehend him (Richardson).
The fourth type of forensic evidence error is sample contamination.
Contamination is the transfer of DNA after the crime event. DNA
contamination happens through transfer from staff, instruments, or
objects (directly or indirectly) via surfaces and equipment. Regardless
of how it occurs, contamination has the potential to destroy evidence
or confuse and misdirect crime investigations.

FRAUD
Forensic fraud is a complex concept to define as it requires proof
of malicious intent on the part of the forensic professional. Negligence, incompetence, misconduct and outright bias are all points on
the forensic fraud spectrum. More specifically, forensic fraud cases
involve law enforcement and/or forensic science personnel providing
sworn testimony, documents or reports intended for the court that
contain known deceptive or misleading information, findings, opinions or conclusions offered to secure unfair or unlawful advantage
(Turvey, 2004-2008). The four major types of forensic fraud include:
1) evidence tampering; 2) test result fabrication; 3) perjury; and 4)
bias.

It is important to note for both the errors of contamination and
sample mix up/mislabeling a critical finding has been made by William C. Thompson, Ph.D. from the University of California. In his
report, “Tarnish on the Gold Standard: Understanding Recent Problems in Forensic DNA testing” he examines the unexpectedly high
rate of both of these types of errors. Referring to them as, “chronic
and occurring at even the best DNA labs” he posits that in the past,
these errors were easy to conceal by forensic scientists. This changed
with the 1998 directive by the FBI’s DNA Advisory Board which
required documentation of these errors in corrective action case files
or contamination logs. However, not all labs keep these logs, and
errors in these logs represent only the ones the labs caught a