Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: gofaster on May 19, 2004, 02:50:43 PM
-
She lied about DNA evidence in 100's of cases. How many innocent people went up the river because of her? Nobody really knows, but I would suspect that the inmates will be filing appeals left and right now; at least those that haven't been whacked on Death Row.
I wonder how she was caught...
====AP News======
Ex-FBI Lab Worker Guilty, Falsified DNA
Tue May 18, 7:46 PM ET Add White House - AP Cabinet & State to My Yahoo!
By CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A former biologist in the FBI (news - web sites) laboratory pleaded guilty Tuesday to submitting falsified DNA analysis reports in over 100 cases.
Jacqueline A. Blake, 40, of Upper Marlboro, Md., pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Washington to a single count of making false statements on official government reports she prepared. Blake faces a maximum penalty of a year in prison and a $100,000 fine at sentencing scheduled for Sept. 20.
Blake admitted that from August 1999 to June 2002 she wrote and submitted more than 100 reports containing false statements about her DNA analysis work. In particular, she falsely certified that she had performed certain control tests designed to ensure the reliability of the DNA analysis.
DNA evidence has increasingly become crucial in prosecuting criminal cases and in appeals of old criminal convictions that occurred before the sophisticated analysis techniques were used. Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) has launched a project to create a national DNA database for law enforcement to use.
The Associated Press reported in April 2003 that Blake had resigned from the FBI amid a probe questioning her work on 103 cases. Blake worked for the FBI as a DNA biologist from 1988 until she quit in June 2002, according to court documents.
According to her plea agreement, Blake knew her certifications were false and submitted them even though she knew her work might be used in criminal investigations and in trial testimony. It was unclear Tuesday, based on the court documents, whether any of those cases were compromised.
The case is part of a broader investigation by Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Department (news - web sites) inspector general, into the FBI lab unit in which Blake worked. A Justice Department statement said Fine's findings and conclusions will be issued "in the near future."
The current FBI lab director, Dwight Adams, has said changes have been put in place in the DNA section to address past problems and ensure that quality analysis is done. The FBI's DNA database has helped law enforcement officials solve more than 11,000 cases in the past few years, officials say.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
She lied about DNA evidence in 100's of cases. How many innocent people went up the river because of her? Nobody really knows, but I would suspect that the inmates will be filing appeals left and right now; at least those that haven't been whacked on Death Row.
I wonder how she was caught...
====AP News======
Sad. Maybe oj wasn't guilty :rolleyes:
-
Blake faces a maximum penalty of a year in prison and a $100,000 fine at sentencing scheduled for Sept. 20.
That's all???? She screwed up DNA tests and innocent men may be locked up. They should make her serve the remainder of the sentences that will be overturned. I hope Big Rhonda is her cellmate. :mad:
-
I was having a discussion about capital punishment with someone once. I was arguing that capital punishment is not a good idea because occasionally, innocent people died.
Her response, which boggles my mind to this day, was that "well, if they end up in prison, they probably did SOMETHING to deserve the death penalty somewhere. You don't just show up in prison, that's what evidence is for."
I still don't know for sure what my stance on capital punishment is, it's just too complex of an issue to bless with a pronouncement of 'fry 'em!' or 'save 'em!', but stories like this makes me a little queasy.
-
Now if people were executed based on her false reports shouldnt she be put on trial for manslaughter or something?
-
and none of her results were ever 2nd guessed or verified by someone else? seems a bit odd ...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
and none of her results were ever 2nd guessed or verified by someone else? seems a bit odd ...
Why? It's the FBfreakinI crime lab. They WERE above reproach until this scandal. Now every defense lawyer in America will have a "reasonable doubt" about their work.
-
The chances of someone guilty getting off because of this is infinitely greater than the chance of someone getting falsely imprisoned because of it. Mistrials open up a pandora's box.
That said, just introducing the shadow of doubt to the case by outright lieing on the reports is completely reprehensible. I'd be curious to see what types of trials she usually lied on (did she pick and choose or was it random/consistant laziness). She deserved more jail time. Now, she's going to do a year and then go on Oprah.
MiniD
-
In particular, she falsely certified that she had performed certain control tests designed to ensure the reliability of the DNA analysis.
Blown way out of proportion this is.
It is not the DNA analysis or the DNA evidence that was falsified. She just didnt do one or more of the control tests to ensure the results were correct. For example, she might have only run the sample through the DNA screener (dunno right word in english)
once instead of twice. Or she did not do a by-the-book-45-step-calibration of the screener before each test. That does not mean the DNA evidence is false or flawed. It just means that she checked the box "calibrated equipent before sample" even though she didnt.
-
Sounds like Affirmative Action f---ed up again, hiring ill-equipped workers.
Free James Brown (again...and again...and again....)
-
I agreee with Hortlund. She was more lazy than dishonest.
-
She was both MT. I think laziness may have drove the lack of data, but dishonesty caused her to say she did it. The dishonesty is a given, the ammount of laziness can only be assumed.
MiniD
-
the sentence is outrageous. I'd like to see her get all of the time that was sentenced to people in cases where she pulled her 'evidence-fraud' (is that even a word).
stories like this are one of the main reasons I'm against the death penalty (though some cases do make me waver on that position a bit)
there was another story in OK city, a few months back, that was very similar. in that case she was even found to have gone back and altered her original findings and disposed of remaining evidence, in an effort to help get convictions.
the weird thing is that when the OKC story was on our local news sites here, my wife got curious and checkd some OKC news sites to see if she could get more info, and found no mention of the story in their local news.
-
Is the Ben Affleck/Renee Zellwigger film based on this scandal out yet?
-
Sentence her boss that forced a doubleing of her case load on her without hiring any extra help.
-
I wonder if it's possible to go back and re-test the DNA evidence in those 100 cases properly. It could turn out that the results are the same.
But does it matter? Or does the fact that she fubbard the test in the first place weigh more on appeal?
-
I hate to tell you, but EVERY person in prison is innocent~just ask them!
-
put her back in the kitchen where THEY belong :)
-
Originally posted by Mini D
She was both MT. I think laziness may have drove the lack of data, but dishonesty caused her to say she did it. The dishonesty is a given, the ammount of laziness can only be assumed.
MiniD
Picking fly poop outa pepper again?
OK. She was dishonest about her laziness.
-
A similar thing happened in San Antonio last year; it was a mess. Don't these people have to be certified?
-
Originally posted by Nash
I wonder if it's possible to go back and re-test the DNA evidence in those 100 cases properly. It could turn out that the results are the same.
But does it matter? Or does the fact that she fubbard the test in the first place weigh more on appeal?
Mistrials always give a slight upperhand to the defendant. There's a chance that without cooberating DNA evidence, the prosecuter may not even chose to re-try the case.
There are a couple of layers in place to determine if there was actually a mistrial, so it is a bit difficult to get there. But I'm pretty sure that any case where the DNA testing was actually presented as evidence or where the DNA testing was used to obtain a confession, there's a strong chance of a mistrial.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Picking fly poop outa pepper again?
OK. She was dishonest about her laziness.
Actually, I'm not.
Did you read another article to come up with the whole laziness aproach? I can see there being a question about it, but not anything that indicates one way or the other.
The only real thing that is obvious is that she confessed to lieing about it. Some would call that dishonesty... well... most would.
The lady was dishonest on every single one of those test reports. It's quite simply a given. I'm curious as to what the motivation was... overworked, lazy or what? It's not apparent to most from the article... only assumed.
MiniD
-
Rgr MiniD, makes sense.
What I'm also curious about is if these cases will automatically go up for re-trial, or if it's somehow possible to re-test the DNA and use the results to determine whether or not to even go there.
I mean, if the new tests end up showing what the prosecution and FBI said in the first place, the trial would look exactly the same as it would if the tests were done correctly.
Though, just on the basis of the lying alone, it may be a defendant's automatic right to have a mistrial. It probably is...
Man what a tool she is...
I understand laziness full and good... But there are some occupations where it's inexusable. Pilots would be one example. People who have the freedom of another person resting in their hands are another.
-
She definitely deserves to do hard time. Falsifying evidence when peoples freedom and/or lives were at stake is unforgiveable.
-
I got a wicked idea.
Fahget about the expense of 100 new trials. Just pull an Abu Ghraib and bus the dudes out of jail and dump 'em all in her neighbourhood. Thars bound to be one or two of them that aint exactly thrilled with all the "expertise" in their trial.
:D
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Blown way out of proportion this is.
Yoda? Is that you?
-
I thought it was good holden
-
Originally posted by AKIron
She definitely deserves to do hard time. Falsifying evidence when peoples freedom and/or lives were at stake is unforgiveable.
Got that right man:mad:
-
Originally posted by jamusta
Now if people were executed based on her false reports shouldnt she be put on trial for manslaughter or something?
2nd degree murder.
And she should serve one day for each day she caused an innocent man to serve
1 year max penalth is BS - this is the justice department taking care of its own. Equal justice under the law indeed.
-
According to an interview I saw with Vincent Bugliosi, at least in California, if you plant evidence (frame somebody) and that leads to an incorrect execution the penalty is death.
I wonder if that would apply in negligent lab work and testimony about same.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Blown way out of proportion this is.
It is not the DNA analysis or the DNA evidence that was falsified. She just didnt do one or more of the control tests to ensure the results were correct. For example, she might have only run the sample through the DNA screener (dunno right word in english)
once instead of twice. Or she did not do a by-the-book-45-step-calibration of the screener before each test. That does not mean the DNA evidence is false or flawed. It just means that she checked the box "calibrated equipent before sample" even though she didnt.
DNA evidence requires those safeguards, among other things, as foundation before it can be admitted.
not calibrating the equipment or running controls means that the results were not reliable. Daubert et al would have kept them out because they could not aid the factfinder in deciding guilt or innocence.
their inclusion is now the basis for hundreds of writs of habeas corpus for new trials, which due process and 6th amendment right to a fair trial will require. We shall see how many get re-convicted over the next few years.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Mistrials always give a slight upperhand to the defendant. There's a chance that without cooberating DNA evidence, the prosecuter may not even chose to re-try the case.
There are a couple of layers in place to determine if there was actually a mistrial, so it is a bit difficult to get there. But I'm pretty sure that any case where the DNA testing was actually presented as evidence or where the DNA testing was used to obtain a confession, there's a strong chance of a mistrial.
MiniD
the mere passage of time aids the defendant because witnesses disappear, etc and the prosecutor has the burden of proof.
I dont think that use of the DNA to get a confession will be enough for new trial, as the confession can be obtained by trickery and subterfuge, and actually that happens all the time (ok fess up, your co-defendant just spilled his guts and said you did it all, and I am wondering which one of you Im going to charge so tell me what happenned and I will go easy on you - or some similar scenario)
as long as there is some corroboration, the confession will probably stand. However, the appeals courts are going to have to say that the defendant was not prejudiced by admission of DNA if they are going to deny a new trial, and given the absolute certianty that DNA evidence is supposed to impart, that would be almost impossible imo. Not to say that it wont happen, especialy in the 4th circuit.
-
seems she did everything right except one step that she though she could get away without doing and still have an accurate test...
She should be charged with falsifying records.
The tests should and probly will, be run again... I betcha the results will come out the same.
Still.... affirmative action is a terrible thing.
lazs
-
What has affirmative action got to do with this?