Forensic scientists are improperly’ swaying juries warns senior judge

By Steve Doughty
Last updated at 12:58 AM on 19th November 2010

• Comments (18)
• Add to My Stories

One of the country’s most senior judges yesterday launched a scathing attack on forensic scientists and their methods.

Trial juries can be ‘improperly influenced’ when confident and convincing experts give evidence that damns a suspect, Lord Justice Leveson said.

He cast doubt on the reliability of DNA evidence and even the use by the courts of fingerprints – a method of identifying criminals that has been relied on by detectives and lawyers for a century.

Popular: The TV series CSI: Crime Scene Investigation has been attributed to a drop in the number of convictions by juries

The judge called for a system of accreditation to make sure that forensic experts are properly qualified, warning that at present ‘anyone could set themselves up as a forensic science expert and produce evidence that, at best, is unhelpful and, at worst, positively misleading’.

Lord Justice Leveson delivered his criticisms to a gathering of forensic experts at a time of growing controversy over the way science is used in court to sway juries.
The popularity of the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation TV show has been linked to a drop in the number of guilty verdicts delivered by juries.

Tragic: Sally Clark was wrongly jailed for killing her child on the strength of forensic evidence

Showbiz glamour is also said to be a reason why last year 285 forensic science courses were on offer to students in British universities. Some of these, critics say, fail to teach ‘the most rudimentary science skills’.

Lord Justice Leveson also spoke at length of the notorious cases of Angela Cannings and Sally Clark, both of whom were wrongly jailed for murdering their children.

In both cases, the mothers were convicted on the evidence of paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow.

The judge said that in the Cannings case the expert evidence should not have been relied on.

And in the case of Sally Clark, he said ‘the statistical evidence given by Professor Meadow was plainly not within the area of his expertise’ and should have been challenged.

Solicitor Mrs Clark died in 2007 of acute alcohol poisoning, four years after she had been released from jail.

Lord Justice Leveson added: ‘There exists a real difficulty that just because an expert’s evidence is presented as scientific it may be taken to be reliable.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331038/Forensic-scientists-improperly-swaying-juries-warns-senior-judge.html#ixzz15jisNj9x

Hi,

Its amazing what you can pick up on by chance. Whilst driving back from a job yesterday I caught the Radio 4 show ‘All in the mind’ which was very enlightening.

It was all about how Forensic Experts can get things wrong through bias, not saying that they are corrupt, but without realising it they go into a biased state. It was all to do with fingerprints a science that has been well researched over the years.

Which made me think, something that is unproven like the SBS triad, and obviously very emotive (we are talking about the death of a child or the serious injury towards one). Well surely then there will be a chance of bias if not noble cause corruption? 

But then what do I know.

It could be said I am biaised. Mind you I am more concerned with a just system…

If someone is guilty they do the time…but you have to have EVIDENCE…..

I know, I am picky, picky, picky….

Lets see if anyone else is.

Evening all.

Evening all.

How sad it was to see the Judges only quash the Murder conviction and not go much further.

I can’t believe how little time they gave Mike to make a decision, they give the CPS and Prsoecution weeks, months to sort things out and then just turn to Mike and say we want an answer now…right now!

Wonder how they would feel in the same position? Mmmm.

The think is that the Judge in our appeal slated Stoodley for all to hear, then when it came to summing up after praising our expert, they then slate him.

The more I see, the more I think something stinks! These cases miss the point, there seems to be  in most of these…there is NO evidence, so there should be NO case!

On the way to the court I saw our first QC on his way to chambers…small world.

Funny old ’small’ world (hypocritical court decisions as well of course).

Shame the Judges didn’t see fit to release Mike today but hoping it won’t be much longer…

Devon man’s baby murder conviction overturned

Michael Burridge has had a manslaughter verdict substituted for his offence

Continue reading the main story

Related stories

• Man jailed for murdering baby son
• Baby ‘thrown violently by father’

A former soldier from Devon jailed for life for murdering his eight-week-old son has had conviction overturned by the Court of Appeal.

Michael Burridge, 30, from Tavistock, was jailed in March 2008.

Baby Rees died in 2006 after suffering injuries prosecutors said occurred when Burridge shook him.

The three senior judges in London substituted a manslaughter verdict. Burridge will be sentenced for that offence at a later date.

‘Blue and lifeless’ At his original trial, Plymouth Crown Court heard that Burridge, then a milkman, was looking after his son when his wife, Donna, went out shopping on 30 September 2006.

He took Rees to hospital where medics said the baby was “blue and lifeless”. He died two days later.

Medical experts said they had found both new and old rib fractures, but doctors believed the fatal injuries were inflicted shortly before Rees was admitted to hospital.

Burridge, who had denied murder, was told he must serve at least 13 years.

He took the case to the Court of Appeal last month.

In the appeal hearing, Lord Justice Leveson, Mr Justice Irwin and Mr Justice Holroyde said the conviction would “not be sustained”, substituting a manslaughter verdict.

The judges reserved their reasons for overturning the conviction and did not set a date for Burridge’s re-sentencing.

Burridge will remain in custody until re-sentencing.