CSI: Crime Scene Incompetence?
Nicolette Davey


Forensic science seems straight out of George Lucas’s sci-fi imagination. There are “floors full of robotic gene sequencers” and “super computers the size of one bedroom apartments,” says Simon Walsh, at the University of Technology, Sydney.

But despite today’s sleek television productions like CSI, who’d have you believe DNA holds the answer to all criminal mysteries, the application of forensic techniques is not infallible. Cracks are beginning to emerge because technology is progressing at such an “unparalleled rate” says Walsh.
Walsh, a doctoral student and lecturer at UTS, presented his paper, Is the double helix a double-edge sword? Finding DNA's fit in the criminal justice system, to members of the law enforcement, legal and scientific communities in Sydney in May 2005.

Walsh explained how DNA is changing criminal investigations. From identifying victims of the Bali bombing; to the collapse of the World Trade Centre; freeing innocent people from jail; and solving decade older murders, DNA is an integral part of criminal and scientific investigation.

But, scientists who mislabel, fail to wear gloves, or even sneeze on physical evidence can cross-contaminate samples. Forensic science in the wrong hands can lead to errors in the lab, resulting in innocent people going to jail, or perpetrators of serious crimes left unpunished.

Forensic science has come a long way since German chemist, Meischer, found an acid-based substance in cells during the 1860s. The substance later became known as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). In the 1950s, it was found to look like a ladder twisted into a corkscrew – the double-helix. DNA carries all of our genetic information, determining everything from the colour of our eyes to the length of our big toe.

But DNA still holds many mysteries. Walsh believes that it “contains more information about us than we will ever know ourselves or even begin to imagine.” Our fascination with the science of DNA is seen every week, as Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) remains in the list of Top-10 most watched television shows. However, unlike CSI, Walsh’s world of forensic science is real and full of dilemmas.

Walsh has worked on more than 1000 criminal cases and provided expert testimony in New Zealand and Australia. While he admits that DNA technology has the “potential to increase our ability to solve crimes,” he also believes it should remain an “objective science”. Pressures placed on scientists by police investigators can compromise results with devastating effects.

In 2001, for example, Frank Button, 32, was wrongly convicted of rape and spent ten months of a seven-year sentence in prison. During Button’s appeal, the lab scientist responsible explained to the defence lawyer why tests that might have proven Button’s innocence had not been done. “The tests [that were completed] were directed to try and implicate your client”, was the response.

According to Walsh, the DNA evidence that later exonerated Button “had not been available initially to demonstrate his innocence as workload pressures had led to questionable decisions.” A key scientist in the forensic laboratory was too busy and too stressed. His in-tray so overloaded that an innocent man was sent to prison. When the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal released Button, Justice Williams called it a “black day in the history of the administration of criminal justice”.

“Laboratories have been simply unable to cope with the rising volume of casework,” says Walsh. This pressured operating environment means that scientists are increasingly prone to error.

Nicholas Cowdery, NSW Director of Public Prosecutions and member of the advisory panel for the National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS), says DNA is “really just a tool. It is only as effective as its handler makes it.”

The responsibility of the handler is great considering that a single bloodstain can mean the difference between a verdict of guilty and innocent.

Walsh explains that in the US “159 men have been released from prison following DNA testing of exhibits related to their convictions. Collectively, they have served over 2,000 years behind bars.”
The situation in Australia is somewhat less clear. “It is impossible to gauge whether or not there are innocent people in prison in Australia,” says Cowdery, “but if there is one; there is one too many”.
The John Tonge Centre in Queensland, the state’s only forensic testing lab, has recently been under scrutiny. The Brisbane Courier Mail obtained a confidential report showing that it failed Australian standards for forensic testing in at least five areas. It was the JTC who were responsible for conducting tests in Button’s case.

Laboratory results were also questioned in the Jaidyn Leskie case. Leskie, a Victorian toddler, went missing in 1997, and his body was found six months later in a dam. When DNA was extracted from Leskie’s pants, there was a match found in the Victorian DNA database. The DNA matched that of a female rape victim. The woman had no link to Leskie.

The Coroner was told that Leskie’s DNA was being tested at the same time as the condom from the rape case. The possible explanation given was that a lab scientist had unwittingly cross-contaminated the evidence – different gloves but the same hands.

Australian laboratories conducting DNA testing are supervised by the National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS), who provide a national system of accreditation. However, meeting the NIFS standards is not compulsory, and they do not publish error rates of the laboratories that they oversee.

Cowdery believes, “laboratories should take that [accreditation] seriously. If they do not, they run the risk of their work and their findings being taken on the basis that they do not meet best practice”.

DNA evidence is now a “routine feature” of criminal trials, concludes Walsh. He believes it is the responsibility of the scientist to ensure that the forensic sciences are not compromised. If care is not taken, and “such a powerful tool is misapplied,” Walsh fears that the result can leave deep scars that are felt throughout the community.

CRICOS Provider Code: 00098G