Comments on: Former Dallas Crime Lab Worker Campaigns for an Audit http://www.mytexasdefenselawyer.com/2011/09/08/dallas-crime-lab/ Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers help you fight criminal charges in Texas courts. Tue, 08 May 2012 14:00:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: s.m. http://www.mytexasdefenselawyer.com/2011/09/08/dallas-crime-lab/comment-page-1/#comment-2237 s.m. Tue, 27 Mar 2012 04:17:28 +0000 http://www.mytexasdefenselawyer.com/?p=495#comment-2237 If only the anoymous "e.b." knew what he/she were talking about. The following statements come directly from the August 2009 response Report from SWIFS. “…The trainee correctly notes that in the protocol for performing microscopic examination of sexual assault kit smears, the category for estimating the approximate number of spermatozoa on smears does not include the range of 8-14 spermatozoa…In the revised protocol (effective 2/13/209) the category now covers the ranges of 1-10 (Rare) and 11-20 (Occasional)…” “…The Trainee is correct that the practice of the laboratory regarding storage of swabs from autopsy sexual assault kits differs from the guidance given in the manual…The manual was subsequently revised to reflect this practice in February 2009 as part of a broader revision of the manual…” “…The Serology Procedures Manual specifies that condoms should be stored in a freezer until analysis…The Institute is in agreement with the Trainee that the manual requires updating to reflect the practices of the laboratory…” “…The Trainee is of the opinion that a statement in one of the serology protocols that describes the placement of an “Item Stored” label on the packaging of evidence items that have been stored does not reflect current practice…The Committee agreed that the practice of placing an item stored sticker was not current and that the manual needed to be revised to remove this…” “…The Institute agrees with the Trainee that certain retired procedures can be removed from the Serology Procedures Manual…” Why did he accreditation agency ASCLD/LAB NOT discover these violations during their audits? Does the Dallas County DA not care that lab analysts were not following protocols as written? There IS much more information. "e.b." just failed to read or comprehend it. If only the anoymous “e.b.” knew what he/she were talking about. The following statements come directly from the August 2009 response Report from SWIFS.

“…The trainee correctly notes that in the protocol for performing microscopic examination of sexual assault kit smears, the category for estimating the approximate number of spermatozoa on smears does not include the range of 8-14 spermatozoa…In the revised protocol (effective 2/13/209) the category now covers the ranges of 1-10 (Rare) and 11-20 (Occasional)…”

“…The Trainee is correct that the practice of the laboratory regarding storage of swabs from autopsy sexual assault kits differs from the guidance given in the manual…The manual was subsequently revised to reflect this practice in February 2009 as part of a broader revision of the manual…”

“…The Serology Procedures Manual specifies that condoms should be stored in a freezer until analysis…The Institute is in agreement with the Trainee that the manual requires updating to reflect the practices of the laboratory…”

“…The Trainee is of the opinion that a statement in one of the serology protocols that describes the placement of an “Item Stored” label on the packaging of evidence items that have been stored does not reflect current practice…The Committee agreed that the practice of placing an item stored sticker was not current and that the manual needed to be revised to remove this…”

“…The Institute agrees with the Trainee that certain retired procedures can be removed from the Serology Procedures Manual…”

Why did he accreditation agency ASCLD/LAB NOT discover these violations during their audits? Does the Dallas County DA not care that lab analysts were not following protocols as written?

There IS much more information. “e.b.” just failed to read or comprehend it.

]]> By: dmatson http://www.mytexasdefenselawyer.com/2011/09/08/dallas-crime-lab/comment-page-1/#comment-1352 dmatson Fri, 09 Sep 2011 12:39:43 +0000 http://www.mytexasdefenselawyer.com/?p=495#comment-1352 Thanks for that alternative viewpoint. No doubt there is another side to the story, but there still seems to be a disturbing trend about serious questions with crime lab procedures nationwide, including <a href="http://www.myohiodefenselawyer.com/state-crime-lab-review/" rel="nofollow">Ohio</a> and <a href="http://www.myindianadefenselawyer.com/audit-of-state-crime-lab-abruptly-halted/" rel="nofollow">Indiana</a>. The trend is disturbing, and shakes the public confidence in criminal evidence procedures. Thanks for that alternative viewpoint.

No doubt there is another side to the story, but there still seems to be a disturbing trend about serious questions with crime lab procedures nationwide, including Ohio and Indiana.

The trend is disturbing, and shakes the public confidence in criminal evidence procedures.

]]> By: e.b. http://www.mytexasdefenselawyer.com/2011/09/08/dallas-crime-lab/comment-page-1/#comment-1350 e.b. Fri, 09 Sep 2011 04:16:20 +0000 http://www.mytexasdefenselawyer.com/?p=495#comment-1350 There is quite a bit of readily available information that calls into question the conclusions of this article, and the reliability of the individual who is the source of the complaints. First, while the the article paints a poor picture of the laboratory, this is the lab that is responsible for the great success of Dallas County in exonerating unjustly convicted individuals. All of the DNA work that resulted in those exonerations was the result of the evidence handling and storage practices of this lab, and there was a recent article in USA Today that pointed out the the practices of the Dallas lab are better than in practically any other lab. Those results would say that the lab is doing a pretty good job. Also, this year, the Dallas District Attorney's Office campaigned for statewide legislation to bring standards for evidence storage in Texas up to the level practiced in Dallas. They got legislation that improved the situation somewhat - retention of evidence for 40 years - but that is still way less than what is done at this Dallas lab. Second, the article creates the impression that the complaints have not been investigated. However, both a blog written by the author and a blog written by the subject of the article make it clear that the complaints have been extensively investigated by a national accrediting agency that did not agree with the complaints and issued an official report that found in favor of the lab. Nulf's website includes lots of documents, but interestingly it doesn't include this report, and that should be a red flag to anyone that there is something in the report that he wants to hide. Also, it is made clear on his website that the laboratory was extensively audited by the accrediting agency just a month or so before he was hired. Clearly, this external review wouldn't be overlooked/hidden by the article's author and Nulf if it favored Nulf's complaints. Another thing that falls out of a review of the documents on Nulf's website is that he actually testified about his complaints at a criminal appellate hearing, and the court did not find him believable or credible. That isn't hard to believe if you look at his website which is, well, a bit odd, and definitely not what you would expect from a scientific person. Overall, it would seem to be prudent to not put a lot of faith in this particular article. There is quite a bit of readily available information that calls into question the conclusions of this article, and the reliability of the individual who is the source of the complaints. First, while the the article paints a poor picture of the laboratory, this is the lab that is responsible for the great success of Dallas County in exonerating unjustly convicted individuals. All of the DNA work that resulted in those exonerations was the result of the evidence handling and storage practices of this lab, and there was a recent article in USA Today that pointed out the the practices of the Dallas lab are better than in practically any other lab. Those results would say that the lab is doing a pretty good job. Also, this year, the Dallas District Attorney’s Office campaigned for statewide legislation to bring standards for evidence storage in Texas up to the level practiced in Dallas. They got legislation that improved the situation somewhat – retention of evidence for 40 years – but that is still way less than what is done at this Dallas lab. Second, the article creates the impression that the complaints have not been investigated. However, both a blog written by the author and a blog written by the subject of the article make it clear that the complaints have been extensively investigated by a national accrediting agency that did not agree with the complaints and issued an official report that found in favor of the lab. Nulf’s website includes lots of documents, but interestingly it doesn’t include this report, and that should be a red flag to anyone that there is something in the report that he wants to hide. Also, it is made clear on his website that the laboratory was extensively audited by the accrediting agency just a month or so before he was hired. Clearly, this external review wouldn’t be overlooked/hidden by the article’s author and Nulf if it favored Nulf’s complaints. Another thing that falls out of a review of the documents on Nulf’s website is that he actually testified about his complaints at a criminal appellate hearing, and the court did not find him believable or credible. That isn’t hard to believe if you look at his website which is, well, a bit odd, and definitely not what you would expect from a scientific person. Overall, it would seem to be prudent to not put a lot of faith in this particular article.

]]>