Crime and Punishment: When Science Goes Awry
It's not the science that's bad, but the scientists
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer calls into question the credentials of one Charles Vaughan, currently with the Washington State Patrol crime lab in Tacoma. Vaughan, a veteran of the Oregon State Patrol crime lab, is now under fire for what seems to be incompetence.
Vaughan's participation in the high-profile case was a surprise to Washington officials. Barry Logan, director of the state's crime lab system, said that Vaughan never mentioned the case, and that background checks in the hiring process turned up no mention of the case. Logan did admit, however, that such a case was "not the kind of thing people will volunteer in an interview".
Vaughan disputes that claim by Logan.
The Washington director also noted that he was not aware of any complaints about Vaughan's work in Washington, and said that he stands behind Vaughan's forensic work for the state. Yet the same article notes that in September, 1998, Vaughan failed an annual trace evidence test. It took a year to discover his mistake with a footprint, which came to light during an inspection by a national accreditation team. Additionally in September, 1998, a Thurston County, Washington prosecutor dismissed burglary charges after the defense made a compelling case that Vaughan wrongly linked human hair to the suspect.
The case of Boots and Proctor is complicated. In June, 1983, convenience store clerk Raymond Oliver was executed in a robbery. Boots and Proctor were picked up over two weeks later, but relesed without being charged. Sometime in 1983, Vaughan analyzed blood evidence and a single fleck of what was alleged to be gunpowder:
In January, 1984, Christopher Boots filed a notice of intention to sue Springfield, Oregon, for false arrest. Later that year, Lane County Assistant D.A. Joe Kosygar convened a grand jury that produced no indictments. In 1986, Vaughan discovered a second flake alleged to be gunpowder:
Additionally, it should be noted that the gunpowder was the only physical evidence tying the men to the crime. The rest of the case was circumstantial, and two police informants who testified against Boots and Proctor later recanted their statements.
Vaughan also said that a renowned blood-spatter expert had agreed with his opinion that stains on the defendants' clothes were "high-velocity blood spatters" that could only come from close proximity during the shooting. The expert in question would later deny that assertion in an affidavit.
The case against Boots and Proctor persisted. May, 1986 saw Proctor indicted, and by the end of October he was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to life in prison. Boots was convicted and sentenced in March, 1987.
Coincidentally, in 1993, Vaughan was demoted from director to assistant director of the Eugene, Oregon OSP crime lab after he failed to discipline a lab worker who falsified evidence. Washington officials did not know about this; Vaughan admitted it during a deposition.
DNA testing in 1994 showed that all but one particle (of 10-12 remaining) did not belong to the victim.
Boots and Proctor were released from prison in November, 1994, after the real killer confessed. Vaughan was hired to the Washington State Patrol crime lab in July, 1995.
The controversy surrounding Vaughan did not come to light until July, 2004, when the P-I ran a special report, "Errors in Evidence". According to the newspaper, a forensic expert familiar with the Boots and Proctor case saw Vaughan's name in the P-I report, and that's how we come to the current story.
What is the appropriate sentiment? A July, 2004 article in the P-I recounted a tale of what problems could come from bad lab results:
Typically, we tend to look at the victimhood of defendants tainted by bad lab work, such as the case of Boots and Proctor. But it is because of such problems that a legitimate victim of a crime was screwed over. And just like we ask about death row inmates, we ought to ask on behalf of crime victims and survivors: How often does this happen?
The P-I's July, 2004 series uncovered at least 23 cases involving major crimes over the last three years in which forensic scientists contaminated tests or botched results.
This is really important. The King County (Seattle), Washington Sheriff's Department nabbed Gary Ridgway, the confessed "Green River Killer" after hanging onto an oral swab for years and running it through new technology. Justice should not be denied for lab mistakes. A number of detectives who are finally, after two decades, getting on with their lives, would not be without the DNA testing. They would still be hunting the coldest, darkest shadow my generation knew of in our area. Mere mention of the Green River Killer would still bring fear.
Can you imagine if that test came back false-negative, and Ridgway walked?
Of course, as the Peterson conviction in California shows, DNA evidence isn't nearly as important to convicting a defendant as it is for exonerating one. After all, juries convict and condemn without physical evidence these days, and that seems to be good enough for many.
When there's this much on the line, what margin of error can we afford?
_____________________
Notes:
It's not the science that's bad, but the scientists
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer calls into question the credentials of one Charles Vaughan, currently with the Washington State Patrol crime lab in Tacoma. Vaughan, a veteran of the Oregon State Patrol crime lab, is now under fire for what seems to be incompetence.
Vaughan's participation in the high-profile case was a surprise to Washington officials. Barry Logan, director of the state's crime lab system, said that Vaughan never mentioned the case, and that background checks in the hiring process turned up no mention of the case. Logan did admit, however, that such a case was "not the kind of thing people will volunteer in an interview".
Vaughan disputes that claim by Logan.
The Washington director also noted that he was not aware of any complaints about Vaughan's work in Washington, and said that he stands behind Vaughan's forensic work for the state. Yet the same article notes that in September, 1998, Vaughan failed an annual trace evidence test. It took a year to discover his mistake with a footprint, which came to light during an inspection by a national accreditation team. Additionally in September, 1998, a Thurston County, Washington prosecutor dismissed burglary charges after the defense made a compelling case that Vaughan wrongly linked human hair to the suspect.
The case of Boots and Proctor is complicated. In June, 1983, convenience store clerk Raymond Oliver was executed in a robbery. Boots and Proctor were picked up over two weeks later, but relesed without being charged. Sometime in 1983, Vaughan analyzed blood evidence and a single fleck of what was alleged to be gunpowder:
In January, 1984, Christopher Boots filed a notice of intention to sue Springfield, Oregon, for false arrest. Later that year, Lane County Assistant D.A. Joe Kosygar convened a grand jury that produced no indictments. In 1986, Vaughan discovered a second flake alleged to be gunpowder:
Additionally, it should be noted that the gunpowder was the only physical evidence tying the men to the crime. The rest of the case was circumstantial, and two police informants who testified against Boots and Proctor later recanted their statements.
Vaughan also said that a renowned blood-spatter expert had agreed with his opinion that stains on the defendants' clothes were "high-velocity blood spatters" that could only come from close proximity during the shooting. The expert in question would later deny that assertion in an affidavit.
The case against Boots and Proctor persisted. May, 1986 saw Proctor indicted, and by the end of October he was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to life in prison. Boots was convicted and sentenced in March, 1987.
Coincidentally, in 1993, Vaughan was demoted from director to assistant director of the Eugene, Oregon OSP crime lab after he failed to discipline a lab worker who falsified evidence. Washington officials did not know about this; Vaughan admitted it during a deposition.
DNA testing in 1994 showed that all but one particle (of 10-12 remaining) did not belong to the victim.
Boots and Proctor were released from prison in November, 1994, after the real killer confessed. Vaughan was hired to the Washington State Patrol crime lab in July, 1995.
The controversy surrounding Vaughan did not come to light until July, 2004, when the P-I ran a special report, "Errors in Evidence". According to the newspaper, a forensic expert familiar with the Boots and Proctor case saw Vaughan's name in the P-I report, and that's how we come to the current story.
What is the appropriate sentiment? A July, 2004 article in the P-I recounted a tale of what problems could come from bad lab results:
Typically, we tend to look at the victimhood of defendants tainted by bad lab work, such as the case of Boots and Proctor. But it is because of such problems that a legitimate victim of a crime was screwed over. And just like we ask about death row inmates, we ought to ask on behalf of crime victims and survivors: How often does this happen?
The P-I's July, 2004 series uncovered at least 23 cases involving major crimes over the last three years in which forensic scientists contaminated tests or botched results.
This is really important. The King County (Seattle), Washington Sheriff's Department nabbed Gary Ridgway, the confessed "Green River Killer" after hanging onto an oral swab for years and running it through new technology. Justice should not be denied for lab mistakes. A number of detectives who are finally, after two decades, getting on with their lives, would not be without the DNA testing. They would still be hunting the coldest, darkest shadow my generation knew of in our area. Mere mention of the Green River Killer would still bring fear.
Can you imagine if that test came back false-negative, and Ridgway walked?
Of course, as the Peterson conviction in California shows, DNA evidence isn't nearly as important to convicting a defendant as it is for exonerating one. After all, juries convict and condemn without physical evidence these days, and that seems to be good enough for many.
When there's this much on the line, what margin of error can we afford?
_____________________
Notes:
Teichroeb, Ruth. "Forensic scientist in crime lab tied to wrongful convictions in Oregon". SeattlePI.com, December 27, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/205345_crimelab27.html
Teichroeb, Ruth. "Rare look inside state crime labs reveals recurring DNA test problems". SeattlePI.com, July 22, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/183007_crimelab22.html
Teichroeb, Ruth. "Rare look inside state crime labs reveals recurring DNA test problems". SeattlePI.com, July 22, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/183007_crimelab22.html