“At any given moment, there is a sort of all pervading orthodoxy, a general tacit agreement not to discuss large and uncomfortable facts….. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” George Orwell

_{This quote so aptly describes what happens to those who claim DNA evidence is false.   DNA as evidence is a powerful tool for justice; sadly badly, it is also a powerful tool for injustice.  Lack of any effort by governments to address the systemic problems with DNA as evidence, including ignorant attitudes and the hodge podge of conflicting out of date laws is causing not only increasing injustice and distrust but over- lengthy court processes and argument rather than the claimed reduction in Court time and therefore taxpayer costs.} 

Why is it that Law Institutes, Civil Libertarians etc made no protest  about the joint business venture between Vic State government and the genetics industry- Genetic Technologies??  The implications to the justice system as well as the genetically modified food debate are extremely undemocratic as well as unjust.

 

The Victoria Forensic Science Centre (commonly known as the police lab) sends work to GeneTech. "

 

 

This justice site is set up to try to generate  more concern and interest including by ethical lawyers about ignorance, injustices - especially DNA as evidence and other frauds involving forensics and  science.  Also to generate more concern about our outmoded, convoluted, costly justice system.  Ignorance, out of date inadequate laws, unnecessarily drawn out gladiatorial processes and lazy, out of date out of touch judges  trample on victims of crime and injustice and have lost the power to reason.

 

There are now ample cases and significant evidence which warrant a class action against NATA,  the inappropriate, misleading regulator of the DNA testing industry. What victims can't overcome is the ignorance and indifference  in the legal profession and the unwillinglness to learn from those at the cliff face.  Numerous inquiries, more specifically the ALRC Genetics Ethics Inquiry (tabled in Federal Parliament in 2003) which recommend Courts (so presumably) lawyers and police )  must take other evidence into account.  The fact is they do not.   That the systemic problems with DNA as evidence are not understood was illustrated yet again by the Editorial Herald Sun  11 Dec 2010 and the response of judges and attorrneys general, who think that if there is no detectable error in a DNA test report or the technical worknotes, the evidence can be relied on.  There is no comprehension of the serious consequences when the wrong sample is used in a test. 

 

Many cases illust.ate the false claims of forensic scientists and other "Experts" in courts as well as the way police falsify evidence. In Farnell vs Penhalluriack S.C. Vic. the criminals were exhonerated by Judge Kevin Bell without ever having been investigated much less prosecuted and  tried, and should never have been called into court in waht is and was  an issue concerning paternity. 

 

A basic search of the internet  brings up hundreds of cases globally relating to forensic  created injustice including DNA  in criminal and family matching.  DNA as evidence as with other modern technologies, has wiped out the ability of police, judges, lawyers and the public to think.  Newspaper articles, some of which are accessible  from this page, illustrate just how widespread errors and systemic problems are with DNA evidence.  Cases such as that of Murdoch (Falconio murder) Pat. Farnell, Sandra Olsen, Shane  Davis, Brian Cole, Janine Henry,  Long vs Long FC  and Lloyd  Clark Fletcher  illustrate how diverse the problems are and how urgently the system and laws need to be updated and better informed.  Hundreds of others where less detail  is available illustrate not only the problems with DNA as evidence, particularly the systemic ignorance, Over the coming weeks, we hope to add the links to some of these cases as resources permit. We also want you to put forward your ideas and solutions.   Nothing was learned from cases such as Chamberlain (where police fudged evidence to support their theory and scientists made blatantly false claims) and the notorious Lloyd Fletcher Clark case (where  diligent police had ample evidence he was a violent rapist murderer yet he was released and able to rape and murder again due to reliance on a faulty DNA test). and the peculiarly ignorant, unthinking systemic attitude in deciding not to immediately have a confirmatory one despite the family of the first victim being convinced the test was at fault.  It is not good enough.

The very first step to clean up the DNA testing industry  should be the appointment of a totally  independent regulator in place of NATA. 

 

The problems and the link to a failing democracy

 

During the last decade, there has been a subversive switch by governments from the democratic process of Senate and Law Reform Inquiries where the public was once  heard, and noted.  With Senate inquiries, the media is present.  Modern day  Inquiries often  exclude not only the media but more importantly, the public so that the media only prints what the government and experts want you to hear.   Experts with their own barrow (of money) to push are relied on and those at the cliff face, including ethical scientists and independent academics who research problem cases are  not interviewed or ignored. Nothing illustrates this more than the findings of the ALRC Genetics Ethics Inquiry whoch should have stunned the legal profession.  Unfortunately many of the recommendations were based on those of the self interest regulator NATA, designed to protect unethical practices by its members, and totally ignored the obvious need for far more independent regulation.

 

When the wrong sample is tested, false DNA evidence occurs but cannot be detected by ethical scientists or running the same samples through another test  because no "technical" error such as contamination is visible to ethical scientists. It doesn't help matters that they may then claim there is "no evidence" which is misinterpreted by courts and lawyers etc.  What they really mean in most cases is there is no " scientific" evidence.  NATA, the self interest regulator  admits they do not care a stuff about ethical issues related to testing (such as corruption) and don't consider it their responsibility to do anything about it.                                                                            

    

It is extremely cruel, unjust, and costly to taxpayers  that even those who voluntarily provide a sample in criminal, fraud  or paternity cases cannot obtain an order for a confirmatory DNA test under stricter safeguards now known to be essential  Why does NATA consisistently refuse to recommend this - ie retesting under very strict security? 

 

The cruel unnecessary nine year journey of  Shane Davis and others seeking confirmatory DNA testing caused suffering to members of families from both sides.  Regardless of if you believe Shane is guilty or not, the delay was unjust and unreasonable, particularly as it appears other evidence was not sought out due to the reliance on a second DNA test. Whether by accident or deliberate fudging, the fact is false DNA evidence cannot be examined in the same way as other evidence can. It is extremely easy and common to obtain a false result. e.g. In Shane's case, were the samples used in the tests both extracted from his volunteered sample rather than blood claimed as being found at the crime scene?? In such cases no error shows. Repeating the test with the same samples is also pointless and proves nothing other than that the technicalities were adhered to. Not where the sample came from. 

 

That such probabilities are escaping the radar of the media, the courts and lawyers is illustrated by the way in the Farnell case Judges' rulings constantly refer to claims of error in the DNA tests. During a 12 yr court battle, dozens of affidavits, many hours of cross exmination, Farnell never claimed error but that Chipperton's  sample was not being tested thus giving a false negative result.  Evidence surrounding a positive result - the only one genuinely on Chipprton/s sample - was ignored largely due to the dishonest recommendations of NATA that reports should be the evidence and coupled with ignorance of judges..

In 1998  NATA CEO confirmed what victims of false DNA tests had already worked out for themselves - the safeguards which supposedly protected the integrity of samples did not prevent deliberate tampering and did not detect it.  The widely acclaimed ALRC Genetic Ethics Inquiry established that fraud was not only happening, but that it can't entirely be prevented.  NATA continues to mislead politicians and the justice system with ease, as do unethical scientists in the forensic industry.   The ease with which the DNA testing industry has brainwashed the legal system into such huge reliance on DNA as evidence is symptomatic of an out  of date out of touch and out of compassion process perpetuated by self interest of those at the top, including in the legal profession.   

After extensive community consultation, the ALRC Genetics Ethics Inquiry found that "fraud can and does happen" (with DNA tests.)  "Cannot be entirely prevented" .  "Safeguards and oversight  needed to be improved"  "Judges need to be better educated" and "other evidence should be taken into account". None of this happened. Subsequent inquiries keep making similar recommendations and so clearly courts ignore the recommendations of previous inquiries.

The previous Federal Attorney General(Philip Ruddock)  claimed in 2004 the safeguards had been improved on the recommendation of NATA but in fact NATA had merely pulled the wool over his eyes amd continues to do so. Mr Ruddock also publicly said that in his view paternity fraud was a crime. Gender bias ensures the media and the courts think only women make false claims about paternity despite considerable evidence over hundreds of years to the contrary..

 

Only high profile resolved murder cases seem to touch the media radar.  Even then there is no genuine investigation of what went wrong or the solutions. Uninformed media coverage and lack of examination of the facts in many other cases ensures the whole legal system and public remain ignorant of the dangers and truth about DNA as evidence.  The problems for victims of injustice are exacerbated by the way experts, academics and judges etc keep claiming DNA has now been perfected. Unfortunately, the safeguards against corruption and deliberate tampering. not to mention accidental testing of the wrong sample have not.  A Sydney Morning Herald Reports claimed the Ombudsman had established that 1 in 7 samples in the police lab NSW had the wrong name on.  To believe this is an isolated situation and there were not consequences in the past is naive, dangerous and cruel.

In many cases where forensic science is used as evidence, the victim of the false evidence has no way of proving how, when or where the sample tested was obtained.  This is especially difficult with DNA evidence because of the ease with which it can be falsified and the impossibility of detecting deliberate falsification. NATA and scientists were claiming DNA tests could be relied on even when false negatives in criminal and paternity tests were occurring due to mutations. When police claimed to be investigating fraudulent tests at GeneTech, everything victims of false tests were claiming was ignored despite the facts, the evidence and the truth.  Just one of many indications of NATA's disregard for the public interest and public safety is the way they coverup the real problems such as the consequences of testing the wrong sample. .

Where victims of false evidence were able to obtain a correct (opposing) result, without the need to drag through the courts for years as in the Davis, Farnell, Olsen, Eden and other cases (contact our office)  hush money is paid by labs so the problems are covered up- exacerbated by silence of scientists in the forensic industry as well as NATA.  Labs frequently threaten SLAPP writs against anyone speaking out about unethical practices in the industry so ignorance prevails because lawyers, judges, police and politicians have lost the ability to think for themselves or lack the moral courage of those like Judge Weinberg who speak out.

 

In the many cases that have been resolved even when no technical error was detectable, all have been on the basis of a totally new, independent test on fresh samples - not the gnorant, repetitive retesting and re examination of original samples.  It is inconsistent and extremely unjust that many have had to pursue years and years of legal battles because this option wasn't available or parties refused. 

Lack of education of the legal profession as well as Judges has necessitated others from giving up due to the costly unjust, ignorant  process of the courts and the unjust outcome.

 Wakeup to the dangers and cost to the public Australia.  When the wrong sample is tested, the real criminal goes free including rapists, murderers  and those involved in serious  fraud,  money laundering and illegal immigration of criminals via family matching. One of the most tragic examples is the Lloyd  Fletcher Clark case. See example Cases below - many more available.

Solutions

 

DNA as evidence is an emotive subject, and there are persuasive arguments both for and against its wider application and use.  Clearly, if the industry is cleaned up and effective laws and processes put in place - especially totally independent regulation - it has the potential to not only save taxpayers a fortune but also to minimise the suffering of victims of crime and their families.

The fact that Law Institutes, Bar Associations, Judges, lawyers, Attorneys General etc refuse to acknowledge and speak out about the serious systemic problems, suffering, dangers  and cost of  false DNA evidence much less implement obvious solutions can be seen to be indifference and coveup  similar to that which occured in the Thalidomide disaster. "Suffer the children" Sunday Insight Team report" in which first the pharmaceutical industry then governments around the world colluded to coverup the horrific consequences of the serious side effects of the  drug.

 Other than an enlightened few who have the public  interest at heart, the legal profession generally doesn't support laws and procedures which would shorten the costly, convoluted court process.  It minds one of the Veterinary industry who fail to support the need for legislation to minimise oversupply - excessive breeding of domestic pets. (See our siser site at www.wakeupasutralia.org)

 

The unholy legal alliance of  judges, legal institutions and NATA has  a vested interest in not making recommendations which would minimise the court process and maximise justice. The whole focus of the Courts is to support nitpicking legalities which exonerate criminals rather than to ensure that truth, evidence and justice prevail. When the Courts do get it wrong, the whole system then goes into denial and coverup - scarcely in the interests of the public.

 

Many cases illustrate how badly the Courts fail vicims of crime and their families not to mention the out of control cost to taxpayers. . (See tab "other injustices" - still under construction - your story welcome)

 It is extremely unjust, costly and cruel  that the public is being refused the right of an Order for DNA testing under stricter security even when they have voluntarily agreed to provide samples for testing - unaware of how this will wipe out due process.    The public must be given the right to this valuable technology including in family matching,  probate,  fraud and other criminal issues.  Many cases now prove that it sometimes takes two or even three not just one test to get an honest (opposing) result. (Farnell, Olsen, Henry cases etc)   The positives to the public interest must be placed above monetary gain to the privileged few .

It is an indication of how ridiculously inconsistent the interpretation of human rights is in relation to DNA that hospitals can take the blood sample of a new born infant who has absolutely no idea of the extensive errors and problems  and possible future consequences (e.g. that police can obtain an order but the public cant, that criminals have access to DNA test reports despite the fact DNA evidence can easily be falsified - yet adults who provide a sample voluntarily  and claim a test result is false cannot get an order for testing if another adult is involved and refuses.  The Family Court can order DNA testing on unwitting children yet refused to do so on clearly lying siblings, and more commonly fathers. That police can obtain an Order yet the public cannot is beyond comprehension and fails to heed the warnings of the many cases Chamberlain inquiry among others where police have fudged scientific evidence

    Self regulation is not in the interests of the people. That it does not work in the interests of the public was clearly illustrated by the HIA debacle and many since. So why do politicians and academics etc condone it?  The  Farnell and Olsen cases  among others illustrate widespread collusion and coverup by current regulators., including NATA registered  labs  used by police.    At the time when NATA was claiming the original DNA testing process could be relied on in courts, there had been no pre release trials or modelling undertaken, the safeguards  were known by NATA to be inadequate ALRC Inquiry "Essentially Yours". (and still are), the original PCR process proved to frequently give false results, and NATA  now says  DNA paternity tests should be carried out at least 15 loci instead of the original eight.   Yet there is no process whereby those who had a DNA test under these inadequate procedures where DNA testing with  stricter security can be obtained.  What, for heavens sake is so mysterious, difficult, private, etc etc etc about a bit of spit on cottonwool that the public is refused?  Or that Courts and lawyers believe refusal of a party over a long and costly period of time, even when coupled with a significant amount of other evidence, is not indication of prior knowledge?

NATA can be seen to be as dishonest as its members. (Discussoins with former FAG Ruddock confirm) There are other far more reputable organisations which ethical scientists or labs could be registered with appropriate to acceptance by Courts.   In a properly functioning, democratic system there should be a right to choice with professional bodies as well as blue collar unions. .

3. Where it can be shown that safeguards were inadequate,  not adhered to,  or discrepancies of any kind in normal process and procedure, the DNA evidence should be set aside.

4.The acceptance by attorneys general and courts of the recommendation by NATA that the report of the test should be accepted as evidence is farcical.  It is an obvious contradiction of the revered Judge Morling's findings in the Chamberlain case.   Judge Morling points to the fact that where the forensic sample itself is not  available the evidence should be set aside. Just because no technical error shows in a report does not prove the samples tested are whose they are claimed to be. Many cases illustrate the way other significant evidence is being ignored.  The evidence in the Farnell case included a particularly strong, proven motive for procuring a false test result, yet along with other significant evidence was ignored.  See Farnell update.   There is no comprehension in the legal system of this problem or of the cruel  injustices it is creating. The findings of the ALRC Inquiry included that "fraud (e.g. switching of samples or claiming a sample came from the body of a victim when it really came from the accused' voluntary sample ) cannot entirely be prevented.  Nor can it be detected. 

5.  A monitoring database of DNA test results whatever the jurisdiction should immediately be set up similar to the ones for eg. cancer.  Had this happened when ethical scientists were recommending it the systemic problems, including the malpractice racket at Simons GeneType (Now GeneTech)   in NATA registered labs as well as unregistered ones would have quickly surfaced and hopefully have been addressed because of the number of women claiming their test results were false. The claim by judges and politicians that the likenesses of a child to a claimed father are not evidence of a false result is cruel, costly, ignorant and unjust. 

 

 There also should be mandatory reporting by scientists and lawyers including in Family matters  when  there are opposing results to a previous test.  Victoria Institute of Medicine scientists were obtaining opposing results in paternity cases and were well aware of the various ways the test outcome can be falsified yet did not feel ethically obliged to do anything about it such as report the crime.  Claims under the Privacy Act do not hold water. The crime is what needs to be exposed not the names of the families involved.