I found this article (www.sew.org.uk) but it has no date on it or author.  It’s an interesting application of pattern matching.  As a Defence Expert I would be bound to ask about the validity of the interpretation – what is the database of freckle patterns?  However, logically it seems that if the pattern matches there’s a very good chance of the match being correct, borne out, in this case, by the guilty plea!

“MAN CONVICTED USING PIONEERING ‘FRECKLE’ PATTERN ANALYSIS

Pioneering analysis by a forensic anthropologist has led to the ground-breaking conviction of a man on charges of sexually abusing young girls during a trip to Thailand.

Southwark Crown Court heard that 50 year old Dean Hardy from Orpington in Kent had been careful to keep his face out of photographs that he had taken on a business trip to the country.  But, the jury heard, police had noticed a man’s hand touching the girls in some of the pictures.

The, as yet unnamed, expert compared the freckles and blemishes on the hand in the photographs with those of Hardy’s left hand and found them to be identical.

During proceedings, Peter Zinner for the Prosecution told the Court that the marks were ‘striking’ and that that had led to the decision to commission an expert investigation.

He described the case as “the first of its kind because Mr Hardy was subsequently identified”

Hardy pleaded guilty to a number of charges including indecent assault, taking and possessing indecent photographs.”

I get asked about this case all the time.  It was probably New Zealand’s biggest ever case in terms of media attention (more like frenzy) and overall cost.  It is also probably New Zealand’s most controversial case and people have an opinion before they even ask me about it.  It’s a bit like when a woman announces she’s pregnant – people react according to how they feel about pregnancy and children, not how they feel about that particular woman being pregnant.  When people ask  me about the case it’s generally because they have an opinion about it and they want to voice it.

I was approached by Joe Karam in October 2008 to ask if I could assist with the forensic science issues in the David Bain retrial.  I had never heard of David Bain or Joe Karam and it was just another case to me.  As a forensic scientist, all cases should be treated the same, regardless of their perceived importance.

For various reasons, my company was involved with several areas of the forensic science and also with Witness Liaison for the duration of the trial.

It was an extremely interesting case for many reasons.

That’s all I have to say.

During my time in England I had the pleasure of being involved with many cases involving drug traces on banknotes.  For those of you in countries with plastic money (such as NZ or Australia), those who live in countries with paper money have the joy of carrying around with them banknotes of which practically all will bear minute traces of cocaine.  At the last look, 70% had traces of MDMA (Ecstasy), 5% had traces of diamorphine (heroin) and 5% had traces of THC (found in cannabis).  Banknotes are seized in a variety of cases including criminal cases, Customs & Excise and under the Proceeds of Crime Act.  Some nice people at the lab will analysis a selection of banknotes (in a non-destructive manner – not that that matters if the Defendant is found guilty because they won’t be seeing their cash again).  Sometimes, those nice people at the lab will travel to court to give evidence about what they found.  Sometimes, someone like me might go along as well to add comment for the Defence.

Anyway, this story is another about court attendance, this time where I was involved as a Defence expert for a case in Scotland.  I only went because my boss was on holiday somewhere exotic (again) and he couldn’t make it, so I had to go.  After getting stuck on the M1 on the way to Luton airport (pouring rain, stationary traffic for an hour) I missed my flight to Aberdeen.  Had to get on the next flight, which was to Edinburgh.  Happily, the barrister was in Edinburgh so he picked me up at the airport and we drove to Aberdeen.  I have no idea how long it took except it seemed a loooong time in a car with someone I had never met before.  In fact, I had never even spoken to him before.  This is the sort of thing that your mother warns you not to do.

I spent five days in Scotland.  It snowed and there was no heating  in the hotel.  I had no thermals with me.  There was porridge for breakfast though, which was good (no other meals necessary for the rest of the day).  The Crown’s scientists came and went.  I stayed (just in case I was needed, but I wasn’t).  The Crown wanted to show the tape of the Police interview but no-one knew how to work the video player.  Rather than allow us to try to work it out for ourselves, court was adjourned for half a DAY so that a technician could drive from Aberdeen to “fix” it (only a Certified Technician was allowed to touch it – against Health & Safety rules otherwise).  Technician arrives, presses a switch, VCR starts to work, we all get back to the trial wondering why a) Health & Safety rules had got so mad, and b) why the Technician couldn’t have told us over the phone which button to press.

There were many other things about that case that were bizarre (the defendant was found guilty; defendant went to prison; case was appealed; defendant was released).  Another bizarre incident involved a mobile phone (no, not one that had been swabbed for the presence of drug traces).  A mobile phone rang (very quietly, I might add).  The Judge stopped the proceedings and demanded that the offender place at least a pound, but preferably a banknote of some denomination, into the charity jar he kept on the Bench.  I leaned over to the solicitor and commented that this was indeed a strange occurrence.  He leaned back and said “Well, it’s just as well we’re not in the court room next door – the judge in there puts people in the cells for an hour if a phone goes off in his court, even if you’re a QC.”  I believe him.

I have been keeping an eye on media reports about the issue of fabrication of DNA evidence and everyone seems to be very excited about it, particularly how it will bring forensic science crashing to the ground and CSI ratings will plummet.

However, if one thinks about it, fabrication of any evidence type is not particularly difficult.  In a lot of cases there is generally more to it than just one science type.  I appreciate that DNA seems to be the trump card but those of us working in the industry know its limitations and comment accordingly.  If there is a conflict between the scientific data then more attention to detail is required and the findings should be reviewed.  If only DNA is being used (say, in a Cold Case Review) my experience so far has been that Police and prosecutors are aware that they shouldn’t put all their eggs in one basket and make sure that they have more to their case than just a DNA hit on a database.

Rather than sinking CSI‘s ratings, I’m sure the writers can now use this as a new storyline and the baddies will still be caught and it will all be sorted out in an hour and no-one will have smudged their lipstick, not even Laurence Fishburne…

If anyone had any doubts about the use or application of forensic palynology then surely they should be dispelled by now.  Work completed by Dr Dallas Mildenhall, based here in sunny New Zealand, helped Interpol arrest and charge three Chinese man in relation to production and distribution of counterfeit drugs.  The pollen content of samples of counterfeit drugs was examined.  The results indicated that the drugs had been exposed to pollen in southern China, which helped Interpol focus their search on particular Chinese individuals ‘of interest’.  Forensic palynology: top!