Latest / Real Crime with Adam Shand / The Fingerprint of the 21st Century - And Its Flaws | Jae Gerhard

Transcript

The Fingerprint of the 21st Century - And Its Flaws | Jae Gerhard · Real Crime with Adam Shand

• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Apploche Production.
• 0:14
  Speaker 2: Welcome to Real Crime with Adam Shand. I'm your host,
• 0:16
  Speaker 2: Adam Shand. Let's talk about DNA evidence and how much
• 0:20
  Speaker 2: weight it carries these days in criminal cases.
• 0:23
  Speaker 3: Arguably too much. People say man.
• 0:26
  Speaker 4: Freed after sixteen years as DNA evidence found to be contaminated,
• 0:31
  Speaker 4: prosecutors drop all charges.
• 0:34
  Speaker 2: It's called the CSI effect, where television shows like CSI
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: Crime Scene Investigations cause jurors to hold unrealistic expectations of
• 0:42
  Speaker 2: forensic evidence. In real life criminal trials, it can result
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: in juras demanding or overvaluing scientific evidence, potentially leading to
• 0:51
  Speaker 2: the acquittal of guilty defendants.
• 0:53
  Speaker 3: If such evidence is absent, juria.
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: Quits despite eyewitness testimony defense points to absence of forensic evidence.
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: The limitations of DNA science are pull understood, and how
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: the sample is collected, how it's handled, and how it's
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: interpreted can be crucial to justice outcomes. Conviction overturned appeal
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: court finds DNA sample mishandled at crime scene. It's also
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: led to crooks and even some unscrupulous police, manipulating forensic
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: DNA evidence to set up innocent people or tip the
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: scales of justice. In one direction or another. In criminal prosecution.
• 1:33
  Speaker 3: A highly decorated detective has been stood down after allegations
• 1:37
  Speaker 3: of planting DNA evidence to secure conviction.
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: This is where independent forensic analysis comes into play. Jay
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: Gerhard began her career working for the AFP and New
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: South Wales Police Force. Now she's one of Australia's leading
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: expert witnesses, advising defense lawyers and their clients on what
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: the DNA evidence in their cases actually means. That's my
• 2:02
  Speaker 2: pleasure to welcome Jay to real crime.
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: Hello, thank you for having me an absolute pleasure.
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: How did your career begin? You're not a police officer,
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: You're a scientist, that's correct.
• 2:14
  Speaker 4: Yeah, so I've always been a scientist, even though I
• 2:17
  Speaker 4: have worked in law enforcement agencies like the Australian Federal
• 2:20
  Speaker 4: Police and New South Wales Police.
• 2:23
  Speaker 3: So how'd you get into this field?
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: I was actually pretty lucky.
• 2:26
  Speaker 4: I always kind of had an interest in forensic science,
• 2:29
  Speaker 4: and when I was at university, I studied a Bachelor
• 2:32
  Speaker 4: of Science in biomedical science, so not a forensic.
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: Related degree by any means.
• 2:37
  Speaker 4: But when it came to doing an honors project, I
• 2:39
  Speaker 4: was fortunate enough to accept a project that was offered
• 2:42
  Speaker 4: by the Australian Federal Police, which saw me move from
• 2:45
  Speaker 4: Sydney to Canberra to do that project for them, And
• 2:48
  Speaker 4: that was such an amazing opportunity and so I got
• 2:50
  Speaker 4: to learn a lot, and I learned a lot about
• 2:52
  Speaker 4: the laboratory processes and everything. And during my time there,
• 2:56
  Speaker 4: the team supported me and I actually had a.
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: Little administrative role.
• 2:59
  Speaker 4: I know, I was employed there as well as an
• 3:00
  Speaker 4: admin assistant, so I would paginate case files and retrieve
• 3:04
  Speaker 4: files for other science test and make solutions in the
• 3:06
  Speaker 4: lab and those kind of things. But obviously it was
• 3:09
  Speaker 4: a good working relationship and I was offered a contract
• 3:12
  Speaker 4: at the end of my degree, so I just I
• 3:13
  Speaker 4: stayed with the AP and then I did my Reporting
• 3:16
  Speaker 4: scientists training, so I became a reporting officer. So that's
• 3:19
  Speaker 4: someone who can report evidence to the courts and give
• 3:21
  Speaker 4: evidence in courts in the area of forensic biology and
• 3:24
  Speaker 4: DNA analysis.
• 3:26
  Speaker 2: Okay, now you're working heavily in the DNA field as
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: an independent witness. It said that DNA evidence is to
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: the twenty first century what fingerprint analysis was to the
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: twentieth century. Is it an accurate statement or was it
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: overstating things?
• 3:41
  Speaker 4: Well, no, So DNA evidence is a remarkable evidence type.
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: It really is, and it's been able to give a.
• 3:48
  Speaker 4: Robust scientific opinion about where biological material might have come
• 3:53
  Speaker 4: from and identified that to a particular individual. We also
• 3:57
  Speaker 4: have tests that can also identify substances like different biological fluids,
• 4:01
  Speaker 4: so separating blood and saliva, for example, and it is
• 4:04
  Speaker 4: one of the most scientifically robust evidence types that can
• 4:07
  Speaker 4: be presented as evidence in court, and so that's why
• 4:10
  Speaker 4: it is often referred to as the gold standard of
• 4:12
  Speaker 4: forensic evidence, because evidence types like fingerprints and document examination
• 4:17
  Speaker 4: don't necessarily have the statistical basis that we do in
• 4:20
  Speaker 4: DNA science. But having said that, there are still significant
• 4:25
  Speaker 4: limitations with how the way DNA evidence is reported to
• 4:28
  Speaker 4: the courts and also what it can and cannot tell.
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: You, because how often are you seeing cases where there's
• 4:36
  Speaker 2: DNA which tends to implicate an individual it turns out
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: that it's either contaminated, it's been transferred from somewhere else,
• 4:45
  Speaker 2: it hasn't been handled properly in the chain of custody,
• 4:48
  Speaker 2: so which would lead to the acquittal of people that
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: otherwise people might consider there's DNA, he must have been
• 4:55
  Speaker 2: there he's guilty.
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it happens more than you might realize.
• 4:59
  Speaker 4: I feel like every week I am writing reports that
• 5:02
  Speaker 4: describe the limitations, particularly around what we call tracy. So
• 5:06
  Speaker 4: this is the type of DNA where we actually don't
• 5:08
  Speaker 4: know the biological origin of the DNA. It's unknown, so
• 5:11
  Speaker 4: either it hasn't been tested for, or it's the type
• 5:14
  Speaker 4: of sample where you just normally wouldn't type of test,
• 5:16
  Speaker 4: so it might be a door handle or a counter
• 5:18
  Speaker 4: swab or something like that where you're not expecting a
• 5:20
  Speaker 4: biological fluid to be But there's a kind of twofold
• 5:24
  Speaker 4: problem with this. Our DNA testing that we do now
• 5:26
  Speaker 4: is really sensitive. You only need a handful of cells,
• 5:30
  Speaker 4: generally less than ten cells from an individual to start
• 5:33
  Speaker 4: to be able to identify identifiable DNA information from that individual.
• 5:39
  Speaker 4: But the problem with this is we also know that
• 5:41
  Speaker 4: DNA is highly mobile, and so it can be deposited
• 5:45
  Speaker 4: by having direct contact with an item or surface or individual,
• 5:48
  Speaker 4: but it can also be transferred by indirect means, So
• 5:52
  Speaker 4: that is, you haven't had physical contact with that item
• 5:54
  Speaker 4: or surface or individual, but your DNA ends up on
• 5:56
  Speaker 4: them or on that surface through other means. So it
• 5:59
  Speaker 4: could be that something bearing your DNA was placed on
• 6:02
  Speaker 4: the surface, or if you've had contact with another individual
• 6:04
  Speaker 4: that's had contact with that individual in question. And there
• 6:08
  Speaker 4: are numerous studies and more and more studies being published
• 6:10
  Speaker 4: every month on how DNA can be transferred and how
• 6:13
  Speaker 4: many times it can be transferred, and the complexities in
• 6:16
  Speaker 4: the mechanisms that these taste DNA transfers.
• 6:18
  Speaker 2: Yes, because police are taught about this thing called Lockard's principle,
• 6:22
  Speaker 2: which holds the perpetrator of a crime will bring something
• 6:25
  Speaker 2: into the crime scene and leave with something from it.
• 6:28
  Speaker 2: And I think DNA takes this to another level altogether,
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: but I think it is being it's now police are
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: heavily reliant on this idea, and some prosecutions have been
• 6:39
  Speaker 2: begun are simply because of the presence of DNA which
• 6:42
  Speaker 2: may have been transferred from somewhere else. Good example back
• 6:45
  Speaker 2: in two thousand and nine was Farajama, who was jailed
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: for sixteen months for sexual assault based solely on DNA.
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: Was discovered that the DNA was contaminated a nurse had
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: taken a swap from a previous patient and that DNA
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: was transferred to the next patient, resulting in a false match.
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: That's reasonably common, isn't it.
• 7:04
  Speaker 4: So far Jama case is an interesting one. So circumstances
• 7:07
  Speaker 4: like that, where there's a DNA match and it leads
• 7:11
  Speaker 4: to charges being laid on an individual is reasonably common,
• 7:14
  Speaker 4: and with there being little other supporting evidence that they've
• 7:17
  Speaker 4: been there, So that is quite common. And then that
• 7:20
  Speaker 4: becomes really problematic when we have trace DNA involved, and
• 7:23
  Speaker 4: that's the type of DNA where we don't know the
• 7:25
  Speaker 4: biological origin that DNA and it's quite mobile. The case
• 7:28
  Speaker 4: of Aarijama becomes quite interesting when you start to look
• 7:31
  Speaker 4: at that case and you step back just from the
• 7:33
  Speaker 4: DNA results, because there was a DNA match to that
• 7:36
  Speaker 4: individual on a sexual assault keep from a complainant, and
• 7:40
  Speaker 4: it was based on a number of Like I think,
• 7:42
  Speaker 4: there was only a single sperm and a couple of
• 7:43
  Speaker 4: sperm fragments identified in this particular swap, so not a
• 7:46
  Speaker 4: lot of evidence. Definitely not evidence that supported a recent
• 7:49
  Speaker 4: ejaculation from a male. There were no tails present on
• 7:52
  Speaker 4: the sperm and it was a small number. But when
• 7:54
  Speaker 4: you step back and look at the evidence of the
• 7:56
  Speaker 4: whole there are a number of other red flags there.
• 7:57
  Speaker 4: So the sexual assault was said to occur in I
• 8:00
  Speaker 4: think it was an over thirties night club. It had
• 8:01
  Speaker 4: a predominantly white clientele. There was no cct B footage
• 8:05
  Speaker 4: of mister Jarma in the area. There were no witness
• 8:07
  Speaker 4: accounts to say that there'd been a young black man
• 8:10
  Speaker 4: in the club.
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: There was no fingerprint evidence. I believe he even had
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: an alibi.
• 8:14
  Speaker 4: So there was lots of other holistic evidence that really
• 8:17
  Speaker 4: didn't point to mister Jarma having committed a sexual assault
• 8:22
  Speaker 4: on the complainant because there was no other supporting evidence.
• 8:24
  Speaker 4: There was only the DNA, But because the DNA evidence
• 8:27
  Speaker 4: is considered to be so powerful, they ran.
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: With the prosecution on that case.
• 8:32
  Speaker 4: Police did during the initial inquiries question whether there could
• 8:35
  Speaker 4: have been a contamination event, and they questioned the forensic
• 8:37
  Speaker 4: biology laboratory, and that laboratory indicated that they had no
• 8:41
  Speaker 4: evidence of a contamination within their laboratory, which was rightly
• 8:44
  Speaker 4: so they didn't. But that was it, So then nothing
• 8:47
  Speaker 4: really happened. Further afield to look at how that DNA
• 8:49
  Speaker 4: result could have possibly occurred, but there are a number
• 8:51
  Speaker 4: of other red flags that should have been alerted to
• 8:54
  Speaker 4: go this may be unreliable evidence to push forward, but
• 8:57
  Speaker 4: it didn't.
• 8:59
  Speaker 2: Sure because beyond reasonable doubt is a very high bar,
• 9:02
  Speaker 2: and defense barristers work on what they call the rat theory,
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: the radical alternative theory in any particular case, and these
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: situations where there are these possibilities of issues in the lab,
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: issues in the collection, are very relevant when you're up
• 9:18
  Speaker 2: in court there providing that little element of reasonable doubt
• 9:22
  Speaker 2: because I think a lot of people, jurors in particular,
• 9:25
  Speaker 2: have this strong belief that DNA is inviolable, it's solid
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: evidence and that's it.
• 9:31
  Speaker 4: Yeah, absolutely they do, and we do know that jurism
• 9:34
  Speaker 4: more likely to convict when DNA evidence is presented. But
• 9:38
  Speaker 4: when it comes to what we're reporting in court, we
• 9:41
  Speaker 4: have to also remember, and this is where some of
• 9:42
  Speaker 4: the talente comes with forensic DNA evidence, is that an
• 9:46
  Speaker 4: item or a person has history.
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: Right, so there.
• 9:48
  Speaker 4: Might be a crime event that happens that's going to
• 9:50
  Speaker 4: result in the transfer of DNA, but whatever that that
• 9:54
  Speaker 4: person and that item has also had history, it's very
• 9:57
  Speaker 4: reasonable to expect that, well, there will be DNA on
• 10:00
  Speaker 4: that item just part of the general background, and then
• 10:03
  Speaker 4: the crime event occurs. There may be more transfer events occur,
• 10:06
  Speaker 4: and then there's a subsequent investigation of that. And we
• 10:08
  Speaker 4: also know that what we call investigator mediated transfer can occur.
• 10:13
  Speaker 4: So that's where investigators, through their collection examination of the
• 10:16
  Speaker 4: crime scene can transfer DNA onto items and surfaces. There
• 10:20
  Speaker 4: was a recent or a few years ago now twenty
• 10:22
  Speaker 4: twenty one, I believe it was. I just published about
• 10:24
  Speaker 4: it recently, the Cephadine case that a conviction was quashed
• 10:28
  Speaker 4: up on appeal based on the potential that investigator mediated
• 10:31
  Speaker 4: transfer couldn't be eliminated as a possible cause for the
• 10:35
  Speaker 4: DNA being deposited onto a firearm. So we also know,
• 10:39
  Speaker 4: you know, we've got these kind of stages where DNA
• 10:41
  Speaker 4: transfer can occur, and when it comes to the DNA science,
• 10:44
  Speaker 4: we can't tell you how or when that DNA has
• 10:47
  Speaker 4: been deposited.
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: Well, so in Cephadine, the investigator was wearing gloves and
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: potentially transferred DNA from one item in a workplace where
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: the defendant was to the trigger of a revolver high
• 11:04
  Speaker 2: stake stuff.
• 11:05
  Speaker 3: Explain how that happened.
• 11:07
  Speaker 4: Well, I mean, I do sympathize with investigators too, because
• 11:10
  Speaker 4: it is extraordinarily challenging to maintain your integrity and your cleaning.
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: This when examining a scene, it.
• 11:17
  Speaker 4: Requires lots and lots of gloves because gloves are not
• 11:20
  Speaker 4: impervious to DNA. They're actually vectors, so you can accumulate
• 11:24
  Speaker 4: DNA on your gloves and you can transfer them to
• 11:26
  Speaker 4: other items that you're touching, and that's what they're proposed
• 11:28
  Speaker 4: happened in this sephidine case. So what we do when
• 11:33
  Speaker 4: we're trying to examine these types of scenes is you
• 11:35
  Speaker 4: put on a pair of gloves. You might look at
• 11:36
  Speaker 4: some items and move around, and then you have to
• 11:38
  Speaker 4: change your gloves very frequently to minimize any transfers that
• 11:41
  Speaker 4: are occurring. And if you find an item of interest,
• 11:43
  Speaker 4: the first thing you do is change your gloves and
• 11:45
  Speaker 4: put on a new, fresh player of gloves because you
• 11:47
  Speaker 4: don't need to be transferring whatever material from whatever is
• 11:50
  Speaker 4: already on your gloves to the item in question. And
• 11:54
  Speaker 4: you know, it's also something to be aware of too,
• 11:56
  Speaker 4: and it's something that I had to train.
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: Myself out of in the lab.
• 11:58
  Speaker 4: But because you also have to be very careful about
• 12:01
  Speaker 4: what you're touching yourself. I see lots of body worm
• 12:03
  Speaker 4: footage and footage from search bar where viguys Sigators put
• 12:06
  Speaker 4: on their gloves and then they're holding their mobile phone,
• 12:08
  Speaker 4: and so you know they also would use their phone
• 12:11
  Speaker 4: without their gloves, their DNA will be all over it,
• 12:12
  Speaker 4: and so then they've just contaminated their gloves with their
• 12:15
  Speaker 4: own DNA. And for me, my little tick was that
• 12:17
  Speaker 4: I put on gloves and that I just immediately have
• 12:19
  Speaker 4: a scratch in my hay. So I have to move
• 12:20
  Speaker 4: a strand of hair, and then you have to change
• 12:22
  Speaker 4: a pair of gloves. But you have to be very
• 12:24
  Speaker 4: aware of what you are doing when you're examining those scenes.
• 12:28
  Speaker 2: Yes, because you've been the crime scene officer, and I
• 12:31
  Speaker 2: think we've seen in various shows where the correct method
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: is portrayed. The crime scene officer says, everyone out, this
• 12:37
  Speaker 2: is my crime scene.
• 12:39
  Speaker 3: I don't want anyone.
• 12:40
  Speaker 2: Doing anything here that could potentially contaminate the evidence. Tell
• 12:42
  Speaker 2: us what the crime scene officer does in reality.
• 12:45
  Speaker 4: Yeah, so some of the principles apply both in laboratory
• 12:48
  Speaker 4: examinations and within a crime scene. But yeah, you want
• 12:52
  Speaker 4: to try and minimize the number of people that are
• 12:53
  Speaker 4: moving around in the environment, because we also do know
• 12:57
  Speaker 4: that individuals can share DNA just by being in their environment.
• 13:00
  Speaker 4: Like there's varied reports about this, but at the very minimum,
• 13:04
  Speaker 4: we're shedding about four hundred thousand skin cells every day,
• 13:07
  Speaker 4: So just by being somewhere, you're shedding material everywhere. You're
• 13:11
  Speaker 4: also through speaking, We have the potential to shed DNA
• 13:14
  Speaker 4: through just your natural speaking actions, let alone, if you
• 13:17
  Speaker 4: cough or sneeze and then are really projecting DNA and
• 13:20
  Speaker 4: biological material into the environment. We're pretty gross people when
• 13:23
  Speaker 4: you start to think about it too much. So, yeah,
• 13:26
  Speaker 4: so you want to minimize that kind of movement, and
• 13:29
  Speaker 4: you don't want people just walking through a scene and
• 13:31
  Speaker 4: potentially transferring material inadvertently just through their actions. So you
• 13:35
  Speaker 4: want to try and control it as best you can,
• 13:37
  Speaker 4: but you have to also accept the realities of it.
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: It is quite challenging to do.
• 13:41
  Speaker 4: So we just try and minimize those interactions and maximize
• 13:45
  Speaker 4: the control that we can that we do have in
• 13:47
  Speaker 4: those areas.
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: Yeah, especially when you look at cold cases, which where
• 13:51
  Speaker 2: there has been some material kept over the years, but
• 13:54
  Speaker 2: then when you look back at what's happened at the
• 13:56
  Speaker 2: crime scene. There's a couple of cases, one of the
• 13:58
  Speaker 2: Maria James case in Melbourne nineteen eighty Carmen Chan in
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: nineteen ninety two in Melbourne, also where the police set
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: up the command post at the crime scene, so people
• 14:10
  Speaker 2: are tracing in and out all that kind of stuff.
• 14:12
  Speaker 2: So even if you've got DNA that is used later
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: in a prosecution, a smart defense lawyer is going to say,
• 14:19
  Speaker 2: but hang on, it was wildly contaminated and there's that
• 14:22
  Speaker 2: element of doubt, and that's all just a little sintilla
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: of doubts is all that's required.
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: Yes, to some degree.
• 14:27
  Speaker 4: But we do know that juries are readily accepting of
• 14:30
  Speaker 4: DNA evidence and they do probace a high value on it.
• 14:32
  Speaker 4: So sometimes I think that doubt level diminishes because they're
• 14:35
  Speaker 4: just so accepting of it. But we also have to
• 14:38
  Speaker 4: be mindful that even you know, cold cases that were
• 14:42
  Speaker 4: examined with the best practices at that time, well that's
• 14:45
  Speaker 4: what we're aiming for. Definitely there are cases where even
• 14:48
  Speaker 4: best practice hasn't been followed, which it can be quite unfortunate.
• 14:51
  Speaker 4: But you know, practices evolve over time, and I even
• 14:55
  Speaker 4: think now that our practices still haven't quite caught up
• 14:58
  Speaker 4: to current crime scene practices and examination practice having probably
• 15:01
  Speaker 4: quite caught up to the sensitivity of the current DNA
• 15:04
  Speaker 4: testing systems we have in place at the moment.
• 15:07
  Speaker 2: Yeah, there's another case here that the mister Cruel series
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: of sexual assaults and abductions and things, where there is
• 15:14
  Speaker 2: DNA from one of the cases, but it's sort of
• 15:18
  Speaker 2: been lost, and if it's found again, that chain of
• 15:22
  Speaker 2: custody becomes a big issue, doesn't it. And if you
• 15:24
  Speaker 2: can't account for where a sample has been all these years,
• 15:27
  Speaker 2: it can't be used as powerful evidence, can it well?
• 15:32
  Speaker 4: And will they try and use it as evidence or
• 15:34
  Speaker 4: should it be used as evidence?
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: A kind of two different questions.
• 15:36
  Speaker 4: So I would say that there would be potential that
• 15:39
  Speaker 4: it would still be used, with the caveat that we
• 15:42
  Speaker 4: don't necessarily know where it is and where it has
• 15:45
  Speaker 4: been in that chain of custody has been broken. So
• 15:47
  Speaker 4: I'd say that it's not that it wouldn't be used,
• 15:50
  Speaker 4: it's just then whether then a judge would allow it
• 15:52
  Speaker 4: to be heard given the chain of custody is broken,
• 15:55
  Speaker 4: because you can make applications to have some evidence excluded
• 15:58
  Speaker 4: from being heard, even though if the prosecution do want
• 16:01
  Speaker 4: to push forward with it, or whether then the judge
• 16:03
  Speaker 4: would give instructions to a jury about what kind of
• 16:06
  Speaker 4: limitations that they should be putting on that evidence, or
• 16:09
  Speaker 4: how they should.
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: Deal with them, because clearly, for the defense barrister, it
• 16:13
  Speaker 2: gives a whole other inference that can be drawn if
• 16:17
  Speaker 2: there isn't the chain of custody, if there are issues
• 16:20
  Speaker 2: about transfer. And this is where your role comes in.
• 16:24
  Speaker 2: When you're giving expert evidence, you're trying to condition the
• 16:28
  Speaker 2: jury to the limitations of DNA and to I guess
• 16:32
  Speaker 2: poke holes in the Crown case.
• 16:35
  Speaker 4: I don't like to see the poking holes because I
• 16:37
  Speaker 4: don't necessarily work for a particular party, Like I'm not
• 16:40
  Speaker 4: a partisan kind of expert. So I will give you
• 16:44
  Speaker 4: an opinion based on the evidence that I have observed.
• 16:47
  Speaker 4: So if that evidence has limitations, I'm going to disclose
• 16:50
  Speaker 4: that to you, and I've disposed of the loose involves
• 16:52
  Speaker 4: and i will disclose it to the court. But if
• 16:54
  Speaker 4: that evidence is robust, and the testing has been appropriate,
• 16:59
  Speaker 4: and the reported evidence that being reported to the courts
• 17:02
  Speaker 4: is robust and reliable, then I will agree with that
• 17:04
  Speaker 4: as well. So my problem comes more to the fact
• 17:08
  Speaker 4: that on lots of occasions there are limitations to forensic
• 17:12
  Speaker 4: biology and DNA evidence that are not disclosed in an
• 17:15
  Speaker 4: upfront manner, so they're not necessarily included in the reports
• 17:18
  Speaker 4: by the state service providers. And they come along with
• 17:22
  Speaker 4: things like trace DNA, they'll have a little blurb in
• 17:25
  Speaker 4: their appendix that's are buried in the appendix, which sometimes
• 17:28
  Speaker 4: gets detached from their reports, so you don't necessarily see it.
• 17:31
  Speaker 4: There's also limitations to the biological fluid testing that's undertaken,
• 17:35
  Speaker 4: and they're not necessarily disclosed at all. And what I
• 17:37
  Speaker 4: find incredibly disappointing that is even our national kind of
• 17:40
  Speaker 4: guiding body on at the National Institute of Forensic Science
• 17:43
  Speaker 4: known as NIFS, they even have pretty poor guidance on
• 17:47
  Speaker 4: what you should and shouldn't be doing in relationship disclosing
• 17:50
  Speaker 4: ear limitations. That said, you can include in your reports,
• 17:52
  Speaker 4: you can give it in your oral evidence, or you
• 17:54
  Speaker 4: can just give it if it's asked for, which I
• 17:56
  Speaker 4: find really an extraordinarily poor situation where this type of evidence.
• 18:01
  Speaker 4: For it to be considered appropriately by members of the COREP,
• 18:05
  Speaker 4: it needs to have its limitations disclosed upfront, not just
• 18:09
  Speaker 4: when someone might happen to ask for it.
• 18:11
  Speaker 2: Yeah, because you've got to maintain your independence. You're a
• 18:14
  Speaker 2: scientist first and foremost. You can't be just wheeled in
• 18:17
  Speaker 2: as a tool to exculpate people who might actually be guilty.
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: Absolutely, yeah, Yeah.
• 18:24
  Speaker 2: And the other thing we're seeing I think the crooks
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: understand DNA as well. And I think we're starting to
• 18:29
  Speaker 2: see crooks who can plant a cigarette but from somebody
• 18:32
  Speaker 2: else on a scene, who can manipulate DNA evidence in
• 18:36
  Speaker 2: certain ways. Do you have ways of helping cut through
• 18:40
  Speaker 2: that sort of tactic.
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: Well, no, so that becomes extraordinary difficult.
• 18:44
  Speaker 4: So if they choose to take a cigarette, butter or
• 18:46
  Speaker 4: a drink bottle from somebody and plant that at the
• 18:49
  Speaker 4: scene of their crime, when I'm looking at that biological evidence,
• 18:53
  Speaker 4: I'm not going to know necessarily that that's been a plant.
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: And because we.
• 18:58
  Speaker 4: Cannot determine how will when a DNA has been to
• 19:00
  Speaker 4: post it on an item, So if that drink bottle
• 19:03
  Speaker 4: has been drunk from two weeks before and then place
• 19:05
  Speaker 4: the scene the DNA analysis that we currently do, it's
• 19:08
  Speaker 4: not going to give you any indication of that.
• 19:11
  Speaker 2: I hope we're not giving crooks any ideas about how
• 19:13
  Speaker 2: to how to fraid other people, but it certainly certainly
• 19:15
  Speaker 2: contestable isn't it. And I think the point being that
• 19:18
  Speaker 2: that there has to be correct instruction of juries, correct
• 19:22
  Speaker 2: instruction of police as well about the limitations, and you
• 19:25
  Speaker 2: find yourself in that place, it might not always be
• 19:28
  Speaker 2: a popular place, even for some defense lawyers when you
• 19:31
  Speaker 2: have to give them the news and in fact that
• 19:33
  Speaker 2: the DNA evidence does indicate guilt.
• 19:36
  Speaker 4: Well, yeah, so with DNA evidence whenever, we never can
• 19:40
  Speaker 4: go to that level of guilt and offense level, or
• 19:42
  Speaker 4: we can really say is its presence, And we can't
• 19:45
  Speaker 4: even talk about generally an activity level, so we can't
• 19:48
  Speaker 4: say how that DNA has been depositive. It's been depositive
• 19:50
  Speaker 4: because that person grabbed that individual or you know, circumstances
• 19:54
  Speaker 4: that nature. So all we can really talk about is
• 19:56
  Speaker 4: its presence. And that's why DNA when it comes to
• 19:59
  Speaker 4: it as an evidence in court, is an amazing tool
• 20:01
  Speaker 4: for identification, but.
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: It's only one small part of it picture, and you need.
• 20:05
  Speaker 4: Other evidence to be able to support a prosecution or
• 20:09
  Speaker 4: a defense. So I think you really need to step
• 20:12
  Speaker 4: back and use that the pieces of DNA and DNA
• 20:15
  Speaker 4: information that you have, but investigators need to build their
• 20:18
  Speaker 4: picture with other supporting evidence that's going to get that
• 20:22
  Speaker 4: prosecution over the line if that individual is actually guilty
• 20:25
  Speaker 4: of the alleged defense and if they're not, then they
• 20:28
  Speaker 4: need to defense lawyers who are assisting the defendant need
• 20:33
  Speaker 4: to be aware of all of the limitations to this
• 20:35
  Speaker 4: evidence types so they can have it appropriately addressed in front.
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: Of the court.
• 20:39
  Speaker 3: That's right.
• 20:40
  Speaker 2: And you've also been involved in the identification of people.
• 20:45
  Speaker 2: You're involved, I think in the Balley bombings and also
• 20:47
  Speaker 2: the tsunami later on.
• 20:49
  Speaker 3: That was when you're still working for the police.
• 20:51
  Speaker 4: I guess yeah, I was, And that's always an interesting
• 20:54
  Speaker 4: kind of work that it's more humanitarian type forensic as
• 20:57
  Speaker 4: opposed to being crime forensics.
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: It's very reording work.
• 21:01
  Speaker 2: Tell me about the Barley bombings because that was obviously
• 21:04
  Speaker 2: a huge landmark case in Australian history and the identification
• 21:09
  Speaker 2: of the individuals. It's a hugely important cultural aspect to
• 21:13
  Speaker 2: be able to bury our dead knowing that we're putting
• 21:18
  Speaker 2: the right person in the right grave and that there
• 21:20
  Speaker 2: is closure for families in those situations.
• 21:23
  Speaker 3: Did you feel that weight of responsibility in that job?
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: Oh?
• 21:26
  Speaker 4: Absolutely, And I think for me too, that happened very
• 21:29
  Speaker 4: early in my career. I was very newly employed at
• 21:33
  Speaker 4: the Australian Federal Place. I just finished my honors degree
• 21:36
  Speaker 4: and was a new little scientist in that laboratory and
• 21:39
  Speaker 4: for something of that magnitude to have happened was daunting,
• 21:43
  Speaker 4: overwhelming and challenging. But I'm also incredibly thankful to have
• 21:47
  Speaker 4: been a part of it.
• 21:48
  Speaker 3: And what was your work in that case? What was
• 21:50
  Speaker 3: your role?
• 21:51
  Speaker 4: So I was assisting in the DNA analysis of samples,
• 21:54
  Speaker 4: So we were dealing with the human remains within that laboratory,
• 21:59
  Speaker 4: sampling those human remains and trying to generate DINA information
• 22:02
  Speaker 4: that could then be matched to either reference as sample
• 22:05
  Speaker 4: the missing individuals, or that could be matched to family
• 22:08
  Speaker 4: members of those missing individuals.
• 22:10
  Speaker 2: It must be very satisfying to be able to get
• 22:14
  Speaker 2: a match and to say yes, this is your loved
• 22:17
  Speaker 2: one and you're able to bury them with dignity.
• 22:21
  Speaker 4: It's incredibly important work, it really is. It's incredibly rewarding.
• 22:26
  Speaker 4: It can be quite emotional. I think all of us
• 22:29
  Speaker 4: that worked on those significant operations, particularly the Balley bombings,
• 22:34
  Speaker 4: and I think for me being doing that operation quite
• 22:36
  Speaker 4: new in my career, it was kind of an eye
• 22:39
  Speaker 4: opener as Well, and we were under significant pressure politically.
• 22:43
  Speaker 4: It was very extraordinarily high profile case. There was political
• 22:47
  Speaker 4: pressure involved to try and get results through as quickly
• 22:51
  Speaker 4: as possible. And you know, the forensic biology team at
• 22:54
  Speaker 4: the AFP at that time was a very small team.
• 22:57
  Speaker 4: So it was quickly realized that our team alone was
• 23:01
  Speaker 4: not going to be able to work this operation effectively
• 23:05
  Speaker 4: and get results out quickly.
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: On our own.
• 23:07
  Speaker 4: We were working silly hours like seven days a week,
• 23:12
  Speaker 4: ridiculous hours a day until there was some structure in place.
• 23:15
  Speaker 4: We got outside assistance from other state laboratories and so
• 23:19
  Speaker 4: other scientists from around the country would come into our
• 23:21
  Speaker 4: lab and help us with some of the DNA work
• 23:23
  Speaker 4: and they'd rotate in and out. But to the core
• 23:25
  Speaker 4: bunch of us that were there for pretty much the entirety,
• 23:28
  Speaker 4: i'd say an emotional but a rewarding experience.
• 23:33
  Speaker 3: Yeah. I've been involved a little bit in this field.
• 23:36
  Speaker 2: I was making a podcast for New Southwell's police when
• 23:39
  Speaker 2: a jawbone washed up on the beach at your Mina
• 23:41
  Speaker 2: and Central Coast and they couldn't link it to any
• 23:44
  Speaker 2: existing cases. There was no part of recoveries that could
• 23:47
  Speaker 2: have explained this, and it turned out that it was
• 23:50
  Speaker 2: a young man had fallen off a cliff back in
• 23:51
  Speaker 2: nineteen eighty.
• 23:52
  Speaker 3: He hadn't been recorded as a partial recovery.
• 23:55
  Speaker 2: And so this new technique of forensic investigative genealogical I
• 24:00
  Speaker 2: think I've got that right fig if you cause.
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: Its investigative genetic genealogy, the.
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: One that's the one big was used and the result
• 24:08
  Speaker 2: was achieved, and the last frame of the story was
• 24:12
  Speaker 2: that the family was able to bury that jawbone with
• 24:14
  Speaker 2: the remains of Harry Coleman, and it was a very
• 24:17
  Speaker 2: important piece of closure for that family. And it led
• 24:21
  Speaker 2: me to think that in the future there will be
• 24:23
  Speaker 2: no secrets. We have the technology, we have the expertise
• 24:28
  Speaker 2: now to answer most of these questions around unidentified human
• 24:32
  Speaker 2: remains and even historical sexual assaults, murders and so forth,
• 24:36
  Speaker 2: and we're coming into an era where the scientist will
• 24:40
  Speaker 2: be really at the forefront of investigations, particularly these cold cases.
• 24:45
  Speaker 4: Yes, so FIX it an extraordinarily interesting tool and it
• 24:49
  Speaker 4: has amazing applications and coins we can see in places
• 24:53
  Speaker 4: like the US where it's used with probably a little
• 24:55
  Speaker 4: less stringency than it is here in Australia that they
• 24:58
  Speaker 4: have really achieved some amazing outcomes for the use of
• 25:01
  Speaker 4: BIG but within Australia where we have, you know, slightly
• 25:05
  Speaker 4: more control than people's privacy and things like that that
• 25:08
  Speaker 4: we maintain probably a tighter control on the use of
• 25:11
  Speaker 4: genetic information for identification when you're looking at that extended
• 25:14
  Speaker 4: family range. But an incredible tool, absolutely, and it'll be
• 25:19
  Speaker 4: interesting to see you down the track when it becomes
• 25:21
  Speaker 4: more widely adopted within Australia. Because its use is reasonably
• 25:25
  Speaker 4: limited at this current point in time, I think we
• 25:28
  Speaker 4: are going to see its expanded use and some interesting
• 25:31
  Speaker 4: cases that will be solved by the use of this technology.
• 25:34
  Speaker 3: Absolutely.
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: I think the Somerton Man has been provisionally sold in
• 25:39
  Speaker 2: South Australia. I don't think the coroner has yet accepted it.
• 25:42
  Speaker 2: Then they're not really approving that technique just yet. But
• 25:45
  Speaker 2: I think Colleen Fitzpatrick, I believe, is American scientists who
• 25:48
  Speaker 2: worked on that, and I think she's an extraordinary talent.
• 25:52
  Speaker 2: She's i think, worked on three hundred cases in the
• 25:55
  Speaker 2: US and solving cases left, right and center. And we're
• 25:58
  Speaker 2: going to see it increasingly in Australia, but it will
• 26:00
  Speaker 2: take some time to be adopted, and I think one
• 26:03
  Speaker 2: of the limitations is the inability for scientists to access
• 26:07
  Speaker 2: things like ancestry dot com their DNA databases, and they
• 26:11
  Speaker 2: have to rely on a very small number of samples
• 26:16
  Speaker 2: uploaded to open source databases like I think it's called jedmatch.
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 26:21
  Speaker 2: Do you see privacy issues and the sort of thing
• 26:24
  Speaker 2: preventing its wider use in Australia.
• 26:28
  Speaker 4: Yes, So I do think we have more stringent controls
• 26:31
  Speaker 4: in relation to privacy and its use within this country.
• 26:35
  Speaker 1: And I don't think, you know, it's.
• 26:37
  Speaker 4: Something the FYI got into trouble for right was using
• 26:39
  Speaker 4: databases like ancestry dot com for their crime scene matching,
• 26:43
  Speaker 4: which was probably not the right thing for them to
• 26:45
  Speaker 4: have been doing. But what will happen is the same
• 26:48
  Speaker 4: kind of thing that we saw with the generation about
• 26:51
  Speaker 4: national DNA databases. It will start off small, but over
• 26:55
  Speaker 4: time we'll gradually add more and more profiles to our
• 26:57
  Speaker 4: database and it will become bigger and more useful as
• 27:00
  Speaker 4: we grow. And so I think, you know, while maintaining
• 27:03
  Speaker 4: our civil liberties and privacy, we'll still get at a
• 27:05
  Speaker 4: DNA database for this type of forensic investigative genetic genealogy
• 27:10
  Speaker 4: matching that will will grow and be hugely successful over time.
• 27:14
  Speaker 4: It's just that we will start smaller and we probably
• 27:16
  Speaker 4: won't slap cases earlier on that we might solve down
• 27:19
  Speaker 4: the track. But I think that's a risk that's perfectly
• 27:22
  Speaker 4: acceptable to maintain, to have that balance between investigative purpose
• 27:26
  Speaker 4: and maintaining individual civiliblities and privacy in relations to their
• 27:29
  Speaker 4: genetic data.
• 27:32
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's a public discussion that has to
• 27:33
  Speaker 2: be had, and I think the families of missing persons
• 27:37
  Speaker 2: and victims of sexual assault and so forth, I think
• 27:39
  Speaker 2: they're all on board. But I think the idea that
• 27:42
  Speaker 2: you upload your DNA to ancestry and one day in
• 27:45
  Speaker 2: the future Uncle Jimmy gets charged with the murder because
• 27:49
  Speaker 2: he's matched to your sample on the database maybe is
• 27:52
  Speaker 2: a step too far from many Australians.
• 27:54
  Speaker 3: That's far, but it will happen.
• 27:55
  Speaker 2: In my own case, actually, I discovered that a friend
• 27:58
  Speaker 2: of mine who I'd grown up with was in fact
• 28:00
  Speaker 2: my first cousin because one of my relatives that had
• 28:03
  Speaker 2: a secret affair with a lady somewhere else and the
• 28:08
  Speaker 2: child was put up for adoption. And it is just
• 28:11
  Speaker 2: completely a revelatory so it's really a fantastic field you're in.
• 28:15
  Speaker 2: What do you see the future of the work that
• 28:17
  Speaker 2: you're doing, you know, developing in the future.
• 28:20
  Speaker 4: Oh, so this is probably something I actually kind of
• 28:23
  Speaker 4: struggle with. So I think I kind of have two
• 28:26
  Speaker 4: kind of camps of thought of this, Like, I think
• 28:27
  Speaker 4: we have such amazing research that's going on and tools
• 28:31
  Speaker 4: that are being developed, So not only things like forensic
• 28:34
  Speaker 4: investigative genetic genealogy and big type testing. You know, there's
• 28:37
  Speaker 4: research going on to look at maybe there might be
• 28:39
  Speaker 4: a point in time when we can look at the
• 28:41
  Speaker 4: age of the individual that's deposited the DNA or what
• 28:45
  Speaker 4: we call a time sensed deposition. So was it looking
• 28:48
  Speaker 4: at Marcus from our circadian rhythm? So was it a
• 28:51
  Speaker 4: morning deposition and evening deposition? Things like that though, things
• 28:54
  Speaker 4: that could help scientists really build a bigger picture of
• 28:58
  Speaker 4: what the evidence actually is, opposed to it just being
• 29:01
  Speaker 4: an identifavorable DNA to that individual. Might be able to say, oh,
• 29:05
  Speaker 4: this deposition is a couple of weeks old. It was deposited,
• 29:08
  Speaker 4: you know, in the evening. So those kind of tools
• 29:11
  Speaker 4: that will help build a bigger pigion. They'll also help
• 29:14
  Speaker 4: weed out things like a criminal taking a cigarette but
• 29:17
  Speaker 4: or bottle to an individual. It'll also help investigatively is
• 29:20
  Speaker 4: this old evidence, because that's something that we don't necessarily
• 29:23
  Speaker 4: know when you're going into a crime scene or examining
• 29:26
  Speaker 4: an item.
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: Either is that an old stain?
• 29:28
  Speaker 4: Was that on there from a couple of weeks or
• 29:29
  Speaker 4: was this from the alleged defense. So things like that
• 29:32
  Speaker 4: would be really amazing. And then I don't know, if
• 29:35
  Speaker 4: I put on my little black hat pessimist kind of view,
• 29:37
  Speaker 4: I kind of think the wheels of justice are so
• 29:41
  Speaker 4: slow to turn and evolve, Like how readily are they
• 29:44
  Speaker 4: going to.
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: Accept this kind of new evidence?
• 29:46
  Speaker 4: How I mean, I've been talking about trace DNA and
• 29:48
  Speaker 4: it's limitations for years now, and you know, some of
• 29:51
  Speaker 4: the other limitations in relation to biological fluid testing in
• 29:54
  Speaker 4: the courts for a long time, and I still don't
• 29:58
  Speaker 4: feel like those limitations are really even grasped by the court.
• 30:01
  Speaker 4: Yet often there's no common direction on about how that
• 30:05
  Speaker 4: evidence should be applied to the.
• 30:06
  Speaker 2: Court, because science should always be in the position of
• 30:09
  Speaker 2: applying checks and balances. Yes, it does provide a whole
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: range of new options and outcomes and data, but it's
• 30:17
  Speaker 2: always got to be framed within that principle of beyond
• 30:19
  Speaker 2: reasonable doubt. Just because it appears to be what you
• 30:23
  Speaker 2: think it is and what you hope it is, it
• 30:25
  Speaker 2: may not be.
• 30:26
  Speaker 4: That's correct, and you need to be upfront with what
• 30:29
  Speaker 4: the evidence does mean and what it doesn't mean. So
• 30:32
  Speaker 4: if you've got a sample that's say, for example, produced
• 30:36
  Speaker 4: a positive screening test, so that's a presumptive test for semen.
• 30:40
  Speaker 4: So that's something that labs routinely do, and that goes
• 30:44
  Speaker 4: into the report, and it's a presumptive or screening test
• 30:46
  Speaker 4: for semen was positive.
• 30:47
  Speaker 1: That's going to hold significant sway in the court.
• 30:50
  Speaker 4: Right, and then you've got a DNA profile that matches
• 30:51
  Speaker 4: a defendant. But what is not often disclosed is that
• 30:56
  Speaker 4: screening tests can also produce positive reactions to other substances,
• 31:00
  Speaker 4: including other biological substances. So it can be vaginal secretions,
• 31:03
  Speaker 4: it can be fecal material.
• 31:05
  Speaker 1: To be other plant materials.
• 31:06
  Speaker 4: So when you then look at that DNA identification, if
• 31:09
  Speaker 4: you know that that semen result that positive semena result
• 31:12
  Speaker 4: could actually just be vaginal secretions from the complainant, or
• 31:16
  Speaker 4: it could be plant material, or it could be something
• 31:19
  Speaker 4: else that positive screening test, the significance of that evidence
• 31:23
  Speaker 4: is reduced. And that's where currently there is significant limitations
• 31:27
  Speaker 4: with how the evidence is presented in court because those
• 31:28
  Speaker 4: types of limitations aren't disclosed upfront, and unless a lawyer
• 31:32
  Speaker 4: knows to ask the scientist about it, they'll never be exposed.
• 31:38
  Speaker 2: Just to finish, if you've got any particular case in
• 31:40
  Speaker 2: your career that I guess typifies what you do and
• 31:43
  Speaker 2: the state.
• 31:44
  Speaker 4: Of the science, Oh, I have many, I'm sure you do.
• 31:49
  Speaker 1: I think you know. I love the work that I do.
• 31:52
  Speaker 4: It's not without its challenges, and sometimes I do worry
• 31:56
  Speaker 4: about how forensic evidence is, particularly forensic biology.
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: And DNA evidence is used in the court.
• 32:00
  Speaker 4: So that case example I gave in relation to the
• 32:03
  Speaker 4: semen is actually from a real case that I was
• 32:05
  Speaker 4: involved in. Its actually was a terrible matter where you know,
• 32:09
  Speaker 4: a family member was to have allegedly sexually assaulted a child,
• 32:13
  Speaker 4: and so this person was in contact with the child
• 32:16
  Speaker 4: and had physical contact with them all the time, and
• 32:19
  Speaker 4: so the laboratory conducted a presumptive screening test for the
• 32:23
  Speaker 4: presence of semen on this child's nappy and it produced
• 32:25
  Speaker 4: a positive result and so a report went to the
• 32:27
  Speaker 4: courts in saying that a screening test for semen was
• 32:30
  Speaker 4: positive and then there was a DNA was detected on
• 32:33
  Speaker 4: the nappy that matched both the defendant and the child,
• 32:38
  Speaker 4: and so that's extraordinarily compelling evidence in court. So when
• 32:43
  Speaker 4: the matter was reviewed, I was we were just looking
• 32:45
  Speaker 4: at it and it's just we pulled it apart and
• 32:47
  Speaker 4: that there was speakal material in the nappy and one
• 32:50
  Speaker 4: of the things that causes a positive reaction to that
• 32:53
  Speaker 4: same test for the positive screening test for semen is
• 32:55
  Speaker 4: speak on material, and so that positive reaction could just
• 32:59
  Speaker 4: have likely been caused by the fecal material that was
• 33:01
  Speaker 4: present on the nappy as opposed to being semen.
• 33:04
  Speaker 1: And then the fact that there was DNA involved.
• 33:06
  Speaker 4: We have this trace DNA transfer situation where we know
• 33:09
  Speaker 4: DNA is readily transferred, the individuals are in social and
• 33:12
  Speaker 4: household contact. And so what appeared to be extraordinarily compelling
• 33:16
  Speaker 4: evidence on the surface and would have been extraordinarily compelling
• 33:20
  Speaker 4: to a jury I actually have very little evidentiary value.
• 33:23
  Speaker 4: And so when a report was produced to the court
• 33:27
  Speaker 4: and it was presented to the prosecution, they agreed with
• 33:29
  Speaker 4: everything that was the prosecution scientist. So the scientists from
• 33:32
  Speaker 4: the State Service Provider agreed with everything that was in
• 33:34
  Speaker 4: the report and the advice prosecution of that fact, and
• 33:37
  Speaker 4: then charges were dropped. But in my mind, I feel
• 33:40
  Speaker 4: that the damage to that individual has already been done.
• 33:43
  Speaker 4: You know, his family would have known that charges were
• 33:45
  Speaker 4: brought against him, and I feel like that poor man
• 33:48
  Speaker 4: will be forever tainted in the eyes of his family
• 33:51
  Speaker 4: because of what I considered to be a misleading forensic
• 33:53
  Speaker 4: biology report.
• 33:55
  Speaker 3: Jay, this is incredibly important work you're doing. In your
• 33:58
  Speaker 3: love it.
• 33:58
  Speaker 2: I can feel the enthusiasm that you have for this,
• 34:00
  Speaker 2: and I think if I remember ever accused of a crime,
• 34:02
  Speaker 2: I want you and science on my side.
• 34:04
  Speaker 3: Thanks for your time.
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: They more than welcome. Thank you so much for having me.
• 34:12
  Speaker 2: Let's take get out of independent forensic services and this
• 34:15
  Speaker 2: is a brave new world. But justice still matters, reasonable
• 34:18
  Speaker 2: doubt still matters. It's not just about a laydown masair
• 34:22
  Speaker 2: with DNA present. The police still have to prove their
• 34:25
  Speaker 2: case and I think Jay's Workstening Tip advised that if
• 34:28
  Speaker 2: you've got a crime you want to report, please call
• 34:30
  Speaker 2: Crime Stoppers one eight hundred Triple three Triple zero. If
• 34:34
  Speaker 2: you've got a case you want to talk to me about,
• 34:36
  Speaker 2: please email me Adam Shand writer at gmail dot com.
• 34:39
  Speaker 3: Thank you for listening. This has been Adam Shann for
• 34:41
  Speaker 3: Real Crime. Thanks for listening to this episode and supporting
• 34:54
  Speaker 3: this story.
• 34:55
  Speaker 2: Independent storytelling that shapes the world is what podshape really
• 34:58
  Speaker 2: cares about. Right now, There's thousands of people listening to
• 35:01
  Speaker 2: this show and our other True Crimes, and they're completely engaged.
• 35:05
  Speaker 3: More than ten million Australians listen to podcasts each week.
• 35:08
  Speaker 2: If you've ever thought about advertising your business in a podcast,
• 35:11
  Speaker 2: there's a link to reach out in the show notes,
• 35:14
  Speaker 2: or head to podshape dot com to book a free call.