Today’s Globe reports on a dispute about the recently-released study showing that 16,000 DNA samples remain untested (some going back many years) at the State Police Crime Lab. AG Martha Coakley and several DAs are now saying that the backlog is — and I quote —
only 2,000 active cases
“Only.” OK, a couple of things. First, there may not really be any disagreement.
Public Safety Secretary Kevin M. Burke insisted that the study found 16,000 untested biological samples that must be processed. He said there is only a difference in semantics between his numbers and the lower estimate preferred by prosecutors.
“I think we are on the same book and page about it,” Burke said by telephone. “Everyone is looking at these cases to determine their status, and there will be cases where no action needs to be taken.”
Second, 2,000 active cases is still, well, a lot. So here’s a suggestion for AG Coakley and gang: sure, make sure you set the record straight and all, so that everyone understands the situation. But then join the voices clamoring for the money needed to fix the damn crime lab. Two thousand active cases with untested DNA is way too many, and no one should be making excuses for what appears to be an inexcusable situation.
prioritize.
<
p>
If only one sample must be processed to cross an “active case” off the list, get to it! (SJF). If the probability of getting a conviction hinges on this evidence, prioritize that sample. If the evidence is related to a more heinous crime, prioritize that sample.
<
p>
Even if they get more resources, they won’t be able to clear the queue overnight. So, prioritize!
There’s a disturbing lack of context in this story and these posts, especially given the fear mongering included.
<
p>
Estes and Ellement do a poor job of providing context. They seem to just report the tit-for-tat.
<
p>
It says they tested 500 samples last year, up from 200 the year before. But how many come in? If 300 come in a year, it seems like they’ve turned the corner (going from 200 processed to 500 in a year) and need a temporary boost to catch up.
<
p>
There certainly seems to be a need for more clerical staff to do paper work on what still needs to be tested and what doesn’t.
<
p>
More questions:
How many of the 2,000 pending are going to end up in the category “not required to be tested” as they say many of the 16,000 are because those cases settled or were resolved in other ways?
<
p>
What is the current process for scheduling testing and tracking/classifying samples into “yes, still needs to be tested” piles and “forget it, we don’t need it” piles
<
p>
How many results from tested samples are never used and what does it cost to test for unneccesary results?
<
p>
Why is there such a disconnect between the Governor and the Attorney General/Distric Attorneys on this issue?
<
p>
Feels like both sides are playing politics to a certain degree. So it’s hard to determine what’s actually going on and what needs to be done, if anything.
<
p>
In my mind, reporters are supposed to help us get to the bottom of it.
…and nobody responded.
<
p>
It is uninteresting ab initio that samples weren’t tested. What is interesting is the number of samples in cases whether either the prosecutor or the defense requested that they be tested, and weren’t. What is the latter number.
<
p>
If neither the prosecution nor the defense deemed it necessary to have the samples tested to prove their respective cases, it is a waste of time and resources to test them.
<
p>
I sincerely cannot comprehend why people cannot understand that.
makes a single bad judgment call or isn’t sufficiently competent.
<
p>
That’s not to say that every sliver of evidence gathered by investigators should go straight to the DNA lab… but it seems to me that requests by the prosecution or the defense should be part of the prioritization process, but not the only parts necessary to get some sample analyzed.
…the fact that a prosecutor doesn’t ask for an analysis is more likely that he (or she) believes that it isn’t necessary for him (etc.) to get a conviction, and that a defense attorney doesn’t want an analysis because he (or she) has solid reason to believe that it would be detrimental to his (or her) case, if it were to be brought to trial.
<
p>
In either case, the evidence is apparently preserved for later analysis, if warranted.
<
p>
This is not intended to denigrate the work of Barry Scheck’s Innocence Project, which has done yeomans’ work in getting convictions reversed based on DNA evidence that had not been previously analyzed, but I would suspect that even he would agree that not every case warrants analysis of every bit of evidence that the crime lab receives. CSI notwithstanding.
Cops and prosecuters make decisions on what evidence gets collected and how it is processed, whether fingerprints, dna or phone records.
<
p>
What seems to be the problem over at the crime lab is understanding what is not being tested that should be tested.
<
p>
The fact that the AG and DAs aren’t as concerned makes me believe it’s not as serious a problem as the stories make it out to be. If they weren’t getting what they needed, they’d be squawking, no?
<
p>
If 14,000 of the samples’ records had big orange lables that said “testing not required/requested” would this be a story? Determining what gets labeled that way and applying those labels seems to be the administrative duty that is being neglected.
<
p>
Fix that, then talk about rates of incoming samples vs rate of testing samples.
Thanks a lot raj. I had to go look it up and now I know what “ab initio” means.
<
p>
I’m not sure I can use it as well as you, but I’m young, yet. I still have time to get a place in Germany.
<
p>
Well stated, as always.
Testing even the samples not requested by prosecutors or the defense is worth it, in my opinion, if it might lead to proving someone’s guilt OR innocence in a different crime. It’s hard to do a cost-benefit analysis on something that could so dramatically affect one person’s life.