In Dallas today, a committee of the Forensic Science Commission will be vetting details of misconduct allegations at the Austin PD crime lab, specifically that they issued preliminary reports without performing any tests, a practice known as drylabbing, and produced results that contradicted findings of a private lab in at least three cases. In a complaint to the commission, a private, Dallas-area lab director wrote to the commission that, "we have worked several cases behind Austin PD's controlled substance lab and found problems so large, I feel I am ethically bound to bring them to your attention," reported the Austin Statesman in a story previewing the meeting.
Wish I could be there for it. (See the agenda.) Presumably, the FSC will discuss the case again at its April 13 meeting in Austin.
Related:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
4 comments:
You got the love the media and lawyer techno speak!
"at the Austin PD crime lab, specifically that they issued preliminary reports without performing any tests, a practice known as drylabbing, and produced results that contradicted findings of a private lab in at least three cases."
Where i come from this is called
FRAUD!
Lies!
Falisificaton of the GOVT DOCUMENT
all FELONY CRIMES!
that mean someone is headed out of the lab in HANDCUFFS not some whitewash comission!
The FSC dismissed the allegations submitted by the former lab analyst back in October 2011 (see complaint #11-07). The FSC declared the allegations as a human resources issue, outside the FSC's jurisdiction.
Why is still on the agenda for discussion?
Anon 12:17-
Laziness, incompetence, corruption.
The FSC members are crime lab managers themselves. God forbid that an lab analyst is given a public forum to air the dirty laundry that crime lab managers themselves are responsible for.
The allegations submitted for 11-07 have since been presented to the public online, and they definitely don't fall into the Human Resources category.
Now the FSC is backpedaling.
No doubt other forensic analysts have submitted complaints to the FSC. They just aren't revealed.
To 12:17
My understanding is that the Commission received new complaints related to controlled substance testing from a private lab. But rather than simply creating a new complaint, they reactivated the closed complaint and added the new materials to it. To my mind it would have been more straight-forward to just create a new complaint. But that's just me.
Post a Comment