DOCSLIB.ORG

Beattie2018 Redacted.Pdf (2.328Mb)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beattie2018 Redacted.Pdf (2.328Mb) Declaration In accordance with Regulation 25 of the Assessment Regulations for Research Degrees at the University of Edinburgh, I certify that this thesis I have presented for examination for the PhD degree of the University of Edinburgh is entirely my own work, except where explicitly indicated otherwise throughout the thesis by reference or acknowledgment. This work has not been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification. John Beattie Date i Abstract The aim of this thesis is to investigate and further understanding of the interaction between paediatricians providing expert opinion evidence in cases of alleged child abuse and the various fact-findings tribunals who require their expertise. My original contribution to this largely unexplored area of scholarship lies in the identification and analysis of potential frailties particular to the setting and process of paediatric expert assessment of cases of alleged child abuse that need to be recognised and accounted for in order to ensure that, as far as possible, expert paediatricians provide reliable opinion evidence. Specifically, informed by extensive practical experience, I deconstruct and examine the various elements that together constitute the sequential process of expert diagnostic decision- making and opinion generation. First, drawing on empirical research and theoretical constructs from a range of knowledge domains, particularly behavioural psychology and cognitive neuroscience, I consider emerging research on human factors that may influence clinical decision-making and forensic judgments, and apply this evolving understanding to the process of paediatric forensic interpretation. Here I expose a variety of potential biasing factors specific to the child protection setting that may impact on expert paediatricians’ rational judgments that an injury may abusive in origin. I then move on to provide a detailed critique of the evidence base on which such paediatric expert clinical judgments and opinions must be based. Acknowledging the absence of a gold standard test for abuse, I question some fundamental aspects of the proxy indicators of abuse currently promoted as the basis for expert opinions, before discussing the challenges for legal fact-finders tasked with interpretation of those opinions by the absence of an agreed semantic hierarchy with which the certainty of expert conclusions might be qualified. ii Finally, having shown that in the context of child abuse assessment there are indeed a variety of potential threats to paediatricians’ objective forensic judgments, I use alleged “shaken baby” cases as an exemplar topic to expose those frailties within such cases, and explore the challenges posed for the courts in dealing with complex and evolving paediatric expert evidence. I conclude that neither the law nor legal institutions can resolve these threats to objective expert forensic decision-making alone, and that such frailties need to be recognised and accounted for by both individual paediatric experts and the wider child protection community. iii Lay Summary This thesis seeks to improve understanding of a particularly challenging area of forensic practice – expert paediatric evidence in cases of alleged murder or abuse of infants and young children. Such cases are complex for a number of reasons, but perhaps most notably because those who come under suspicion are usually a child’s parent or caregiver. For the families involved, even if such allegations do not lead to criminal proceedings, the effects of such investigations are likely to be life-changing. The courts depend almost exclusively on the expertise of paediatricians and other doctors to provide opinion evidence to help them decide whether any injuries found are natural or likely to have been inflicted. If experts get it wrong it may mean, on the one hand, an innocent parent going to jail, on the other, a vulnerable child returned to be further injured or killed. The stakes are high for all concerned. From the perspective of an experienced paediatric expert witness, I examine various core components of the process of forensic evaluation of young children with suspicious injuries. I consider whether there are frailties inherent to such evaluations that might undermine the objective judgments of expert paediatricians and thus affect the reliability of the opinions they provide to the courts. I discuss a variety of potential problems that expert paediatricians should be aware of and take in to account in formulating their expert opinions. These include the risk from various unconscious biases and the emotive nature of such cases, weaknesses in the scientific evidence base on which such judgments must be based, and the lack of an agreed common language by which experts can explain the certainty, or otherwise, of their conclusions. I also discuss the particular challenges faced by the courts in ensuring that, in complex cases such as alleged “shaken babies”, their decisions are firmly based on reliable expert opinion evidence. iv Acknowledgements Pursuing a PhD thesis in the afterglow of retirement from a professional career is a little unusual, and setting aside the personal demands, such an endeavour presents particular challenges for those tasked with guiding and monitoring an individual much more attuned to being a supervisor than a supervisee. All those involved with this work could not have been more helpful or supportive. I would like to thank Professor Sheila McLean, Professor Emerita of Law and Ethics in Medicine, University of Glasgow, for her encouragement and advice when I first raised the possibility of pursuing this project. She warned me that a PhD “was a huge step up from a Masters” – and she was right! Professor James Chalmers, then Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Edinburgh, was very encouraging in response to my initial enquiry and subsequent PhD application. I thank him for that, and for his excellent supervision during my first year at Edinburgh Law School, before he moved to the Regius Professorship at Glasgow University. For the last six years I have been supported and guided in this project by Professor Burkhard Schafer and Professor Graeme Laurie. I have benefitted greatly from their combined wisdom, breadth of knowledge and guidance, in particular the skill they quietly applied in steering me in the right direction when my focus drifted towards “interesting” side issues. Their differing backgrounds and approaches combined extremely well to provide the blend of supervision I needed, and I cannot thank them enough for their help in bringing this project to a conclusion. Any insightful analysis is likely to be down to them; any errors are mine. Many individuals have also provided me with practical advice or other support at various times. However, I would particularly like in to thank the following: Dr Geoff Debelle, Officer for Child Protection, RCPCH, for information on trends in NAHI convictions in England, and in relation the experience, or otherwise, of child protection paediatricians with pre-trial expert meetings in the English criminal prosecution system. Professor Gary Edmond, School of Law, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, for providing pre-prints of his papers on expert evidence. Mr Mike Hally, producer, SquareDog Radio, for supplying me with a digital copy of the Radio 4 broadcast “Peer Review in the Dock”, presented by Mark Whitaker in 2008. v Mr Jason Harper, Content Strategy Manager, Charles Seale-Hayne Library, University of Plymouth, for his time and expertise in resolving coding errors in my Refworks reference manager software application. Dr Patrick Kelly, Director, Te Puaruruhau (Child Protection, Shaken Baby Prevention and Family Violence Intervention), Starship Children's Hospital, Auckland, for providing information on secular trends in infant abusive head injury prosecutions in New Zealand. Ms Gill Moreton, Cognitive Behavioural Therapist, Rivers Centre for Traumatic Stress, NHS Lothian, for advice on the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder literature in relation to child protection workers. Dr Catherine Skellern, Consultant Paediatrician, Child Protection and Forensic Medicine, Lady Cilento Childrens Hospital, Brisbane, Australia, for providing pre-publication copy of her paper on minimising bias in the forensic evaluation of suspicious paediatric injury. Dr Amanda Stephens, Emergency Department, Westmead Hospital, New South Wales, Australia for providing me with personal electronic copies of selected chapters from her 2011 PhD thesis deposited at the University of Sydney: “Legal Outcomes in Non-accidental Head Injury ('Shaken Baby Syndrome') Cases: Inevitable Inconsistencies?” I acknowledge the generous permission of Lord Woolman and the anonymous agreement of a Scottish Appeal Court judge in allowing me access to Lord Woolman’s confidential report in relation to Ms Kimberley Hainey’s appeal against her murder conviction (Chapter 2). Finally, I wish to thank Ago (Dr Agomoni Ganguli-Mitra, Co-Director, Mason Institute), and the disparate attendees at the Mason Institute writing retreats for their fellowship, knowledge, gossip and humour during our boot camp sessions. I will almost miss those long days. vi Dedication As anyone who has embarked on a PhD knows, pursuing such a goal demands many things, including a measure of self-centred focus and a dogged determination to see such a marathon through to the end. However, one of the most important requirements is a loyal friend to accompany you on the journey, to sympathise
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health British Paediatric Surveillance Unit
    Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health British Paediatric Surveillance Unit 14th Annual Report 1999/2000 The British Paediatric Surveillance Unit always welcomes invitations to give talks describing the work of the Unit and makes every effort to respond to these positively. Enquiries should be directed to our office. The Unit positively encourages recipients to copy and circulate this report to colleagues, junior staff and medical students. Additional copies are available from our office, to which any enquiries should be addressed. Published September 2000 by the: British Paediatric Surveillance Unit A unit within the Research Division of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health 50 Hallam Street London W1W 6DE Telephone: 44 (0) 20 7307 5680 Facsimile: 44 (0) 20 7307 5690 E-mail: [email protected] Registered Charity No. 1057744 ISBN 1 900954 48 6 © British Paediatric Surveillance Unit British Paediatric Surveillance Unit - 14 Annual Report 1999-2000 Compiled and edited by Richard Lynn, Angus Nicoll, Jugnoo Rahi and Chris Verity Membership of Executive Committee 1999/2000 Dr Christopher Verity Chairman Dr Angus Clarke Co-opted Professor Richard Cooke Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Research Division Dr Patricia Hamilton Co-opted Professor Peter Kearney Faculty of Paediatrics, Royal College of Physicians of Ireland Dr Jugnoo Rahi Medical Adviser Dr Ian Jones Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health Dr Christopher Kelnar Co-opted Dr Gabrielle Laing Co-opted Mr Richard Lynn Scientific Co-ordinator
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Analysis of Medical Opinion Evidence in Child Homicide Cases
    A critical analysis of medical opinion evidence in child homicide cases Sharmila Betts B.A. (Hons.), University of Sydney, 1985 M. Psychol., University of Sydney, 1987 A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Law, The University of New South Wales (Sydney). i ii iii Acknowledgements No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof. Henry David Thoreau I am a Clinical Psychologist practicing since 1987. My time at a tertiary level Child Protection Team at The Sydney Children’s Hospital, Randwick, Australia brought to my attention the pivotal role of medical opinion evidence in establishing how children sustained injuries, which were sometimes fatal. This thesis began in a Department of Psychology, but I transferred to a Law Faculty. Though I am not a lawyer, the thesis endeavours to examine medico-legal and psychological aspects of sudden unexplained infant deaths. It sets itself the task of addressing important questions requiring rigorous and critical analysis to ensure accuracy and justice is achieved. I hope my thesis sheds light on this complex issue. Gary Edmond has been a mentor, guide and staunch critic. I am deeply grateful that he trusted a novice to navigate this perplexing field of inquiry. Emma Cunliffe has provided clarity in an area shrouded in uncertainty. Their patience, support and faith have enabled me to crystalise and formulate my fledgling insights into a dissertation. I am indebted to Natalie Tzovaras, Monique Ross, Katie Poidomani, and Janet Willinge for their administrative support. My husband, Grant, posed the question that started my journey - ‘how do doctors know the injuries were deliberately inflicted?’ Through my many doubts and fears, he iv maintained a trust in my ability to address this question and helped me return time and again to the seemingly overwhelming task before me.
    [Show full text]
  • Filicide: the Australian Story
    Children Australia Filicide: the Australian story www.cambridge.org/cha Thea Brown1 , Danielle Tyson2 and Paula Fernandez Arias1 1Department of Social Work, Monash University, Caulfield East, VIC, Australia and 2Criminology, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia Review Article Abstract Cite this article: Brown T, Tyson D, and A filicide death, meaning the killing of a child by their parent or equivalent guardian, is a tragic Fernandez Arias P (2020). Filicide: the Australian story. Children Australia 45:279–284. event. Sadly, a UK study suggests Australia has the fourth highest rate of filicide among similar https://doi.org/10.1017/cha.2020.47 developed nations. Since Australian research studies on the incidence of filicide, or indeed on any other aspect of the problem, are limited, it is impossible to know if this finding is correct or Received: 13 May 2020 not. However, in the last several years more research on filicide has emerged in Australia and by Revised: 25 August 2020 Accepted: 25 August 2020 reviewing the recent research in detail, this article develops an integrated analysis of Australian filicide research and contributes to the knowledge bank on Australian filicide that can be used Keywords: by professionals undertaking practice and research in intervention and prevention. Analysis of Filicide; filicide victims; victim vulnerability; the studies shows one child dies at the hands of a parent every fortnight and that this number filicide perpetrators; filicide in Australia; filicide rates; perpetrator profiles; filicide risks; has not changed for many years. The analysis identifies the profiles of victims and perpetrators. domestic violence; mental illness; partnership The constellation of circumstances and stressors associated with each of the parental perpetrator breakdown; substance abuse; criminal history; groups is discussed, including the perpetrators’ contact with, and mostly unsuccessful use of, filicide prevention services.
    [Show full text]
  • Kathleen Folbigg Homepage This Page Set up by Dr Robert N Moles
    Networked Knowledge Media Reports Networked Knowledge Kathleen Folbigg Homepage This page set up by Dr Robert N Moles [Underlining where it occurs is for NetK editorial emphasis] On 12 March 2021 Quentin McDermott of the BBC reported ‘Kathleen Folbigg: Could science free Australian jailed for killing babies?’ Imagine for a moment what it must feel like if, as a mother, you give birth to four children, one after another, each of whom, as infants, dies from natural causes over a 10-year period. Then imagine being wrongly accused of smothering them all and being sentenced to 30 years in jail for four terrible crimes you did not commit. That narrative is emerging as potentially the true story of Kathleen Folbigg, an Australian mother from the Hunter Valley region of New South Wales (NSW). Branded at her trial in 2003 as "Australia's worst female serial killer", Folbigg has already spent nearly 18 years in prison after being found guilty of the manslaughter of her firstborn Caleb, and the murder of her three subsequent children, Patrick, Sarah and Laura. But now, fresh scientific evidence is turning this case on its head. Last week a petition signed by 90 eminent scientists, science advocates and medical experts was handed to the Governor of NSW, requesting a pardon for Folbigg and her immediate release. Among the signatories were two Nobel laureates and two Australians of the Year, a former chief scientist, and the president of the Australian Academy of Science, Professor John Shine, who commented: "Given the scientific and medical evidence that now exists in this case, signing this petition was the right thing to do." If Folbigg is freed and her convictions are overturned, her ordeal will be seen as the worst miscarriage of justice in Australia's history - worse even than the case of Lindy Chamberlain, who served three years in prison after being wrongly convicted of murdering her baby, Azaria, at Uluru.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 Which Was Introduced by the Civil Law (Wrongs) Amendment Act 2005 and Commenced on 23 February 2006
    PROTECTING REPUTATION DEFAMATION PRACTICE, PROCEDURE AND PRECEDENTS THE MANUAL by Peter Breen Protecting Reputation Defamation Practice, Procedure and Precedents THE MANUAL © Peter Breen 2014 Peter Breen & Associates Solicitors 164/78 William Street East Sydney NSW 2011 Tel: 0419 985 145 Fax: (02) 9331 3122 Email: [email protected] www.defamationsolicitor.com.au Contents Section 1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 Section 2 Current developments and recent cases ................................................. 5 Section 3 Relevant legislation and jurisdiction ..................................................... 11 3.1 Uniform Australian defamation laws since 2006 ........................................ 11 3.2 New South Wales law [Defamation Act 2005] ........................................... 11 3.3 Victoria law [Defamation Act 2005] .......................................................... 13 3.4 Queensland law [Defamation Act 2005] ..................................................... 13 3.5 Western Australia law [Defamation Act 2005] .......................................... 13 3.6 South Australia law [Defamation Act 2005] .............................................. 14 3.7 Tasmania law [Defamation Act 2005] ........................................................ 14 3.8 Northern Territory law [Defamation Act 2006] .......................................... 15 3.9 Australian Capital Territory law [Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002] ............. 15 3.10
    [Show full text]
  • Bad Medicine: Parents, the State, and the Charge of “Medical Child Abuse”
    Bad Medicine: Parents, the State, and the Charge of “Medical Child Abuse” ∗ Maxine Eichner † Doctors and hospitals have begun to level a new charge — “medical child abuse” (MCA) — against parents who, they say, get unnecessary medical treatment for their kids. The fact that this treatment has been ordered by other doctors does not protect parents from these accusations. Child protection officials have generally supported the accusing doctors in these charges, threatening parents with loss of custody, removing children from their homes, and even sometimes charging parents criminally for this asserted overtreatment. Judges, too, have largely treated such charges as credible claims of child abuse. ∗ Copyright © 2016 Maxine Eichner. Graham Kenan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law; J.D., Ph.D. I am grateful for comments from and conversations with an interdisciplinary group of readers: Alexa Chew, J.D.; Christine Cox, J.D.; Hannah Eichner; Keith Findley, J.D.; Victor Flatt, J.D.; Michael Freeman, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H.; Steven Gabaeff, M.D.; Mark Graber, M.D.; Heidi Harkins, Ph.D.; Clare Huntington, J.D.; Diana Rugh Johnson, J.D.; Joan Krause, J.D.; Michael Laposata, M.D., Ph.D.; Holning Lau, J.D.; Sue Luttner; Beth Maloney, J.D.; Loren Pankratz, Ph.D.; Maya Manian, J.D.; Rachel Rebouche, J.D.; Diane Redleaf, J.D.; Maria Savasta-Kennedy, J.D.; Richard Saver, J.D.; Jessica Shriver, M.A., M.S.; Adam Stein, J.D.; Eric Stein, J.D.; Beat Steiner, M.D., M.P.H.; Judy Stone, M.D.; Deborah Tuerkheimer, J.D.; Catherine Volponi, J.D; and Deborah Weissman, J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health British Paediatric Surveillance Unit
    Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health British Paediatric Surveillance Unit 15th Annual14th14Annual Report Report 2000-2001 1998/99 The British Paediatric Surveillance Unit (BPSU) welcomes invitations to give talks on the work of the Unit and takes every effort to respond positively. Enquiries should be made direct to the BPSU office. The BPSU positively encourages recipients to copy and circulate this report to colleagues, junior staff and medical students. Additional copies are available from the BPSU office, alternatively the report can be viewed via the BPSU website. Published September 2001 by the: British Paediatric Surveillance Unit A unit within the Research Division of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health 50 Hallam Street London W1W 6DE Telephone: 44 (0) 020 7307 5680 Facsimile: 44 (0) 020 7307 5690 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://bpsu.rcpch.ac.uk Registered Charity no 1057744 ISBN 1-900954-54-0 © British Paediatric Surveillance Unit British Paediatric Surveillance Unit – Annual Report 2000-2001 Compiled and edited by Richard Lynn, Hilary Kirkbride, Jugnoo Rahi and Chris Verity, September 2001 Membership of Executive Committee 2000/2001 Dr Christopher Verity Chair Dr Angus Clarke Professor Richard Cooke Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Research Division Mrs Linda Haines Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Research Division Dr Patricia Hamilton Dr Ian Jones Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health Professor Peter Kearney Faculty of Paediatrics, Royal College of Physicians
    [Show full text]
  • Dr Barbara Mary Ansell
    Archives of Disease in Childhood 1997;77:279–280 279 Arch Dis Child: first published as 10.1136/adc.77.4.279 on 1 October 1997. Downloaded from ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD The Journal of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health James Spence Medallist 1997 Dr Barbara Mary Ansell At the first Annual Meeting of the Royal College of Paedi- atrics and Child Health, in April at the University of York, the President, Professor Sir Roy Meadow, presented the James Spence Medal to Dr Barbara Ansell, with this citation. 1997 is the 100th Anniversary of George Frederic Still’s description of chronic joint disease in children. At least seven diVerent forms of idiopathic arthritis that commence in childhood are now recognised, and no-one has done more than today’s James Spence Medallist in defining these disorders and improving their management. Dr Barbara Ansell fulfils to the limit the criteria by which our premier award, the James Spence Medal, is awarded—for outstand- ing contributions to the advancement or clarification of http://adc.bmj.com/ paediatric knowledge. Barbara Ansell was educated at King’s High School for Girls in Warwick before entering, as a medical student, Birmingham University, from which she qualified in 1946. Thus, she has experienced the first 50 years of the National Health Service, and in many ways she exemplifies all that has been best about our health service in its first 50 years—the development of specialty services and, in on October 1, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. particular, specialty services for children, the development of child and family centred services, the advent of clinical trials, the delivery of care for chronic disorders by multidisciplinary teams, and the availability of expert care on an equitable basis, and (though I hope it does not sound patronising) one of the most important aspects of today’s health service, the stature and role of women doctors, for whom opportunities previously were so limited.
    [Show full text]
  • Chance News (July-August 2005)
    Chance News (July-August 2005) From ChanceWiki Table of contents 1 Quotation 2 Forsooth 3 A Probability problem 4 Misperception of minorities and immigrants 5 I was quoting the statistics, I wasn't pretending to be a statistician 6 What women want 7 Rules of engagement - modelling conflict 8 How people respond to terrorist attacks 9 Can you get fired over the wording of a questionnaire? 10 You can't just go on telly and make up statistics, can you? 11 The more the merrier? First born do better at school 12 Racial Profiling Quotation Numbers are like people; torture them enough and they'll tell you anything. Forsooth Frank Duckworth, editor of the Royal Statistical Society's newsletter RSS NEWS has given us permission to include items from their Forsooth column which they extract forsooth items from media sources. Of course we would be happy to have readers add items they feel are worthy of a forsooth! From the February 2005 RSS news we have: Glasgow's odds (on a white Christmas) had come in to 8-11, while Aberdeen was at 5-6, meaning snow in both cities is considered almost certain. BBC website 22 December 2004 From the May 2005 RSS News: He tried his best--but in the end newborn Casey-James May missed out on a 48 million-to-one record by four minutes. His father Sean, grandfather Dered and great-grandfather Alistair were all born on the same date - March 2. But Casey-James was delivered at 12.04 am on March 3.... Metro 10 March 2005 In the US, those in the poorest households have nearly four times the risk of death of those in the richest.
    [Show full text]
  • Sudden Infant Death Or Murder? a Royal Confusion About Probabilities Neven Sesardic
    Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 58 (2007), 299–329 Sudden Infant Death or Murder? A Royal Confusion About Probabilities Neven Sesardic ABSTRACT In this article I criticize the recommendations of some prominent statisticians about how to estimate and compare probabilities of the repeated sudden infant death and repeated murder. The issue has drawn considerable public attention in connection with several recent court cases in the UK. I try to show that when the three components of the Bayesian inference are carefully analyzed in this context, the advice of the statisticians turns out to be problematic in each of the steps. 1 Introduction 2 Setting the Stage: Bayes’s Theorem 3 Prior Probabilities of Single SIDS and Single Homicide 4 Prior Probabilities of the Recurrence of SIDS and Homicide 5 Likelihoods of Double SIDS and Double Homicide 6 Posterior Probabilities of Double SIDS and Double Homicide 7 Conclusion 1 Introduction There has been a lot of publicity recently about several women in the United Kingdom who were convicted of killing their own children after each of these mothers had two or more of their infants die in succession and under suspicious circumstances. (A few of these convictions were later overturned on appeal.) The prosecutor’s argument and a much discussed opinion of a crucial expert witness in all these court cases relied mainly on medical evidence but a probabilistic reasoning also played a (minor) role. It was this latter, probabilistic aspect of the prosecutor’s case that prompted a number of statisticians to issue a general warning about what they regarded The Author (2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Forensics Under Fire.Pdf
    Prelims.qxd 11/14/07 2:28 PM Page i Forensics under Fire Prelims.qxd 11/14/07 2:28 PM Page ii Prelims.qxd 11/14/07 2:28 PM Page iii ≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈ Forensics under Fire Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice? JIM FISHER ≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈ RUTGERS UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY, AND LONDON Prelims.qxd 11/14/07 2:28 PM Page iv LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Fisher, Jim, – Forensics under fire : are bad science and dueling experts corrupting criminal justice? / Jim Fisher. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN ‒‒‒‒ (hardcover : alk. paper) . Criminal investigation—United States. Crime scene searches—United States. Forensic sciences—United States. Evidence, Criminal—United States I. Title. HV.F .—dc CIP A British Cataloging-in-Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. Copyright © by Jim Fisher All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher. Please contact Rutgers University Press, Joyce Kilmer Avenue, Piscataway, NJ –. The only exception to this prohibition is “fair use” as defined by U.S. copyright law. Visit our Web site: http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu Manufactured in the United States of America Prelims.qxd 11/14/07 2:28 PM Page v It is through clues that we form our opinion about the facts of a case. There is only one alternative: to catch the culprit red-handed. —Theodore Reik, The Compulsion to Confess, 1959 Clues are tangible signs which prove—or seem to prove—that no crime can be committed by thought only and that we live in a world regulated by mechanical laws.
    [Show full text]
  • The Family Defender, Issue 16, Winter 2014
    The Family Defender ADVOCATING FOR CHILDREN & FAMILIES TOGETHER A Child Protection Watchdog Group Issue 16 Winter 2014 IN THIS ISSUE: FOCUS ON DCFS OVERREACHING (PART I) AND NEW NATIONAL ADVOCACY PROJECT EXPANDS CENTER’S IMPACT See box on page 4 describing this special issue. It takes a historic team to win a landmark victory for Julie Q (center)! Pictured here are (l to r) Darren Fish, Family Defense Briefs Liz Butler, Ajay Atavale, Sara Block, Steven Pick, Julie Q., Precious Jacobs, Michael T. Brody, Melissa Staas See page 2 and Richard Cozzola. Julie Q.’s Illinois Supreme Court victory declared Allegation 60 void, but unfortu- Message from the Executive Director nately, DCFS continues to use it, so new litigation (Ashley M. suit described below) had to be filed. See page 20 FEATURES: The Family Defense Center Promotes Affirmative Ashley M. v. DCFS: Class Action Lawsuit Legislative Changes in 2014 See page 3 Seeks to End DCFS’s Continued Use of Mother And Child File Civil Rights Suit Against DCFS Director Alleging Discrimination And Due Process Violations Related To Family Separation, Allegation 60 “Environment Injurious” Demand For Unneeded Psychiatric Hospitaliza- tion And Unauthorized Restrictions On Familial As a Basis for Finding Child Neglect Rights See page 5 By Melissa L. Staas Because so many persons continue to be wrongly “Factitious Disorder by Proxy” Allegations: DCFS investigated and indicated for the invalid Allega- On September 3, 2013, the Family Defense Cen- Investigators Diagnose and Indicate Mothers tion 60, the Ashley M. lawsuit has the potential to ter, along with co-counsel Michael T.
    [Show full text]