Comments on: Problems at Defense Forensics Computer Laboratory http://www.caaflog.com/2007/11/05/problems-at-defense-forensics-computer-laboratory/ Covering the Military Justice System Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:54:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: R. Johnson http://www.caaflog.com/2007/11/05/problems-at-defense-forensics-computer-laboratory/comment-page-1/#comment-25901 R. Johnson Mon, 07 Feb 2011 17:07:37 +0000 http://tx18.westnic.net/~caaflog/?p=724#comment-25901 I am confused as to why the lab director who was present before, during and after this fiasco is still employed there. Plus he was recognized with a top DOD civilian award recently. I am confused as to why the lab director who was present before, during and after this fiasco is still employed there. Plus he was recognized with a top DOD civilian award recently.

]]> By: usmcinjustice http://www.caaflog.com/2007/11/05/problems-at-defense-forensics-computer-laboratory/comment-page-1/#comment-3199 usmcinjustice Tue, 27 May 2008 14:24:00 +0000 http://tx18.westnic.net/~caaflog/?p=724#comment-3199 Surpising nothing more has been mentioned about this issue at the USACIL. They supposedly re-worked all of Mr. Philip R. Mills' cases, back to 1995, using some 'high speed' DNA anaylsts like Drs. Arty Isenberg from Texas and Bob Shaler from the NYC Medical Examiner's office (9-11/WTC fame). Although nothing has been published (or is being released by the USACIL), Mr. Mills' impact on numerous cases is still pending. He worked over 450 cases, sixty of which were re-tested. Of the others, either evidence has been destroyed or those convicted pled with the government for reduced sentences. The CID command out of Fort Belvoir, VA did an admin inquiry (their SOCO) and that report is very interesting reading for anyone seriously interested in this matter. Over 250 pages of interviews, statements and exhibits that shows Mr. Mills wasn't only screwing up numerous cases but, his co0-workers had very little confidence in his work product. I'm talking about CODIS entries that were wrong, contamination in cases (not only those mentioned in the lab's memos, as well as falsification of reports. One co-worker was told (whn he started working at the lab) to be careful when he 'tech reviewed' Mills' work because he missed alot. Cases are still pending review at the service appellate courts - Luke being one of the first - and the government (and the USACIL) don't seem to be doing anything to correct such a mistake. Surpising nothing more has been mentioned about this issue at the USACIL. They supposedly re-worked all of Mr. Philip R. Mills’ cases, back to 1995, using some ‘high speed’ DNA anaylsts like Drs. Arty Isenberg from Texas and Bob Shaler from the NYC Medical Examiner’s office (9-11/WTC fame). Although nothing has been published (or is being released by the USACIL), Mr. Mills’ impact on numerous cases is still pending. He worked over 450 cases, sixty of which were re-tested. Of the others, either evidence has been destroyed or those convicted pled with the government for reduced sentences. The CID command out of Fort Belvoir, VA did an admin inquiry (their SOCO) and that report is very interesting reading for anyone seriously interested in this matter. Over 250 pages of interviews, statements and exhibits that shows Mr. Mills wasn’t only screwing up numerous cases but, his co0-workers had very little confidence in his work product. I’m talking about CODIS entries that were wrong, contamination in cases (not only those mentioned in the lab’s memos, as well as falsification of reports. One co-worker was told (whn he started working at the lab) to be careful when he ‘tech reviewed’ Mills’ work because he missed alot. Cases are still pending review at the service appellate courts – Luke being one of the first – and the government (and the USACIL) don’t seem to be doing anything to correct such a mistake.

]]> By: Phil Cave http://www.caaflog.com/2007/11/05/problems-at-defense-forensics-computer-laboratory/comment-page-1/#comment-1517 Phil Cave Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:04:00 +0000 http://tx18.westnic.net/~caaflog/?p=724#comment-1517 Not so similar to USACIL. Recollect, USACIL let their rogue go, gave him more training, put him back to work, and then caught him again. Only after the second time did they tell anyone outside their building.<br/><br/>Here, at least DCFL told someone outside their building. What is important is that their general counsel has not alerted anyone who may have prosecuted any case? At least that's what the letter implys.<br/><br/>The question is when do we find out which examiner by name so we can check cases. Not so similar to USACIL. Recollect, USACIL let their rogue go, gave him more training, put him back to work, and then caught him again. Only after the second time did they tell anyone outside their building.

Here, at least DCFL told someone outside their building. What is important is that their general counsel has not alerted anyone who may have prosecuted any case? At least that’s what the letter implys.

The question is when do we find out which examiner by name so we can check cases.

]]>