Huge problems at (UK) forensics labs.

MikeG · 21st November 2017, 10:24 AM

Graudiun

Quote:

Officers leading investigation into alleged data manipulation at forensic laboratory say impact of inquiry is ‘profound’.

Policing chiefs say confidence in the criminal justice system has been rocked by the alleged manipulation of data at a forensics laboratory that has led to the review of 10,000 cases across England and Wales.

3point14 · 21st November 2017, 10:37 AM

When were these things privatised?

MikeG · 21st November 2017, 10:42 AM

About 5 years ago, I think.

LTC8K6 · 21st November 2017, 10:56 AM

I think we have had similar problems with several such labs here in the USA. Not at private labs, either.

BStrong · 21st November 2017, 11:19 AM

Our most recent local lab scandal:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/S...ng-3270657.php

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...r18-story.html

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...ms-3263797.php

And the disposition of the case:

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/...commentlistpos

What was publicly revealed was the tip of the iceberg.

Captain_Swoop · 21st November 2017, 02:57 PM

Yes, the tories decided that the Government Forensic Service was too inefficient and private labs could be contrscted to do the work for a fraction of the cost at far greater efficiency (because market forces etc). tHEY closed all the government labs and sacked all the experienced scientists and technicians and got rid of decades of experience.
Instead of a central government run and controlled department each seperate police force makes it's own arrangements with private labs.

There was an interview this afternoon or Radio 4 with one of the former directors of the GFS, he predicted this would happen when the service was shut down and was saying 'I told you so'.

Under the old system test samples were sent 'blind' to the government labs. These looked like live cases but the expected results were already known to the quality department. In addition the same cases were sent to several different govt labs and the results cross checked.
Under the new system the private contractors certify themselves with no outside quality control.
They have an incentive to cut costs on already thin margins and push as many as they can through as quickly as possible to compete with other similar labs offering their services to the police forces.

fuelair · 21st November 2017, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I think we have had similar problems with several such labs here in the USA. Not at private labs, either.

FBI lab has been known/noted for some iirc (and I do).

Henri McPhee · 22nd November 2017, 01:57 AM

That's the fault of that plonker Cameron. Practically the first thing he did when he became Prime Minister was to close the government Forensic Science Service in Birmingham, UK, which had a world-wide reputation for high standards and research. It looks like forensics has now become like the FBI hair and fiber department in America, with its forensic fraud. This could put an innocent accused person in grave peril, as happened to Jeffrey MacDonald.

Darat · 22nd November 2017, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

That's the fault of that plonker Cameron. Practically the first thing he did when he became Prime Minister was to close the government Forensic Science Service in Birmingham, UK, which had a world-wide reputation for high standards and research. It looks like forensics has now become like the FBI hair and fiber department in America, with its forensic fraud. This could put an innocent accused person in grave peril, as happened to Jeffrey MacDonald.

You are on topic and yes this is an example of ideology over reality, Clegg's liberalism and Cameron's conservatism were well aligned on these types of decisions.

This is an example of what was predicted to happen by many people, a race to the bottom whilst maximising profit was always a sure fire way to ensure the focus was kept on quality....

I know of 2 private labs that actually did offer "specials" to police forces - pretty much along the lines of BOGOF so loved by the supermarkets, also quantity discounts "send us 11 samples and only pay for 10"!

Now of course problems can occur in many government run organisations, it isn't when you get down to it whether a lab is privately owned or government run, it is about how it is regulated. And removing "expensive" regulations was a key plank of Cameron and Osborne's "reforms". Never understanding that some "expensive" regulations are expensive because they have to be.

If they had retained the quality control regulations etc. in place prior to privatisation and privatised the labs it wouldn't have been as surefire certainty that problems like this would happen. But of course if the regulations etc. had been left in place the potential profit forecast of new private labs wouldn't have looked as appealing for investors.

Darat · 22nd November 2017, 04:46 AM

Thread from 2010: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=194852

Captain_Swoop · 22nd November 2017, 05:13 AM

Who would have thought this is how it would pan out. Similarities with Brexit?

MikeG · 22nd November 2017, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Who would have thought this is how it would pan out. Similarities with Brexit?

No.

This is as a result of an ill advised privatisation, and didn't involve a referendum. This was government policy. Brexit was directly counter to government policy.

Captain_Swoop · 22nd November 2017, 05:34 AM

Well, the referendum was policy and the present situation is entirely due to government policy and is living up to the warnings that were given at the time.

MikeG · 22nd November 2017, 05:38 AM

So just remind me when anyone was given a vote on privatising the forensic service. Otherwise you could just as well make an equivalence between this privatisation and any old thing you did or didn't like from any government at any time in history. You've pushed this analogy way, way too far.

Besides, there's already a thread for whingeing about Brexit.

Chris_Halkides · 22nd November 2017, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

There was an interview this afternoon or Radio 4 with one of the former directors of the GFS, he predicted this would happen when the service was shut down and was saying 'I told you so'.

I am curious about whom they interviewed. Do you have a link to this program? I searched at the BBC, but I did not find it.

Captain_Swoop · 22nd November 2017, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

I am curious about whom they interviewed. Do you have a link to this program? I searched at the BBC, but I did not find it.

Sorry, I can't remember if it was on World at one or PM. I suppose you could listen through the entire prog on iPlayer.

Planigale · 22nd November 2017, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Yes, the tories decided that the Government Forensic Service was too inefficient and private labs could be contrscted to do the work for a fraction of the cost at far greater efficiency (because market forces etc). tHEY closed all the government labs and sacked all the experienced scientists and technicians and got rid of decades of experience.
Instead of a central government run and controlled department each seperate police force makes it's own arrangements with private labs.

There was an interview this afternoon or Radio 4 with one of the former directors of the GFS, he predicted this would happen when the service was shut down and was saying 'I told you so'.

Under the old system test samples were sent 'blind' to the government labs. These looked like live cases but the expected results were already known to the quality department. In addition the same cases were sent to several different govt labs and the results cross checked.
Under the new system the private contractors certify themselves with no outside quality control.
They have an incentive to cut costs on already thin margins and push as many as they can through as quickly as possible to compete with other similar labs offering their services to the police forces.

e

Whilst I think the loss of the Forensic Science Service was an error, we should not overlook the problems with it. It effectively became a monopoly supplier, this caused issues with being able to get an independent review of evidence. There were also issues with escalating costs as it provided a gold plated service.

In other laboratory systems there are external QC systems; if these had been emulated in the 'private' forensic laboratories that should have ensured the same level of QC as in the old governmental service. The Forensic science regulator was supposed to only approve laboratories with appropriate QC systems in place.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...ence-regulator

A real problem with private laboratories is that since they have to compete on price they do not have the resources that the Forensic science service had to innovate e.g. the development of DNA testing. There is also a danger that they provide an answer the customer wants.

One solution would be to support university based centres of forensic excellence that would innovate and train and be reference centres. A sort of intermediate between a monopoly provider and a free market. What is really needed is a mixed economy.

Planigale · 23rd November 2017, 12:34 AM

Some may find this project interesting, the Royal Society is developing a series of 'primers' on forensic science to help judges. The first two are on DNA fingerprinting, and gait analysis (the latter is unscientific and unproven they conclude). The actual documents can be downloaded from this page.

https://royalsociety.org/about-us/pr...ience-and-law/

DNA Primer Appendix 3 may be particularly relevant to other threads as it discusses some issues around transfer (it accepts that tertiary transfer occurs) and LCN replication.

Rolfe · 23rd November 2017, 07:25 AM

As a lab-based person who has spent the last 30 years being horrified by what can go on when people prioritise profit over quality, I'm just renewing my horror.

On a related bur slightly tangential note, I was horrified just yesterday by an encounter with someone from the University of Surrey, which has recently opened a vet school which seems to have extremely questionable standards (unlike the other recently-established vet school in Nottingham which has acquired a very good reputation). Apparently this new facility is doing animal disease surveillance work, substituting for the now-closed Veterinary Investigation Centres in the south of England.

The VI service had a reputation for quality and professionalism which was second to none. It was staffed by people with a real pride in their job who were experts in their fields. Many of them were my personal friends. They are working in other areas now. So, this facility at Surrey University is apparently picking up the work. They started sending blood samples to me for analysis. I work in the Scottish VI service and we have not been privatised and we are still going and we're picking up a lot of work from England as it happens. These samples from Surrey were impossible to analyse because the blood was in such a poor state (haemolysed). I had this bloody woman on the phone wanting to know what was going wrong and why she wasn't getting any results.

To cut a moderately long story short, it turned out that the blood was taken, not from live animals, but from cadavers which had often been dead for a couple of days. Well, what do you expect? We never take cadaver blood for biochemistry analysis because this is inevitably going to happen. It's so inevitable it's self-evident. It's bonkers.

So we've gone from dedicated, highly-qualified experts who knew what they were doing and who passed that expertise down the generations in the VI centres (as well as conducting research and undertaking continuing professional development), to some lassie who is so damn clueless that she thinks she can just take a blood sample from a two-days-dead corpse and expect to get meaningful results for things like serum magnesium, potassium and phosphate from it. Animal disease surveillance in England is a thing of the past as far as I can see. This is bloody dangerous.

So with the Randox scandal. It may be nothing deliberate, but sheer lack of expertise. Or it may be staff who have fallen into the pattern of agreeing with the police and thinking they have to get the results they want. I suppose more will emerge.

Chris_Halkides · 23rd November 2017, 08:57 AM

One problem with many laboratories in the United States is that they are associated with the state police, which often produces a pro-prosecution bias. Laboratories that are attached to (affiliated with?) universities would not have this problem, as the 2009 forensic report ("strengthening forensic science...a path forward") suggested. With whom was the old FSS affiliated?

Giordano · 23rd November 2017, 09:18 AM

The problems I've read about in forensics labs in the USA typically originate from:
1. inexperience or naivety of the personnel
2. an emotional identification with the criminal justice system, leading to the lab trying to find evidence that will please the police (typically evidence that supports the police's theory of the crime), or
3. focusing on profits and doing things as cheaply as possible, resulting in sloppy and unverifiable results.

This scandal in the UK forensics labs manages to hit all three at once. And of course some are interconnected: a private lab obtaining results that please the police (2) is much more likely to be used by the police next time, resulting in (3).

All absolutely predictable in advance. The only ways to avoid these problems are well known and have been described upthread: enough money to hire well trained personnel and to adequately equip the labs, samples provided only in coded form with their identity absolutely blind to the forensics lab, outside review including rigorous periodic secret testing using known controls, and a strong firewall between the lab and the police investigating the crime.

It is truly terrifying when one considers how many innocent people have and will suffer as a result of these botched tests. I was recently listening to a story on radio about a woman in the USA who was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine due to an analysis of a few tiny white crystals found in her car. She plead guilty of a reduced charge in a plea bargain because although she maintained her innocence, the risk of being convicted on the original charge was just too great for her to face. After months in jail she was released but could not find employment or housing because of her conviction. Surprise- reanalysis of the crystals several years later proved they were not cocaine at all but some innocent substance (I think so sort of cleaning agent but I I not certain).

IMHO one of the next steps after attempting to fix the laboratories will be to investigate the monetary connections between the private labs and those in government who pushed to use them.

Planigale · 23rd November 2017, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

One problem with many laboratories in the United States is that they are associated with the state police, which often produces a pro-prosecution bias. Laboratories that are attached to (affiliated with?) universities would not have this problem, as the 2009 forensic report ("strengthening forensic science...a path forward") suggested. With whom was the old FSS affiliated?

A virtue of the FSS was that it was independent, although a government body (within the Home Office, which also ran the metropolitan police, the security service (MI5) and the courts and prisons), it was not part of the police service. Even though it was independent, and I think most people believe that it was not pro-police, there was still a need for an independent alternative forensic science option.

Planigale · 23rd November 2017, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

As a lab-based person who has spent the last 30 years being horrified by what can go on when people prioritise profit over quality, I'm just renewing my horror.

On a related bur slightly tangential note, I was horrified just yesterday by an encounter with someone from the University of Surrey, which has recently opened a vet school which seems to have extremely questionable standards (unlike the other recently-established vet school in Nottingham which has acquired a very good reputation). Apparently this new facility is doing animal disease surveillance work, substituting for the now-closed Veterinary Investigation Centres in the south of England.

The VI service had a reputation for quality and professionalism which was second to none. It was staffed by people with a real pride in their job who were experts in their fields. Many of them were my personal friends. They are working in other areas now. So, this facility at Surrey University is apparently picking up the work. They started sending blood samples to me for analysis. I work in the Scottish VI service and we have not been privatised and we are still going and we're picking up a lot of work from England as it happens. These samples from Surrey were impossible to analyse because the blood was in such a poor state (haemolysed). I had this bloody woman on the phone wanting to know what was going wrong and why she wasn't getting any results.

To cut a moderately long story short, it turned out that the blood was taken, not from live animals, but from cadavers which had often been dead for a couple of days. Well, what do you expect? We never take cadaver blood for biochemistry analysis because this is inevitably going to happen. It's so inevitable it's self-evident. It's bonkers.

So we've gone from dedicated, highly-qualified experts who knew what they were doing and who passed that expertise down the generations in the VI centres (as well as conducting research and undertaking continuing professional development), to some lassie who is so damn clueless that she thinks she can just take a blood sample from a two-days-dead corpse and expect to get meaningful results for things like serum magnesium, potassium and phosphate from it. Animal disease surveillance in England is a thing of the past as far as I can see. This is bloody dangerous.

So with the Randox scandal. It may be nothing deliberate, but sheer lack of expertise. Or it may be staff who have fallen into the pattern of agreeing with the police and thinking they have to get the results they want. I suppose more will emerge.

I agree with you, a parallel example is the preservation of the specialist microbiology services that were the public health laboratory service (originally not part of the NHS), which after much argument remain within Public Health England. Many local authority environmental health services have lost their independent laboratories and now need to use commercial services.

The Norseman · 23rd November 2017, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Giordano

The problems I've read about in forensics labs in the USA typically originate from:
1. inexperience or naivety of the personnel
2. an emotional identification with the criminal justice system, leading to the lab trying to find evidence that will please the police (typically evidence that supports the police's theory of the crime), or
3. focusing on profits and doing things as cheaply as possible, resulting in sloppy and unverifiable results.

This scandal in the UK forensics labs manages to hit all three at once. And of course some are interconnected: a private lab obtaining results that please the police (2) is much more likely to be used by the police next time, resulting in (3).

All absolutely predictable in advance. The only ways to avoid these problems are well known and have been described upthread: enough money to hire well trained personnel and to adequately equip the labs, samples provided only in coded form with their identity absolutely blind to the forensics lab, outside review including rigorous periodic secret testing using known controls, and a strong firewall between the lab and the police investigating the crime.

It is truly terrifying when one considers how many innocent people have and will suffer as a result of these botched tests. I was recently listening to a story on radio about a woman in the USA who was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine due to an analysis of a few tiny white crystals found in her car. She plead guilty of a reduced charge in a plea bargain because although she maintained her innocence, the risk of being convicted on the original charge was just too great for her to face. After months in jail she was released but could not find employment or housing because of her conviction. Surprise- reanalysis of the crystals several years later proved they were not cocaine at all but some innocent substance (I think so sort of cleaning agent but I I not certain).

IMHO one of the next steps after attempting to fix the laboratories will be to investigate the monetary connections between the private labs and those in government who pushed to use them.

As a quick aside, with the guilty plea, good luck in getting a new hearing even with the exculpatory evidence in hand. I feel nothing but sympathy for the woman in this case; I would not attempt to plead not guilty either in this day and age. Very sad state of affairs we live in.

Chris_Halkides · 23rd November 2017, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Giordano

It is truly terrifying when one considers how many innocent people have and will suffer as a result of these botched tests. I was recently listening to a story on radio about a woman in the USA who was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine due to an analysis of a few tiny white crystals found in her car. She plead guilty of a reduced charge in a plea bargain because although she maintained her innocence, the risk of being convicted on the original charge was just too great for her to face. After months in jail she was released but could not find employment or housing because of her conviction. Surprise- reanalysis of the crystals several years later proved they were not cocaine at all but some innocent substance (I think so sort of cleaning agent but I I not certain).

IMHO one of the next steps after attempting to fix the laboratories will be to investigate the monetary connections between the private labs and those in government who pushed to use them.

I read about one instance in which the substance that falsely tested positive for cocaine was sodium bicarbonate and another in which it was flour. These presumptive tests are administered in the field (imperfect lighting conditions) and performed by cops, not forensic technicians. The criminal justice system in general (and certainly lawyers and their clients in particular) need to be clear on the difference between presumptive and confirmatory tests, a point I touched upon in an essay earlier this year.

Planigale · 23rd November 2017, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

I read about one instance in which the substance that falsely tested positive for cocaine was sodium bicarbonate and another in which it was flour. These presumptive tests are administered in the field (imperfect lighting conditions) and performed by cops, not forensic technicians. The criminal justice system in general (and certainly lawyers and their clients in particular) need to be clear on the difference between presumptive and confirmatory tests, a point I touched upon in an essay earlier this year.

Yes.

The reports I have read suggest that many probably poor and ill educated and poorly represented suspects have taken a plea deal on the basis of a positive presumptive (screening) test. I suspect many judges have just nodded through the deals without confirming that the accused really understand the consequences and the case against them. Judges should be protecting vulnerable defendants against plea deals, it would be interesting to know in how many cases judges refused to accept a plea deal. From the publics PoV I do not want a rapist getting off on a sexual assault charge because it is cheaper for the prosecution. Plea deals may deny justice to the victim.

MikeG · 23rd November 2017, 04:33 PM

Just for the sake of clarity, there are no plea deals in the UK.

Planigale · 24th November 2017, 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by MikeG

Just for the sake of clarity, there are no plea deals in the UK.

Yes, thanks for the clarification, I was referring to the issue in the US.

The Norseman · 24th November 2017, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by MikeG

Just for the sake of clarity, there are no plea deals in the UK.

I think frankly that I'd still rather be in the criminal justice system in the UK (and I have plans to move there in the next few years, so...) than here in the US.

Elaedith · 2nd December 2017, 03:17 PM

Unfortunately, many forensic examiners do not recognise the need for blinded testing, as indicated in this recent survey:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...11368117300323

Captain_Swoop · 2nd December 2017, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Elaedith

Unfortunately, many forensic examiners do not recognise the need for blinded testing, as indicated in this recent survey:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...11368117300323

That was an intrinsic part of the Govt Forensic Service in the UK but it was taken away in the name of 'competition' and economy.

Henri McPhee · 1st January 2018, 10:09 AM

You might just as well privatise the judges as well as the forensic labs. That's just as sensible.

Henri McPhee · 30th January 2018, 04:25 AM

There is a bit of background information to this matter at this website:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...disbanded.html

Quote:

But for many within forensic science this fixation with the bottom line meant that many lost sight of its original aim: to deliver justice.

One of the key people in developing DNA profiling at the FSS was Peter Gill. A man acknowledged as a world leader in the field, Gill should be the kind of specialist that Britain would look to retain.
‘I have moved to Oslo, Norway where I am professor of forensic genetics,’ he says. ‘I moved because the position in the UK is so dire.’

He believes that the McFarland Review has had serious consequences.

‘It was disastrous. I worked there until three years ago. I left because I could not see a future. As far as I am concerned there is not much to save. It is five years too late. A lot of good scientists have already left because they see absolutely no future in the UK.

Captain_Swoop · 31st January 2018, 06:41 AM

BBC radio news reporting a big private forensic lab just went bust.
Nothing on the bbc news site yet.

Matthew Best · 2nd February 2018, 10:49 PM

Not really related to the specific subject of this thread, but definitely of interest, is an article in The Nation this week:

https://www.thenation.com/article/th...can-forensics/

Ostensibly about the conviction of Jimmy Genrich for a bombing campaign many years ago, the article expands to cover the crisis in forensic science generally (and incidentally the place of Jeff Sessions in all of this).

Here's one paragraph from it:

Quote:

Prosecutors have a vested interest in resisting reform, because it could weaken one of their most powerful tools, threaten cases currently under way, and call past convictions into question. For years, the DOJ was aware that its hair-comparison examiners made mistakes, but the department did little to address the problem until a whistle-blower came forward in the early 1990s. During an eight-year review of 2,900 cases, the DOJ found several instances of potentially exculpatory evidence but only haphazardly notified defendants, if at all. This review remained secret until 2012, when The Washington Post broke the story that the department had never followed up on its mistakes. In 2015, the DOJ finally conceded that hair-comparison examiners gave flawed testimony in 96 percent of cases, including 33 of 35 death-penalty cases reviewed. Nine of those defendants had already been executed. One defendant served 28 years in prison before being exonerated by DNA testing. In court, the prosecution said it was a “one in 10 million” chance the hairs belonged to someone other than the defendant. One of the hairs turned out to be a dog’s.

Mojo · 3rd February 2018, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by MikeG

Just for the sake of clarity, there are no plea deals in the UK.

But a guilty plea is taken into consideration in sentencing, and results in a reduced sentence.

Darat · 3rd February 2018, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

BBC radio news reporting a big private forensic lab just went bust.
Nothing on the bbc news site yet.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...ited-bg5nbxkxt

...Police have been forced into a multimillion-pound bailout of a private forensics company whose collapse jeopardised thousands of cases that include rape and murder, The Times has learnt...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12627754

"...The closure of the Forensic Science Service should have no negative impact on criminal justice as long as the wind down is properly handled, commercial providers have told a Commons inquiry...."

Henri McPhee · 3rd March 2018, 03:10 AM

Forensic fraud is a serious matter.

fuelair · 9th March 2018, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I think we have had similar problems with several such labs here in the USA. Not at private labs, either.

Yes, yes we have!!!!!

21st November 2017, 10:24 AM	#1
MikeG Now. Do it now. Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 24,804	Huge problems at (UK) forensics labs. Graudiun Quote: Officers leading investigation into alleged data manipulation at forensic laboratory say impact of inquiry is ‘profound’. Policing chiefs say confidence in the criminal justice system has been rocked by the alleged manipulation of data at a forensics laboratory that has led to the review of 10,000 cases across England and Wales.
	__________________ "The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

21st November 2017, 10:37 AM	#2
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 21,181	When were these things privatised?
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 21,181	__________________ Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

21st November 2017, 10:42 AM	#3
MikeG Now. Do it now. Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 24,804	About 5 years ago, I think.
	__________________ "The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

21st November 2017, 10:56 AM	#4
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 21,423	I think we have had similar problems with several such labs here in the USA. Not at private labs, either.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

21st November 2017, 11:19 AM	#5
BStrong Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: San Francisco Posts: 13,087	Our most recent local lab scandal: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/S...ng-3270657.php http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...r18-story.html http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...ms-3263797.php And the disposition of the case: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/...commentlistpos What was publicly revealed was the tip of the iceberg.
	__________________ Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus

21st November 2017, 02:57 PM	#6
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 42,064	Yes, the tories decided that the Government Forensic Service was too inefficient and private labs could be contrscted to do the work for a fraction of the cost at far greater efficiency (because market forces etc). tHEY closed all the government labs and sacked all the experienced scientists and technicians and got rid of decades of experience. Instead of a central government run and controlled department each seperate police force makes it's own arrangements with private labs. There was an interview this afternoon or Radio 4 with one of the former directors of the GFS, he predicted this would happen when the service was shut down and was saying 'I told you so'. Under the old system test samples were sent 'blind' to the government labs. These looked like live cases but the expected results were already known to the quality department. In addition the same cases were sent to several different govt labs and the results cross checked. Under the new system the private contractors certify themselves with no outside quality control. They have an incentive to cut costs on already thin margins and push as many as they can through as quickly as possible to compete with other similar labs offering their services to the police forces.

21st November 2017, 05:05 PM	#7
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 I think we have had similar problems with several such labs here in the USA. Not at private labs, either. FBI lab has been known/noted for some iirc (and I do).
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581

22nd November 2017, 01:57 AM	#8
Henri McPhee Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Bristol UK Posts: 4,126	That's the fault of that plonker Cameron. Practically the first thing he did when he became Prime Minister was to close the government Forensic Science Service in Birmingham, UK, which had a world-wide reputation for high standards and research. It looks like forensics has now become like the FBI hair and fiber department in America, with its forensic fraud. This could put an innocent accused person in grave peril, as happened to Jeffrey MacDonald.

22nd November 2017, 02:38 AM	#9
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 101,682	Originally Posted by Henri McPhee That's the fault of that plonker Cameron. Practically the first thing he did when he became Prime Minister was to close the government Forensic Science Service in Birmingham, UK, which had a world-wide reputation for high standards and research. It looks like forensics has now become like the FBI hair and fiber department in America, with its forensic fraud. This could put an innocent accused person in grave peril, as happened to Jeffrey MacDonald. You are on topic and yes this is an example of ideology over reality, Clegg's liberalism and Cameron's conservatism were well aligned on these types of decisions. This is an example of what was predicted to happen by many people, a race to the bottom whilst maximising profit was always a sure fire way to ensure the focus was kept on quality.... I know of 2 private labs that actually did offer "specials" to police forces - pretty much along the lines of BOGOF so loved by the supermarkets, also quantity discounts "send us 11 samples and only pay for 10"! Now of course problems can occur in many government run organisations, it isn't when you get down to it whether a lab is privately owned or government run, it is about how it is regulated. And removing "expensive" regulations was a key plank of Cameron and Osborne's "reforms". Never understanding that some "expensive" regulations are expensive because they have to be. If they had retained the quality control regulations etc. in place prior to privatisation and privatised the labs it wouldn't have been as surefire certainty that problems like this would happen. But of course if the regulations etc. had been left in place the potential profit forecast of new private labs wouldn't have looked as appealing for investors.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

22nd November 2017, 04:46 AM	#10
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 101,682	Thread from 2010: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=194852
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

22nd November 2017, 05:13 AM	#11
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 42,064	Who would have thought this is how it would pan out. Similarities with Brexit?

22nd November 2017, 05:21 AM	#12
MikeG Now. Do it now. Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 24,804	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Who would have thought this is how it would pan out. Similarities with Brexit? No. This is as a result of an ill advised privatisation, and didn't involve a referendum. This was government policy. Brexit was directly counter to government policy.
	__________________ "The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

22nd November 2017, 05:34 AM	#13
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 42,064	Well, the referendum was policy and the present situation is entirely due to government policy and is living up to the warnings that were given at the time.

22nd November 2017, 05:38 AM	#14
MikeG Now. Do it now. Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 24,804	So just remind me when anyone was given a vote on privatising the forensic service. Otherwise you could just as well make an equivalence between this privatisation and any old thing you did or didn't like from any government at any time in history. You've pushed this analogy way, way too far. Besides, there's already a thread for whingeing about Brexit.
	__________________ "The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

22nd November 2017, 09:13 AM	#15
Chris_Halkides Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 10,680	Where can this interview be found? Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop There was an interview this afternoon or Radio 4 with one of the former directors of the GFS, he predicted this would happen when the service was shut down and was saying 'I told you so'. I am curious about whom they interviewed. Do you have a link to this program? I searched at the BBC, but I did not find it.
	__________________ It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

22nd November 2017, 11:16 AM	#16
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 42,064	Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides I am curious about whom they interviewed. Do you have a link to this program? I searched at the BBC, but I did not find it. Sorry, I can't remember if it was on World at one or PM. I suppose you could listen through the entire prog on iPlayer.

22nd November 2017, 01:08 PM	#17
Planigale Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: 49 North Posts: 5,600	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Yes, the tories decided that the Government Forensic Service was too inefficient and private labs could be contrscted to do the work for a fraction of the cost at far greater efficiency (because market forces etc). tHEY closed all the government labs and sacked all the experienced scientists and technicians and got rid of decades of experience. Instead of a central government run and controlled department each seperate police force makes it's own arrangements with private labs. There was an interview this afternoon or Radio 4 with one of the former directors of the GFS, he predicted this would happen when the service was shut down and was saying 'I told you so'. Under the old system test samples were sent 'blind' to the government labs. These looked like live cases but the expected results were already known to the quality department. In addition the same cases were sent to several different govt labs and the results cross checked. Under the new system the private contractors certify themselves with no outside quality control. They have an incentive to cut costs on already thin margins and push as many as they can through as quickly as possible to compete with other similar labs offering their services to the police forces. e Whilst I think the loss of the Forensic Science Service was an error, we should not overlook the problems with it. It effectively became a monopoly supplier, this caused issues with being able to get an independent review of evidence. There were also issues with escalating costs as it provided a gold plated service. In other laboratory systems there are external QC systems; if these had been emulated in the 'private' forensic laboratories that should have ensured the same level of QC as in the old governmental service. The Forensic science regulator was supposed to only approve laboratories with appropriate QC systems in place. https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...ence-regulator A real problem with private laboratories is that since they have to compete on price they do not have the resources that the Forensic science service had to innovate e.g. the development of DNA testing. There is also a danger that they provide an answer the customer wants. One solution would be to support university based centres of forensic excellence that would innovate and train and be reference centres. A sort of intermediate between a monopoly provider and a free market. What is really needed is a mixed economy.
	Last edited by Planigale; 22nd November 2017 at 01:09 PM.

23rd November 2017, 12:34 AM	#18
Planigale Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: 49 North Posts: 5,600	Some may find this project interesting, the Royal Society is developing a series of 'primers' on forensic science to help judges. The first two are on DNA fingerprinting, and gait analysis (the latter is unscientific and unproven they conclude). The actual documents can be downloaded from this page. https://royalsociety.org/about-us/pr...ience-and-law/ DNA Primer Appendix 3 may be particularly relevant to other threads as it discusses some issues around transfer (it accepts that tertiary transfer occurs) and LCN replication.
	Last edited by Planigale; 23rd November 2017 at 12:41 AM.

23rd November 2017, 07:25 AM	#19
Rolfe Adult human female Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 48,057	As a lab-based person who has spent the last 30 years being horrified by what can go on when people prioritise profit over quality, I'm just renewing my horror. On a related bur slightly tangential note, I was horrified just yesterday by an encounter with someone from the University of Surrey, which has recently opened a vet school which seems to have extremely questionable standards (unlike the other recently-established vet school in Nottingham which has acquired a very good reputation). Apparently this new facility is doing animal disease surveillance work, substituting for the now-closed Veterinary Investigation Centres in the south of England. The VI service had a reputation for quality and professionalism which was second to none. It was staffed by people with a real pride in their job who were experts in their fields. Many of them were my personal friends. They are working in other areas now. So, this facility at Surrey University is apparently picking up the work. They started sending blood samples to me for analysis. I work in the Scottish VI service and we have not been privatised and we are still going and we're picking up a lot of work from England as it happens. These samples from Surrey were impossible to analyse because the blood was in such a poor state (haemolysed). I had this bloody woman on the phone wanting to know what was going wrong and why she wasn't getting any results. To cut a moderately long story short, it turned out that the blood was taken, not from live animals, but from cadavers which had often been dead for a couple of days. Well, what do you expect? We never take cadaver blood for biochemistry analysis because this is inevitably going to happen. It's so inevitable it's self-evident. It's bonkers. So we've gone from dedicated, highly-qualified experts who knew what they were doing and who passed that expertise down the generations in the VI centres (as well as conducting research and undertaking continuing professional development), to some lassie who is so damn clueless that she thinks she can just take a blood sample from a two-days-dead corpse and expect to get meaningful results for things like serum magnesium, potassium and phosphate from it. Animal disease surveillance in England is a thing of the past as far as I can see. This is bloody dangerous. So with the Randox scandal. It may be nothing deliberate, but sheer lack of expertise. Or it may be staff who have fallen into the pattern of agreeing with the police and thinking they have to get the results they want. I suppose more will emerge.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

23rd November 2017, 08:57 AM	#20
Chris_Halkides Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 10,680	ties between the labs and law enforcement One problem with many laboratories in the United States is that they are associated with the state police, which often produces a pro-prosecution bias. Laboratories that are attached to (affiliated with?) universities would not have this problem, as the 2009 forensic report ("strengthening forensic science...a path forward") suggested. With whom was the old FSS affiliated?
	__________________ It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

23rd November 2017, 09:18 AM	#21
Giordano Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 17,646	The problems I've read about in forensics labs in the USA typically originate from: 1. inexperience or naivety of the personnel 2. an emotional identification with the criminal justice system, leading to the lab trying to find evidence that will please the police (typically evidence that supports the police's theory of the crime), or 3. focusing on profits and doing things as cheaply as possible, resulting in sloppy and unverifiable results. This scandal in the UK forensics labs manages to hit all three at once. And of course some are interconnected: a private lab obtaining results that please the police (2) is much more likely to be used by the police next time, resulting in (3). All absolutely predictable in advance. The only ways to avoid these problems are well known and have been described upthread: enough money to hire well trained personnel and to adequately equip the labs, samples provided only in coded form with their identity absolutely blind to the forensics lab, outside review including rigorous periodic secret testing using known controls, and a strong firewall between the lab and the police investigating the crime. It is truly terrifying when one considers how many innocent people have and will suffer as a result of these botched tests. I was recently listening to a story on radio about a woman in the USA who was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine due to an analysis of a few tiny white crystals found in her car. She plead guilty of a reduced charge in a plea bargain because although she maintained her innocence, the risk of being convicted on the original charge was just too great for her to face. After months in jail she was released but could not find employment or housing because of her conviction. Surprise- reanalysis of the crystals several years later proved they were not cocaine at all but some innocent substance (I think so sort of cleaning agent but I I not certain). IMHO one of the next steps after attempting to fix the laboratories will be to investigate the monetary connections between the private labs and those in government who pushed to use them.

23rd November 2017, 11:22 AM	#22
Planigale Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: 49 North Posts: 5,600	Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides One problem with many laboratories in the United States is that they are associated with the state police, which often produces a pro-prosecution bias. Laboratories that are attached to (affiliated with?) universities would not have this problem, as the 2009 forensic report ("strengthening forensic science...a path forward") suggested. With whom was the old FSS affiliated? A virtue of the FSS was that it was independent, although a government body (within the Home Office, which also ran the metropolitan police, the security service (MI5) and the courts and prisons), it was not part of the police service. Even though it was independent, and I think most people believe that it was not pro-police, there was still a need for an independent alternative forensic science option.

23rd November 2017, 11:26 AM	#23
Planigale Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: 49 North Posts: 5,600	Originally Posted by Rolfe As a lab-based person who has spent the last 30 years being horrified by what can go on when people prioritise profit over quality, I'm just renewing my horror. On a related bur slightly tangential note, I was horrified just yesterday by an encounter with someone from the University of Surrey, which has recently opened a vet school which seems to have extremely questionable standards (unlike the other recently-established vet school in Nottingham which has acquired a very good reputation). Apparently this new facility is doing animal disease surveillance work, substituting for the now-closed Veterinary Investigation Centres in the south of England. The VI service had a reputation for quality and professionalism which was second to none. It was staffed by people with a real pride in their job who were experts in their fields. Many of them were my personal friends. They are working in other areas now. So, this facility at Surrey University is apparently picking up the work. They started sending blood samples to me for analysis. I work in the Scottish VI service and we have not been privatised and we are still going and we're picking up a lot of work from England as it happens. These samples from Surrey were impossible to analyse because the blood was in such a poor state (haemolysed). I had this bloody woman on the phone wanting to know what was going wrong and why she wasn't getting any results. To cut a moderately long story short, it turned out that the blood was taken, not from live animals, but from cadavers which had often been dead for a couple of days. Well, what do you expect? We never take cadaver blood for biochemistry analysis because this is inevitably going to happen. It's so inevitable it's self-evident. It's bonkers. So we've gone from dedicated, highly-qualified experts who knew what they were doing and who passed that expertise down the generations in the VI centres (as well as conducting research and undertaking continuing professional development), to some lassie who is so damn clueless that she thinks she can just take a blood sample from a two-days-dead corpse and expect to get meaningful results for things like serum magnesium, potassium and phosphate from it. Animal disease surveillance in England is a thing of the past as far as I can see. This is bloody dangerous. So with the Randox scandal. It may be nothing deliberate, but sheer lack of expertise. Or it may be staff who have fallen into the pattern of agreeing with the police and thinking they have to get the results they want. I suppose more will emerge. I agree with you, a parallel example is the preservation of the specialist microbiology services that were the public health laboratory service (originally not part of the NHS), which after much argument remain within Public Health England. Many local authority environmental health services have lost their independent laboratories and now need to use commercial services.

23rd November 2017, 02:43 PM	#24
The Norseman Meandering fecklessly Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,424	Originally Posted by Giordano The problems I've read about in forensics labs in the USA typically originate from: 1. inexperience or naivety of the personnel 2. an emotional identification with the criminal justice system, leading to the lab trying to find evidence that will please the police (typically evidence that supports the police's theory of the crime), or 3. focusing on profits and doing things as cheaply as possible, resulting in sloppy and unverifiable results. This scandal in the UK forensics labs manages to hit all three at once. And of course some are interconnected: a private lab obtaining results that please the police (2) is much more likely to be used by the police next time, resulting in (3). All absolutely predictable in advance. The only ways to avoid these problems are well known and have been described upthread: enough money to hire well trained personnel and to adequately equip the labs, samples provided only in coded form with their identity absolutely blind to the forensics lab, outside review including rigorous periodic secret testing using known controls, and a strong firewall between the lab and the police investigating the crime. It is truly terrifying when one considers how many innocent people have and will suffer as a result of these botched tests. I was recently listening to a story on radio about a woman in the USA who was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine due to an analysis of a few tiny white crystals found in her car. She plead guilty of a reduced charge in a plea bargain because although she maintained her innocence, the risk of being convicted on the original charge was just too great for her to face. After months in jail she was released but could not find employment or housing because of her conviction. Surprise- reanalysis of the crystals several years later proved they were not cocaine at all but some innocent substance (I think so sort of cleaning agent but I I not certain). IMHO one of the next steps after attempting to fix the laboratories will be to investigate the monetary connections between the private labs and those in government who pushed to use them. As a quick aside, with the guilty plea, good luck in getting a new hearing even with the exculpatory evidence in hand. I feel nothing but sympathy for the woman in this case; I would not attempt to plead not guilty either in this day and age. Very sad state of affairs we live in.

23rd November 2017, 03:33 PM	#25
Chris_Halkides Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 10,680	sodium bicarbonate should not have given a false positive result Originally Posted by Giordano It is truly terrifying when one considers how many innocent people have and will suffer as a result of these botched tests. I was recently listening to a story on radio about a woman in the USA who was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine due to an analysis of a few tiny white crystals found in her car. She plead guilty of a reduced charge in a plea bargain because although she maintained her innocence, the risk of being convicted on the original charge was just too great for her to face. After months in jail she was released but could not find employment or housing because of her conviction. Surprise- reanalysis of the crystals several years later proved they were not cocaine at all but some innocent substance (I think so sort of cleaning agent but I I not certain). IMHO one of the next steps after attempting to fix the laboratories will be to investigate the monetary connections between the private labs and those in government who pushed to use them. I read about one instance in which the substance that falsely tested positive for cocaine was sodium bicarbonate and another in which it was flour. These presumptive tests are administered in the field (imperfect lighting conditions) and performed by cops, not forensic technicians. The criminal justice system in general (and certainly lawyers and their clients in particular) need to be clear on the difference between presumptive and confirmatory tests, a point I touched upon in an essay earlier this year.
	__________________ It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

23rd November 2017, 04:08 PM	#26
Planigale Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: 49 North Posts: 5,600	Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides I read about one instance in which the substance that falsely tested positive for cocaine was sodium bicarbonate and another in which it was flour. These presumptive tests are administered in the field (imperfect lighting conditions) and performed by cops, not forensic technicians. The criminal justice system in general (and certainly lawyers and their clients in particular) need to be clear on the difference between presumptive and confirmatory tests, a point I touched upon in an essay earlier this year. Yes. The reports I have read suggest that many probably poor and ill educated and poorly represented suspects have taken a plea deal on the basis of a positive presumptive (screening) test. I suspect many judges have just nodded through the deals without confirming that the accused really understand the consequences and the case against them. Judges should be protecting vulnerable defendants against plea deals, it would be interesting to know in how many cases judges refused to accept a plea deal. From the publics PoV I do not want a rapist getting off on a sexual assault charge because it is cheaper for the prosecution. Plea deals may deny justice to the victim.

23rd November 2017, 04:33 PM	#27
MikeG Now. Do it now. Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 24,804	Just for the sake of clarity, there are no plea deals in the UK.
	__________________ "The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

24th November 2017, 12:29 AM	#28
Planigale Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: 49 North Posts: 5,600	Originally Posted by MikeG Just for the sake of clarity, there are no plea deals in the UK. Yes, thanks for the clarification, I was referring to the issue in the US.

24th November 2017, 10:21 PM	#29
The Norseman Meandering fecklessly Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,424	Originally Posted by MikeG Just for the sake of clarity, there are no plea deals in the UK. I think frankly that I'd still rather be in the criminal justice system in the UK (and I have plans to move there in the next few years, so...) than here in the US.

2nd December 2017, 03:17 PM	#30
Elaedith Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,854	Unfortunately, many forensic examiners do not recognise the need for blinded testing, as indicated in this recent survey: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...11368117300323

2nd December 2017, 03:32 PM	#31
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 42,064	Originally Posted by Elaedith Unfortunately, many forensic examiners do not recognise the need for blinded testing, as indicated in this recent survey: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...11368117300323 That was an intrinsic part of the Govt Forensic Service in the UK but it was taken away in the name of 'competition' and economy.

1st January 2018, 10:09 AM	#32
Henri McPhee Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Bristol UK Posts: 4,126	You might just as well privatise the judges as well as the forensic labs. That's just as sensible.

30th January 2018, 04:25 AM	#33
Henri McPhee Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Bristol UK Posts: 4,126	There is a bit of background information to this matter at this website: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...disbanded.html Quote: But for many within forensic science this fixation with the bottom line meant that many lost sight of its original aim: to deliver justice. One of the key people in developing DNA profiling at the FSS was Peter Gill. A man acknowledged as a world leader in the field, Gill should be the kind of specialist that Britain would look to retain. ‘I have moved to Oslo, Norway where I am professor of forensic genetics,’ he says. ‘I moved because the position in the UK is so dire.’ He believes that the McFarland Review has had serious consequences. ‘It was disastrous. I worked there until three years ago. I left because I could not see a future. As far as I am concerned there is not much to save. It is five years too late. A lot of good scientists have already left because they see absolutely no future in the UK.
	Last edited by Henri McPhee; 30th January 2018 at 04:28 AM.

31st January 2018, 06:41 AM	#34
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 42,064	BBC radio news reporting a big private forensic lab just went bust. Nothing on the bbc news site yet.

2nd February 2018, 10:49 PM	#35
Matthew Best Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 9,192	Not really related to the specific subject of this thread, but definitely of interest, is an article in The Nation this week: https://www.thenation.com/article/th...can-forensics/ Ostensibly about the conviction of Jimmy Genrich for a bombing campaign many years ago, the article expands to cover the crisis in forensic science generally (and incidentally the place of Jeff Sessions in all of this). Here's one paragraph from it: Quote: Prosecutors have a vested interest in resisting reform, because it could weaken one of their most powerful tools, threaten cases currently under way, and call past convictions into question. For years, the DOJ was aware that its hair-comparison examiners made mistakes, but the department did little to address the problem until a whistle-blower came forward in the early 1990s. During an eight-year review of 2,900 cases, the DOJ found several instances of potentially exculpatory evidence but only haphazardly notified defendants, if at all. This review remained secret until 2012, when The Washington Post broke the story that the department had never followed up on its mistakes. In 2015, the DOJ finally conceded that hair-comparison examiners gave flawed testimony in 96 percent of cases, including 33 of 35 death-penalty cases reviewed. Nine of those defendants had already been executed. One defendant served 28 years in prison before being exonerated by DNA testing. In court, the prosecution said it was a “one in 10 million” chance the hairs belonged to someone other than the defendant. One of the hairs turned out to be a dog’s.