Crapaganda.com

The Department of Homeland Security plans to begin testing a DNA analyzer that’s small enough to be easily portable and fast enough to return results in less than an hour.

The analyzer, about the size of a laser printer, initially will be used to determine kinship among refugees and asylum seekers. It also could help establish whether foreigners giving children up for adoption are their parents or other relatives, and help combat child smuggling and human trafficking, said Christopher Miles, biometrics program manager in the DHS Office of Science and Technology.

Only DNA can positively determine family relationships, Miles said Wednesday during a conference on biometrics and national security.

Eventually, the analyzer also could be used to positively identify criminals, illegal immigrants, missing persons and mass casualty victims, he said.

The machine, known as a rapid DNA screener, is expected to cut days or weeks and hundreds of dollars off the per-use cost of DNA analysis.

Using a process called digital microfluidics, the analyzer processes a DNA sample and provides results in less than an hour for under $100 per sample, Miles said. By comparison, it takes days or weeks and about $500 per sample to get results when DNA is tested in a laboratory, he said.

“We’re not about advancing the technology so much as integrating and automating it into a fieldable device,” he said.

Boston-based NetBio, which developed the rapid DNA analyzer for DHS, described it as a “game-changing technology” platform that “consists of instruments, biochips and analytical software.” It eliminates the need for a trained technician and special operating site.

The analyzer was designed for Homeland Security, the military, intelligence and police agencies, the company says on its website.

As with other DNA tests, the process begins with a sample collected on a swab, typically from inside the mouth. The sample is placed in a disposable cartridge, and the analyzer does the rest of the work.

“It’s the same process that occurs in the lab today,” Miles said. But “it will drastically make the system more efficient.”

DHS’ Citizen and Immigration Services bureau is first in line to begin testing the new equipment this summer. A likely priority is testing people who claim to be family members in refugee camps overseas, Miles said.

That’s important because when a refugee is allowed to come to the United States, parents, children and some siblings also could be eligible to enter. Citizen and Immigration Services wants to make sure those who claim to be relatives actually are, he said.

Similarly, the agency wants to make sure children are who their guardians claim them to be. Usually, that sort of identity check might be done with fingerprints, but fingerprints of small children can be unreliable, Miles said.

On an average day, 400 refugees apply to enter the United States, 40 persons are granted asylum and 100 foreign-born children are adopted, according to DHS.

Although DNA analysis speeds identification of people, it raises concerns about privacy and civil liberties, Miles conceded. “We have privacy officers and civil rights and civil liberties officers who are working through all of those questions.”

As a precaution to protect privacy, the analyzer avoids sampling DNA that could identify genetic problems, Miles said. For years, privacy advocates have worried that DNA test results could be used to deny people employment, insurance or entry to the country.

But even the analysis DHS officials want to do could be problematic. DNA test results might reveal that a child is not related to the man thought to be his father. “Is it our role to tell them that?” Miles asked. In some societies, revealing such information could be dangerous to the child and its mother, he said.

Policy hasn’t developed as fast as technology when it comes to DNA analysis, Jim Harper, director of information studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, told Nextgov. “There are still a lot of unknowns. I’m not certain we know what all is being gathered when we examine DNA.” So far, there has been no comprehensive public discussion of what is being gathered, and how it should or shouldn’t be used has not occurred, he said.

The machines are expected to cost about $275,000 apiece, Miles said. “That sounds like a lot of money, but compare that to a laboratory full of equipment that would cost millions of dollars and a building that would cost tens of millions of dollars.”

After the rapid analyzers are in production, he added, the cost is likely to come down.

 

A Texas man was cleared of rape charges Thursday after serving more than 24 years in jail, court officials said.

Larry Sims, 60, was convicted of rape in October 1986. But DNA evidence — which remained untested until recently — undermined the testimony of his accuser.

“We’ve officially put on the record that DNA has cleared him,” said LaMonica Littles, court coordinator for district Judge Gracie Lewis, who oversaw the case.

“Now we have to get clearance from the state penitentiary for them to say this was the only case they were holding him on and we can get him released from jail.”

The Dallas Morning News reported that Sims wrote the court in 2009 asking about DNA testing of the evidence while out of jail briefly on parole. He was sent back to prison for not meeting a curfew and problems with his leg monitor.

Public defender Michelle Moore told the paper that she would shortly file for an official exoneration, which could open the door to financial compensation.

Some 265 people in the United States who have been exonerated since 1989 as a result of the development of DNA testing of key evidence, according to the Innocence Project.

Source: Raw Story

A Texas man declared innocent Tuesday after 30 years in prison could have cut short his prison stint twice and made parole – if only he would admit he was a sex offender.

But Cornelius Dupree Jr. refused to do so, doggedly maintaining his innocence in a 1979 rape and robbery, in the process serving more time for a crime he didn’t commit than any other Texas inmate exonerated by DNA evidence.

DNA Exonerates Man after 30 Years Behind Bars

“Whatever your truth is, you have to stick with it,” Dupree, 51, said Tuesday, minutes after a Dallas judge overturned his conviction.

Nationally, only two others exonerated by DNA evidence spent more time in prison, according to the Innocence Project, a New York legal center that specializes in wrongful conviction cases and represented Dupree. James Bain was wrongly imprisoned for 35 years in Florida, and Lawrence McKinney spent more than 31 years in a Tennessee prison.

Dupree was sentenced to 75 years in prison in 1980 for the rape and robbery of a 26-year-old Dallas woman a year earlier. He was released in July on mandatory supervision, and lived under house arrest until October. About a week after his release, DNA test results came back proving his innocence in the sexual assault.

A day after his release, Dupree married his fiancee, Selma. The couple met two decades ago while he was in prison.

His exoneration hearing was delayed until Tuesday while authorities retested the DNA and made sure it was a match to the victim. Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins supported Dupree’s innocence claim.

Looking fit and trim in a dark suit, Dupree stood through most of the short hearing, until state district Judge Don Adams told him, “You’re free to go.” One of Dupree’s lawyers, Innocence Project Co-Director Barry Scheck, called it “a glorious day.”

“It’s a joy to be free again,” Dupree said.

This latest wait was nothing for Dupree, who was up for parole as recently as 2004. He was set to be released and thought he was going home, until he learned he first would have to attend a sex offender treatment program.

Those in the program had to go through what is known as the “four R’s.” They are recognition, remorse, restitution and resolution, said Jim Shoemaker, who served two years with Dupree in the Boyd Unit south of Dallas.

“He couldn’t get past the first part,” said Shoemaker, who drove up from Houston to attend Dupree’s hearing.

Shoemaker said he spent years talking to Dupree in the prison recreation yard, and always believed his innocence.

“I got a lot of flak from the guys on the block,” Shoemaker said. “But I always believed him. He has a quiet, peaceful demeanor.”

Under Texas compensation laws for the wrongly imprisoned, Dupree is eligible for $80,000 for each year he was behind bars, plus a lifetime annuity. He could receive $2.4 million in a lump sum that is not subject to federal income tax.

The compensation law, the nation’s most generous, was passed in 2009 by the Texas Legislature after dozens of wrongly convicted men were released from prison. Texas has freed 41 wrongly convicted inmates through DNA since 2001 – more than any other state.

Dallas County’s record of DNA exonerations – Dupree is No. 21 – is unmatched nationally because the county crime lab maintains biological evidence even decades after a conviction, leaving samples available to test. In addition, Watkins, the DA, has cooperated with innocence groups in reviewing hundreds of requests by inmates for DNA testing.

Watkins, the first black district attorney in Texas history, has also pointed to what he calls “a convict-at-all-costs mentality” that he says permeated his office before he arrived in 2007.

At least a dozen other exonerated former inmates from the Dallas area who collectively served more than 100 years in prison upheld a local tradition by attending the hearing and welcoming the newest member of their unfortunate fraternity. One of them, James Giles, presented Dupree with a $100 bill as a way to get his life restarted.

At one point, Scheck pointed out that eyewitness misidentification – the most common cause of wrongful convictions – was the key factor that sent Dupree to prison. The attorney then asked how many of the others were wrongly imprisoned because an eyewitness mistakenly identified them. A dozen hands went in the air.

“We know what went wrong here, it was bad identification procedures and we know how to fix it,” said Scheck to CBS News.

Not in attendance Tuesday was Dupree’s accused accomplice, Anthony Massingill, who was convicted in the same case and sentenced to life in prison on another sexual assault. The same DNA testing that cleared Dupree also cleared Massingill. He says he is innocent, but remains behind bars while authorities test DNA in the second case.

Dupree was 19 when he was arrested in December 1979 while walking to a party with Massingill. Authorities said they matched the description of a different rape and robbery that had occurred the previous day.

Police presented their pictures in a photo array to the victim. She picked out Massingill and Dupree. Her male companion, who also was robbed, did not pick out either man when showed the same photo lineup.

Dupree was convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. According to court documents, the woman and her male companion stopped at a Dallas liquor store in November 1979 to buy cigarettes and use a payphone. As they returned to their car, two men, at least one of whom was armed, forced their way into the vehicle and ordered them to drive. They also demanded money from the two victims.

The men eventually ordered the car to the side of the road and forced the male driver out of the car. The woman attempted to flee but was pulled back inside.

The perpetrators drove the woman to a nearby park, where they raped her at gunpoint. They debated killing her but eventually let her live, keeping her rabbit-fur coat and her driver’s license and warning her they would kill her if she reported the assault to police. The victim ran to the nearest highway and collapsed unconscious by the side of the road, where she was discovered.

Dupree was convicted and spent the next three decades appealing. The Court of Criminal Appeals turned him down three times.

“What did happen happened,” Dupree told CBS News. “It’s in the past and in order for me to get my life together I have to forgive.”

Source: CBS News

Imprisoned for 27 years for a rape he didn’t commit, Michael Anthony Green walked out of jail a free man on Friday and in the process was able to leave behind some of the anger that had fueled his survival behind bars.

Accompanied by his attorney, Green walked out of the Harris County Jail and into the arms of about 20 family members who cheered him.

“Live life,” Green said, when asked what he is going to do now.

Green, 44, was released after the Harris County District Attorney’s Office reopened his case and new DNA tests it commissioned showed he did not commit the 1983 rape of a woman who had been abducted. During a court hearing Friday, a judge ordered that Green be released on a $500 bond, allowing him to be free while the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals makes a final ruling on his innocence.

Asked what kept him going the last 27 years, Green said that in part it was his anger.

“I took and channeled my anger into studying the law,” said Green, clutching a photograph of his mother, who died while he was in prison. “That’s how I lived, day by day … doing what I did. Get up in the law, try to find me a way out.”

Some of the anger that Green had held onto for so many years came to the surface on Thursday, when he had been originally scheduled to be freed on bond. His release was delayed to give him time to calm down after he became upset that he was put in handcuffs and leg restraints one final time as he was taken from the county jail to the courthouse, said Bob Wicoff, his attorney. Green said he got upset because one of the deputies escorting him tightened his handcuffs and threatened him.

Wicoff called it a misunderstanding but said Green was justified in his anger as his life had been taken away. Green entered prison at age 18. Some of the nieces and nephews who greeted him on Friday hadn’t been born when he was locked up.

Green said that while in prison, he didn’t give up hope, writing to state lawmakers, the Harris County District Attorney’s Office and others proclaiming his innocence and asking that his case be reviewed.

In 1983, four men abducted a woman from a pay telephone in north Houston, taking her to a remote location where three of them raped her. The men drove off, leaving the woman there, and were later chased by police. The men abandoned their car and fled on foot. Green was detained by officers that night as he walked in the area.

The victim could not identify Green in person when he was first detained but later picked him from a photo lineup as one of her attackers. Green was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to 75 years in prison. He was the only person convicted in the case.

After District Attorney Pat Lykos was elected in 2008, she formed the Post-Conviction Review Section and it chose Green’s case as one of the first to look at. The review team found the only remaining evidence in the case — clothing worn by the victim during the rape — and had it tested. The results excluded Green.

Authorities were able to identify the four men who abducted the women. But because the statute of limitations on the rape has run out, they cannot be prosecuted.

“The tragedy in the Green case is not only was an innocent man in prison, the victim was denied justice, society was denied justice and the real criminals were free,” Lykos said Friday.

Lykos declined to criticize her predecessors when asked why it took so long for Green’s case to be reviewed. She said DNA testing was not available when Green was convicted, it didn’t come to the forefront until the 1990s and that even now Harris County — the country’s third-largest county — doesn’t have the resources to do all the testing it needs to do.

Green said he was grateful for the efforts by the district attorney’s office.

He and his attorney blame bad police work for his wrongful imprisonment, saying improperly suggestive identification procedures that were used in photo spreads and a live lineup helped lead to the victim incorrectly identifying Green as one of her attackers.

Houston police have declined to comment on Green’s case.

Wicoff said Green forgives the victim but is unsure if he will ever forgive the police.

Adrian Taylor, 50, Green’s older brother, said he’s disappointed it took so long for his brother to be released but now he wants to help him look to the future.

“I now have to get him to forgive, forgive and move on,” Taylor said

Source: Raw Story

Earlier this week, a man named Raymond Towler was released from prison after DNA evidence exonerated him. Towler had been convicted in 1981 of raping an 11-year-old girl in a Cleveland park and given a life sentence; he spent nearly 30 years in prison before a group called The Innocent Project took up his case and requested that DNA evidence be re-evaluated.

Towler’s freedom made national news. The judge in the case, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Eileen Gallagher, did not merely free Towler as a formality but left the bench to congratulate Towler at his defense table and gave him an Irish blessing. Towler was also the guest of honor at a Cleveland Cavaliers NBA playoff game.

It’s a tragic story with a bittersweet ending, but there’s an important element that has been largely ignored in the news surrounding Towler’s exoneration: the victim and witnesses identified him as the rapist from a photo. That is, the 11-year-old girl and other eyewitnesses pointed to a photograph of Raymond Towler and told police, “Yes, that is the man who did this.” But Raymond Towler was not the man who did this.

So what happened? Were they lying? Though false rape accusations do occur (as the Tawana Brawley and the Duke University lacrosse team cases show, to name just two high-profile scandals), it seems doubtful that’s what happened in this case. Instead, most likely the eyewitnesses were not lying, nor stupid, nor malicious. They were simply wrong.

Countless cases prove this point. Recently in the District of Columbia, a police sergeant involved in a chase positively identified a 14-year-old boy as the driver of a vehicle involved in a mass shooting. The boy was arrested and charged with four counts of first-degree murder. As the Washington Post noted, “An arrest based on this identification probably struck most people as reasonable, even laudable. After all, the sergeant is a trained, experienced police officer, and he was certain enough of his identification to commit it to a charging document.” Yet despite his positive identification, the trained police sergeant was wrong; other evidence proved that the boy was innocent.

Then there’s the case of the D.C. snipers who killed ten people and badly injured three others in October 2002. Police were baffled by the killings, though an apparent break in the case came when several eyewitnesses described the shooter: A white man driving a late-model white van or box truck. Based on these multiple eyewitness descriptions, police stopped white vans along the Capital Beltway hoping to stop the killer. Yet when the snipers were caught, it was clear that the sincere, believable eyewitnesses with no reason to lie or exaggerate were completely wrong.

Instead of a single white man driving a white box truck, the murders were committed by two Black men driving a dark blue 1990 Chevrolet Caprice. In that case, the eyewitness testimony likely cost human lives: Police had in fact noted the Chevrolet at several of the crime scenes but did not stop or check out the car because the police and public were focused on the non-existent white van reported by eyewitnesses.

Eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful conviction in America. Of the more than 200 people exonerated by way of DNA evidence in the US, over 75% were wrongfully convicted because of eyewitness mistakes. Indeed, according to the Innocence Project, “While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.”

Often in criminal cases there’s a strong and understandable desire to believe the victim. No one wants to question or challenge a person who has obviously undergone a horrible experience—but it must be done. That eyewitness reports are often very unreliable is not news to psychologists or experienced police detectives, but the general public is often unduly impressed with an eyewitness who says, “I know what I saw, and I saw him do it.” Maybe, maybe not.

And it’s not just in crimes: many people who believe in cryptozoological curiosities such as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster also put great faith in eyewitness reports—especially sightings by police officers and others in authority. Yet the evidence is clear and uncontested: people are not good eyewitnesses, and often sincerely claim to see things they did not.

Think of how horrible the rape victim who accused Towler must feel, knowing her mistake took 30 years of an innocent man’s life. Those who offer eyewitness evidence against others should heed Oliver Cromwell’s famous plea: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

Source: Discovery.com

Raymond Towler freed after 29 years in prison for rape he did not commit

Video from Cleveland Plain Dealer

Josh Gerstein over at Politico sent Threat Level his piece underscoring once again President Barack Obama is not the civil-liberties knight in shining armor many were expecting.

Gerstein posts a televised interview of Obama and John Walsh of America’s Most Wanted. The nation’s chief executive extols the virtues of mandatory DNA testing of Americans upon arrest, even absent charges or a conviction. Obama said, “It’s the right thing to do” to “tighten the grip around folks” who commit crime.

President Obama meets with John Walsh

Now there’s DNA sampling. Obama told Walsh he supported the federal government, as well as the 18 states that have varying laws requiring compulsory DNA sampling of individuals upon an arrest for crimes ranging from misdemeanors to felonies. The data is lodged in state and federal databases, and has fostered as many as 200 arrests nationwide, Walsh said.

The American Civil Liberties Union claims DNA sampling is different from mandatory, upon-arrest fingerprinting that has been standard practice in the United States for decades.

A fingerprint, the group says, reveals nothing more than a person’s identity. But much can be learned from a DNA sample, which codes a person’s family ties, some health risks, and, according to some, can predict a propensity for violence.

The ACLU is suing California to block its voter-approved measure requiring saliva sampling of people picked up on felony charges. Authorities in the Golden State are allowed to conduct so-called “familial searching” — when a genetic sample does not directly match another, authorities start investigating people with closely matched DNA in hopes of finding leads to the perpetrator.

Do you wonder whether DNA sampling is legal?

The courts have already upheld DNA sampling of convicted felons, based on the theory that the convicted have fewer privacy rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that when conducting intrusions of the body during an investigation, the police need so-called “exigent circumstances” or a warrant. That alcohol evaporates in the blood stream is the exigent circumstance to draw blood from a suspected drunk driver without a warrant.

Newborn babies in the United States are routinely screened for a panel of genetic diseases. Since the testing is mandated by the government, it’s often done without the parents’ consent.

In many states, such as Florida, babies’ DNA is stored indefinitely.

Most parents don’t realize their baby’s DNA is being stored in a government lab, but sometimes when they find out they take action. Parents in Texas, and Minnesota have filed lawsuits, and these parents’ concerns are sparking a new debate about whether it’s appropriate for a baby’s genetic blueprint to be in the government’s possession.

The government has your baby’s DNA (CNN)

Diana Waletzko at the Citizens’ Council on Health Care Press Conference on Protecting Baby DNA.

*UPDATE Suit possible over baby DNA sent to military lab for national database (Austin Statesman)