Episode 2
If you enjoyed this episode or at least learned something new, please consider supporting the podcast by buying me a coffee.
What happens when the crime laboratory gets it wrong? In this episode we discuss the issues with relying solely on laboratory accreditation to determine if a forensic science laboratory is doing the testing correctly, what happens when a lab fails as it did in Washington, D.C., and how other laboratories manage to recover and regain customer confidence. We explore how organizations like the Texas Forensic Science Commission work to ensure quality forensic science work by taking action and the better way for laboratories to respond and improve after a complaint.
Comments? Feedback? Suggestions? Or if you would like to be a guest?
Get in touch on the Contact Page
Helpful Links:
Forensic Aid, LLC
Tiffany Roy, MSFS, JD
Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC)
SNA International Audit Report
DC Lab Criminal Case Filing
Texas Forensic Science Commission
Support the show(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/SecretsCrimeLab)
Transcript
Ep 2
===
Greetings all. And welcome to this episode of Secrets from the Crime Lab. This episode follows on from the previous episode on laboratory accreditation and quality assurance and the importance of it in proper functioning of forensic laboratories. We did have some technical difficulties that kicked in at about an hour into our conversation. So if it seems like the conversation suddenly changes to us closing out the episode, it's because my internet connection had died. Technology's great, except when it isn't, I think that's something that all of us have learned over the past several years in this world of everything by zoom.
[00:00:40] Angela: This week, I have a conversation with Tiffany Roy, who is an independent expert, and we discuss what happens when it's not quite working as well as it's supposed to. The pitfalls of relying completely on laboratory accreditation to signify quality work in the laboratory. Tiffany is going to introduce herself to you in a few moments when I get to the recording. But just to give you a little bit more information about her, she writes textbooks, she teaches courses in the area of forensic science and crime scene investigation and forensic DNA analysis. And the thing that makes Tiffany unique is she also has a law degree. So she's able to span both worlds between the forensic scientist and the legal profession. That gives her a unique perspective on the forensic science laboratory. I hope that you guys will all enjoy the conversation that we have. And I will talk to you again at the end of the episode. Again, if you haven't listened to the first episode, I do recommend that you go back and give a listen to it if you're not familiar with laboratory accreditation, just so that you have the foundation, because we do mention it quite a few times during the episode. Thank you again for taking the time to listen. And I'll see you on the other side of the episode.
Hello, and welcome to secrets from the crime lab today, we have a guest with us. Who's an independent forensic expert in DNA. if some of you guys are in forensics and on LinkedIn, you may be familiar with Tiffany, always sharing interesting articles and maybe some things that we need to improve in forensic science. So, Tiffany, if you would like to introduce yourself to our audience, tell them a little bit about yourself.
[00:02:26] Tiffany Roy: My name is Tiffany Roy and I am a forensic DNA expert by training. I have also a law degree. I work primarily with lawyers. and I review work that's been done in the crime lab to make sure that it's in line with standards and best practices. So that's my main primary function. Now I'm going to help them by preparing questions for cross examination or deposition, I help write motions if I detect some issues with the casework. So I have a kind of unique blend of skills in both science and law, and I'm on LinkedIn and you can find me, I have a small company website. It's my company name is forensic aid. It's www.forensicaid.net.
[00:03:21] Angela: I'll make sure to link it in the show notes. So everyone will be able to find you if they, if they're looking for an expert.
[00:03:27] Tiffany Roy: Excellent.
[00:03:28] Angela: So, I became familiar with you, because when you were still working in, forensic laboratory, because you're also an experienced scientist, you've done the work in the laboratory, so you have that foundational knowledge as well. And then you've added on to your expertise since. And, you used to do technical case reviews for me when you were with a private laboratory. So that's how we first became connected. And we've just say a little bit connected over LinkedIn, over the years. I've always found it great the way that you're very good at sort of sharing information or events, and sometimes even going and finding things that historically have happened, that we knew were, you know, issues that crime laboratories or forensic laboratories have had in the past. But showing that it's still, there's still a lot of ongoing issues that need to be addressed. I think that you and I are probably both on the same page with the need for independent experts to be sought out and be available to review cases that have been done by public and or private laboratories that have done work on behalf of the prosecution, because you always need that external person to come in and just look at it and make sure yes, they followed their procedures, they were using the correct methods, the documentation was complete, they properly recorded things or not, and that their findings that they have are scientifically valid, whether or not you agree with them or where there are places where there points there might be disagreement. And it's all in pursuit of ensuring that the trier of fact understands what the scientific evidence means in the context of that case so that we don't end up with miscarriages of justice
[00:05:15] Tiffany Roy: Yeah. I mean, it's really important, I think, just to get some, a different set of eyes from outside the organization, I think that, you know, that should happen more often. It should be invited in crime labs, not just through accreditation and inspection, through audit, but, you know, I think that crime labs should consider hiring independent people to come in and look at their stuff every now and again, their procedures and their casework validations.
[00:05:42] Angela: Well, that's a good point because the, the FBI Auality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories do require the DNA technical leader to have a method for going through on an annual basis and basically doing spot checks on all of the work that is being conducted in the laboratory in the lab can decide how they do that. You know, maybe the technically are samples one to 2% of cases a month or something. But maybe that is a good idea of having an external person. And do that review and get a different perspective on it. Cause you know, if we're all in, in our labs behind closed doors with blinders on, maybe we're not seeing the full picture and having that external perspective.
[00:06:30] Tiffany Roy: Yeah, I think it's really important because all the people in the lab are usually trained the same way, they've been doing the same things the same way for so long that sometimes they stop questioning why they're doing something a certain way or, you know, they don't realize there are other ways to do to do things and you don't get that perspective until you get out of your own lab and see a cross section of work from across the country. You know, there are things and ways people do things and they're different. and some work better I think, than others. And you don't really get a feel for that unless you're auditing. And I think, which I think is really important too, for the forensic DNA analyst to take the auditor training. And to go out to an audit other labs and, you know, perform that service, and just see how other labs are doing those things. The analysts themselves are benefited by seeing other
[00:07:21] Angela: Yeah, yeah, definitely agree with that. cause I was with the Texas Department of Public Safety for, you know, a long time and then I left and I went to an international laboratory, a British territory and just there's some differences just because we're, you know, British. And so it's based on English law. So there's some minor differences there. I mean the science doesn't change based on your jurisdiction, but it's just being in a different environment and having that different perspective opened my eyes to a lot of things as well. Just seeing how, you know, a different region of the world processes things, and it made me more acquainted with the, the system works in the English system where it's less adversarial between a prosecution expert and a defense expert. I mean, they are, you know, they're still called that, but the idea is that both of the experts can come together and have conversations with each other and agree on what the scientific evidence means, the interpretation of it in the context of that case and enter a joint report to the court system. So there's, no, none of this prosecution experts on the witness stand for five hours. And the defense experts on the witness stands for five hours. And everybody's arguing in the court and jury is completely confused.
[00:08:46] Tiffany Roy: I wish that, and I wonder sometimes how it would work in our US system and, you know, they call it hot tubbing. I always think it's like, a funny name for it, hot tubbing. My UK experts are like you gonna hot tub with me. Oftentimes I don't feel like the crime labs here are very, open to do a dialogue with me. I, one time asked another independent expert that I respect how she handles this kind of thing. When there are disagreements about the results, sometimes serious ones. And she said in the beginning, she said to me, well, I just, I contact the lab and I have a sit down with the lawyers and I'm like, that doesn't happen to me. They tell me to bring a subpoena and then they'll talk to me. But, you know, it's not collegial at all. And I it's, you know, I wish it was more like the UK system, the European system, where people were more open to discussing why we're not reaching the same conclusion, why my opinions that are different.
[00:09:48] Angela: I mean, I have to say that my, my work has benefit... benefited from an extra having an external expert. and I think, I think you and I had discussed this previously, but, but I had a DNA case complex DNA mixture. One of those, like if you don't know how the DNA got on the item and it was a firearms case, so it was a big deal because it carried a mandatory 10 year sentence for firearms possession. And the defense didn't have an issue with the DNA work that was done or the laboratory results. They were saying they would have approached the statistical calculations method that was used differently. And this is a while back. So at the time we were still, I was still calculating what the combined probability of inclusion, The, the value of that particular calculation is a discussion for a different day. It would take a lot longer, but this was at the kind of I'll call it the infancy of probabilistic genotyping approach to, you know, doing the statistical weight. And after reading through the defense reports I realized after doing some more research on my own that she was right and I needed to change my statistical method. And so I did. Right. and it's made it made a huge difference in my ability to be able to provide a, a better interpretation and weight of the evidence for my customer as well. But I've always found that, you know, what you were saying, even when I was in the United States working. We were, we were never prevented from speaking to defense experts. To talk about the case or even the defense attorneys. We had to notify our manager, we had to put notes in the case file and had to talk to and let the prosecution know that we'd spoken to this person, but we weren't prevented from speaking with them in any way.
[00:11:39] Tiffany Roy: Yeah. A lot of them, some jurisdictions do have, you know, laboratory policy that prevents them from discussing anything with the defense. So it, it really depends on the lab and the jurisdiction, but it's just not just the idea of it. you know, the idea that somebody would have a different opinion than you, and you'd have to consider their reasoning. I think that's a healthy thing for a forensic scientist. I think we're all pretty self-assured people. You have to be that way in order to do this work because the outcomes are very important to a lot of people. But you know, the idea that you are willing to consider that maybe you didn't do everything a hundred percent correct. I think every single one of us in every single instance should be open to that. And I think sort of that happens in the laboratory with the technical review process and you take that, you know, criticism, it's not criticism, but I mean, you take the suggestions of your colleagues in different sort of...
[00:12:42] Angela: Constructive feedback.
[00:12:43] Tiffany Roy: Yeah. And I think that, you know, there just needs to be a willingness, a greater, a greater willingness to accept that from people who maybe are not your colleagues and your friends, just, you know, on the off chance that something there could be a misconceptions on there, cause this is really serious stuff. You know, I think we set the standard for a, yes, it should be scrutinized and then it should be scrutinized again and then it should be scrutinized again. And then maybe one of those sets of eyes is going to catch something that someone else didn't catch or, you know, someone's understanding level will be different or maybe higher level. And I just think there needs to be more of that in our us system.
[00:13:23] Angela: Definitely. I think that a lot of that comes back to laboratory culture, that leadership and management ensuring that the whole quality management system is focused on that quality mindset. Because if you have that mindset, the whole technical review process, which in a, you know, a bad work culture will be adversarial. And then the idea of throwing in an external person on that, you know, makes people more defensive or overly sensitive to criticism of their work. We realize that it's all just about ensuring the quality of that case, to ensure that the scientific information that we're giving to the triers of fact is, is of good quality, right? That we're not overstating the evidence in any way, that we're correctly stating it in a way that other people can understand it, that aren't scientists. And, I, I just this idea of having an ineffective quality management system where the technical review process is broken or that the culture is broken, brings me to one of the primary reasons that I wanted you to come on the show today and that was to talk about the issues that have been ongoing at the Washington DC crime laboratory. 'Cause those are pretty far reaching, but a lot of them go back to poor culture and, you know, an ineffective quality management system on top of maybe some external political pressures on the laboratory.
[00:15:04] Tiffany Roy: Yeah, I think, you know, it is, it's a complex landscape there. I know that there's a number of different police agencies in the district and, and, you know, people's political careers a lot of times that people don't consider in forensics. We're always told that we're supposed to be unbiased scientists, but everybody is a human person and their livelihood is forensic science and the drive to protect that as strong. And then also these judges or some of these politicians, you know, their livelihood is tied to the functionality of the criminal justice system and their ability to prosecute criminals effectively. And the crime lab plays a role in that. And those things are influenced by politics. And so, you know, everybody's own personal motivations are strong, and I think there's definitely a struggle for that in Washington. But, you know, I think the idea of independence is one of those things I always keep coming back to. That laboratory. You know, when it was built before 2015, before the first crash they had there, you know, they really made a big show of keeping the lab independent from the police department and keeping it independent from any, you know, DC government, prosecutorial or law enforcement agencies. And I think that some of that translated differently to them, than how I take it. The laboratory serves the people of the district and they're accountable to the citizens and the people who are victims of crime and in these criminal defendants. And they're not necessarily accountable to these law enforcement agencies or their government, the mayor's office, you know, even though those people sign the paychecks, you know, you have to invest in a transparent quality management system because you're accountable to the people first. And I think some of that stuff is it is getting, has been, and is still misplaced, you know, in DC for sure.
[00:17:07] Angela: Because when they were founded, it was born out of the idea, the desire to separate them from the metropolitan police. Because the National Academy of Science report in 2009 recommended that forensic laboratories, crime laboratories be separated from the law enforcement chain of command. But we still see across the United States, a lot of crime laboratories are still part of the police agencies.
[00:17:37] Tiffany Roy: And I think it can be that way. I mean, I just think if you have a culture of independence and accountability, even if you're affiliated with a police agency, it can still be truly independent. You just have to be, the leadership has to create that culture and they have to create that separation between the law enforcement investigative arm and, and the scientists. So I, you know, I think the, the idea of that recommendation, I understand what the, the goal and the intent of it was. I just think it's an easy, it makes it sound like such a quick fix, right? Just separate the physical building. And then we don't have cops in the building and they're not coming to meet and lunch with you. And everyone's like, oh yeah, like, no, that's not it. You don't understand what it means to be truly independent and unbiased. And that means that, you know, even sometimes that means like when you're testifying in court and a prosecutor is trying to use your evidence in a certain way that you correct them and you stop them, or you restate the evidence in the correct way and make sure you bring that to light. Even if it's the person who calls you to give the evidence, you know, because it's the science that you're beholden to and the people and not, you know, the prosecutor and not the politicians. And they really have to separate that out in Washington and make sure that they have somebody who can, who can refocus their, their goals there.
[00:19:01] Angela: One of the main issues, and I think this goes back to the first time in 2015, when the DC laboratory had their accreditation suspended, then again in 2021, when they actually have it, revoked completely, of this aspect of perhaps there's, even though they're independent of the police, there's a little pressure on the laboratory and the scientists don't feel that they can act independently or they're pressured in some way.
[00:19:31] Tiffany Roy: And I think repeated failures, right? perceived failures of their quality system, you know, that the pressure mounts there then for them not to, not to let that happen again. And so then I think there was pressure on them to do it, to get it right, and to do it right. And it wasn't being done right. They didn't make the right changes and they didn't. Remove the pressures from where they were truly coming from. I mean, I think once the 2015 problems were brought to light, they, you know, they've changed things up. And they, they replaced the management. And I wonder who made those decisions, who made the decisions of who, who was let go and who was hired? Who's, who's determining who's going in each position and is it a politician? And, and should it be that way? Is a politician qualified to select the qualities in a person, a forensic scientist would, would need to have? Someone that's going to lead a laboratory in a position of public trust like that. I just think it's a really big decision and, I wonder who's, who's doing that there. And I hope they reconsider some of the past mistakes revisit, you know, in forensics, we would, we would call it like root cause analysis. You know, what was the true root cause? Was it, you know, all these dishonest forensic scientists or is it not that, is it something else that's causing this?
[00:20:55] Angela: so after they lost their accreditation in 2021, the mayor's office commissioned a group called SNA International to come in and do a review of the failures at the laboratory and have some recommendations for path forward. And they said that they found considerably more nonconformances than ANAB, the accrediting body did. And the reason why ANAB apparently revoked the accreditation the last time was because the, I think it was the us attorney's office is actually open to criminal investigation into... into the laboratory with regards to a firearms case. And you know, some of the stuff in the recommendations, it's 157 page report that SNA International wrote, so I have not completed reading that document...
[00:21:48] Tiffany Roy: I have not either if I'm being honest.
[00:21:50] Angela: But I will, I will link it in the show notes for anybody who's interested in giving it a read. It is it's very interesting. so far, but one of the things that I think they highlighted was it wasn't just that the quality management system was ineffective and that the leadership hadn't, fomented an environment or a culture where just the everyday analysts doing the work at the bench felt that they could come forward with issues that they had identified and not have some type of retaliatory actions taken against them. And that's not a way to operate a scientific laboratory where we're supposed to be impartial and our work is, should be free from fear or favor. And, but on top of that, they were also saying that there were issues with the competency of the laboratory staff.
[00:22:40] Tiffany Roy: Yeah. I mean, I think it's just like any other fields in forensics. We just need to confront that. First of all, we're all human people. And I think because we're involved in the legal system and lawyers have all these priorities, you know, in our work and politicians, I think that there is really an air of infallibility or they want to present that, you know, that the science results are infallible when all these human people make mistakes and we need to normalize, discussing that. And the way that I think this has to happen is true oversight. you know, real oversight, like what they have at the Texas Commission. I think ANAB, is just not effective, really truly getting into the nitty-gritty of these cases and checking to make sure that not only the lab has a procedure, but the procedure is sufficient that these validations are sufficient. You know, our auditing system, the way we have it set up right now is not going to catch some of the problems that we've discovered here in Washington, DC. I think the only reason they came out was because it was a powerful prosecutor who started really asking deep questions and requesting documents. And, with the full power of the law, did a deep dive discovery. I think if it was anybody else asking these questions, I mean, obviously there are hundreds of defense attorneys that are working the district who've had forensic cases that had not found what the United States attorney had found and blew the whistle on. So the systems that we have in place right now are not sufficient to, to out these problems. And I think what I like about what's happening in Texas is it's almost like forced transparency in the quality system. So these laboratories have to self-report, they have to notify the commission of serious quality incidents. The commission writes reports and in this does an impartial investigation and everything is made public. All the documents are made public, all their audit documents, all their quality documents. These laboratories know that their stuff is going to be inspected and that that's expected of them. You know, that they're going to be looked at not just by the accrediting body, but also by the commission. And that motivates them I think a lot of times to take steps and actions that maybe they wouldn't take, if they weren't being... [if] their feet were being held to that fire. Like maybe they wouldn't be as forthcoming if they didn't need to be as forthcoming, because it does have, you know, impacts far reaching impacts on their personal careers. So...
[00:25:14] Angela: Right. I am glad that you keep mentioning, transparency and, you know, within like, like you said, in a way in Texas, they're kind of forcing that transparency. And I, I think a lot of that arose because they had several laboratories in Texas that had some scandalous issues that happened. They did result in miscarriages of justice. And then you also had independent, well not, they were part of prosecutions or district attorney's offices where they have conviction integrity units. Texas also passed the laws about post-conviction testing as well. So I think that Texas got a little bit of a leg up on some other areas, because there was so much scrutiny of things that weren't working directly at the crime laboratories. And then the forensic science commission was born out of that. And it's interesting to see because you can go and read all of the reports. People file complaints, individuals can file complaints with the commission and the commission will investigate it. And if we get, we can look and see a contrast between how things were handled in the Washington DC incident versus how Texas has handled it to the forensic science commission. They have these independent auditors, they don't work for the commission. They don't work for the laboratories directly. They're brought in as independent contractors to do, to do these reviews and report on it. And they actually give the laboratory or the person against whom the complaint was made the opportunity to self-correct if they had done something wrong. And I think that's important. It doesn't seem, I don't know if the people in the DC had that opportunity. It seems like, you know, like first incident in 2015, that happened, that they just fired everyone.
[00:27:13] Tiffany Roy: Well, I know they didn't fire their analysts. So some of the DNA, the bench working DNA people, they kept all those scientists. It was mostly, you know, management and lab lawyers and, you know, they really did. I, it was a big public show. And I think on some level there was a lot of, making this right with the United States attorney's office and whose heads are gonna roll who's head do you want to roll Mr. United States attorney? And that stuff it really doesn't have a place. The guy who is running the Houston Forensic Science Center now, Peter Stout, you know, Houston had a serious problem. One of the first crime labs...
[00:27:49] Angela: Yes.
[00:27:50] Tiffany Roy: ...things went awry and were terribly bad. And, he has gone in there and created, you know, a culture of transparency and they do things like, so we were discussing that there are some questions in Washington about whether the analysts who are looking at fingerprints are competent to, to look at fingerprints and they do blind proficiency testing there at Houston. And, you know, that would be really helpful in outing some of the, some of the technical weaknesses of the analyst and, you know, it can help you make improvements if you can identify where these problems begin. So what he has done there is take in create this culture of, of true impartiality and a dedication to the science. And that's what we really need to see in, in Washington and every single crime lab. It's super hard because these people, a lot of times, work their whole careers at this crime lab and changing that's how people I think get promoted a lot of times at a crime lab. Is that you've been there so long that now you're just the lab director, not necessarily for the culture that you promote, but you know, your tenure, it's kinda like this good old boy thing.
[00:29:03] Angela: I don't think that's necessarily unique to a forensic science laboratory. Because there are a lot of people in other professions that are highly technical and you know, maybe you work for an engineering firm and you're the most excellent engineer, but because you're the guy that's been there for 20 years, you get promoted up to the manager, even though you're really not a people person, you don't understand management. You know, you can't assume that just because somebody is very highly, technically competent that they're the right person to be in a leadership role or leadership or management role in an organization. But you're right. We do tend to do that in forensics. Like you just kind of get promoted because you've been there the longest,
[00:29:49] Tiffany Roy: And you want the pay raise. And these people are putting in there throwing their hat into the ring. Right. They think, they really think. We're self-assured people, we're experts. Right? We think we can do it. And we don't really know what it takes to do it. A lot of us, many of us, I wouldn't want the job. I'm not going to lie. I wouldn't want to be responsible for, you know, all of these other analysts and, and everyone else's livelihoods, and in creating that culture, it's a big job. And I don't envy the people who, who take that on and that challenge and that you gotta respect it, but it's, it's, you know, I, they don't really teach this kind of stuff in, you know, forensic programs and it's not something I think very many people thought about or else we wouldn't have to confront a lot of the bias issues that we're just becoming aware of more recently. So I think that's a big part of it is just, you know...
[00:30:45] Angela: Yeah, we focus on, we focus a lot on training people up in the technical side and not so much the emotional intelligence, interpersonal communication, how to be a leader in an organization and create that culture a quality mindset, where everyone knows that their opinions are valid and if they have an issue or they have an idea that can improve things that they're welcome to speak up and we want them to speak up.
[00:31:14] Tiffany Roy: Yeah.
[00:31:14] Angela: I mean, I've been in that position where I'm like, I don't think we're doing this right after going away to a training. And then I come back and ... no, no, what we're doing is fine. And then, you know, you're, you're just, like you said, you're just a scientist at the bench doing the work and you're required to follow those procedures. You don't really have an option not to.
[00:31:34] Tiffany Roy: Right.
[00:31:35] Angela: And, so then you kind of get stuck between a rock and a rock and a hard place on that. Then, you know, a few years, later, then the laboratory suddenly changing all of their procedures and stuff because, Hey, they weren't actually doing it correctly.
[00:31:48] Tiffany Roy: I have been in the same. I have been in that position, you know, I've had casework, that's gone out and had the procedures changed because of some misunderstanding of some standard in some metric that we were using. And that taught me a lot, as a forensic scientist. And I think a lot of these bench scientists, like they don't want the responsibility of making the technical decisions. And the technical leader, you know, is tasked with doing that. But every single analyst in the laboratory needs to feel like if they were the technical leader now today that they could do it because you're, you're ...
[00:32:23] Angela: Right.
[00:32:23] Tiffany Roy: ...understanding and your expertise, in your field, it's that important. It's that important. You have to be able to identify problems within your own system and outside your system, and you have to be able to do that through maintaining your, your level of knowledge and expertise in the field. And I see that happen. That exact thing that you're talking about now, I think that's at the base of many of these systemic problems on the technical side. It's just the lack of accountability on each analyst to really discover and to understand their, their system and their procedures and their validations as deeply as they need to. Right.
[00:33:03] Angela: Interesting that you're saying that cause one of the, one of the points that I made in the first episode that I kind of put together as a foundation for this one was just kind of the foundations of laboratory accreditation to the ISO, the international standards and how most of that is the responsibility for that is just the technical management and the laboratory management. And the scientists that are doing the work at the bench, they're kind of given sort of more like, here's this orientation, here's our quality manual. You need to read this. And these are the technical procedures. And then that's, that's it. They're not, they don't really, they're not given the in-depth training to understand why there are policies written the way they are, why they're important, or why the technical procedures are laid out in a certain format with all of these different little requirements that are in there. They're just like, eh, whatever, it's, they just, the quality manager, they just like to be wordy when they write policies and procedures, without understanding that they are that way for a particular reason. I think that if, if they did have a better understanding from the beginning, it was more integral part of the training, it would improve the, the communication that you need to improve constantly improve the work that the laboratory is doing.
[00:34:31] Tiffany Roy: And I think also, just on a base level, there's just not a high enough priority. What you're talking about, training on the front end, I think there needs to be a lot more training about this bias and about language bias and, and communication, how we communicate these things in court. One of the things that I thought about, so I, when I worked, when I was going to law school, the one of the district attorney's offices in my area would farm out its new hire DA's to, oh no, it was the big name law firm, in Boston, they would get all these new just graduated lawyers, and then they would send them to the district attorney's office to prosecute cases because they needed to get some casework experience and, and trial experience. And they would just throw them into the pit and then they would work for free for the state prosecuting cases. And that's how they would get their trial experience. And I have always thought about trying, trying to do this with forensic scientists and having them work for us, you know, for a period of time in the public defender's office, just advising, you know, maybe the next county over or something, public defender, and rotating them through and seeing, the kinds of things that def- criminal defendants are concerned about the kind of language that criminal defendants would be take opposition to. I think I didn't become fully aware of what it meant to be truly unbiased until I started to do more defense work and to appreciate, you know, some of these concerns with language, and communicating results, limitations of results. And so, yeah, I think there's a lot we could do in the training sphere to, to do this right at the beginning, I've been giving lectures... so Claire Glenn is, in the biology department at University of N ew Haven and she's running their genealogy certificate there and everything. And she has me lecture to her classes. And I say this every time, like some of the things that really aggrieve me that analysts say on the witness stand. If I'm able to say this to a student and make them aware that, you know, don't use the word sperm fraction, if you have an identified sperm cause that could be really misleading to a lay person. You know, maybe they'd never considered that. And they're like, oh, you know, I should be really careful about the language I choose. And so...
[00:37:00] Angela: You're right. Yeah, definitely. I see what you're saying.
[00:37:03] Tiffany Roy: There's a lot we can do on the training front that would be helpful, you know, to combat this.
[00:37:08] Angela: I'd like to say that some of that thing about understanding the language you use in the courtroom, you know, it does it, some of it does come with the experience of having been in court and on that cross examination where somebody's really grilling you on something where you think more about the words, but if you're a brand new analyst that's just completed training you wouldn't know that until you make that mistake.
[00:37:32] Tiffany Roy: Right. Exactly. And at that point you're like, oh, or until someone really brought that to your attention, you know, if you've not considered it and, and some of these things, I made the same mistakes, right. No one ever told me, when I was young to try to make sure that I express the limitations of the testing, what the DNA can and can't tell me about the crime, you know, be clear about that on the witness stand and don't, you don't just have to answer the questions that are being posed to you by a lawyer. If you feel like you need to expound on it more, you can indicate that to the judge or the lawyers, and you should be given the opportunity to do that and make sure the evidence is clear. So a lot of this stuff, I think, yeah, it's cultural, but it's embedded, right? The reason that we've re recognized in 2009 and the NAS report that we needed to separate from law enforcement is because we can see the influence of law enforcement on these labs. And we can see that bias. And we, I see this also with prosecutors, you know, when we, when the National Commission on Forensic Science had to make the formal recommendation that we stopped using the term reasonable degree of scientific certainty, you know, that has no meaning in science. And that was put in the mouth of a scientist by a lawyer. And you see the...
[00:38:46] Angela: Oh, is that where that came from. I always kind of wondered why that was in things, but like, why are we even that?
[00:38:51] Tiffany Roy: Yeah, that came from the lawyers and so in legal rulings. And so you see the impression of the lawyers and the law enforcement on the science, and we have to try to resist that, you know? And so that's, I think one way that the culture will change to the point where we feel like we owe it to the science. We owe it to the results. We owe it to these people that we're serving and not necessarily, you know, our goal is not to solve crime because that's not what we do. We don't, you know, help... I see Bode Technology, which is a private DNA lab and their, you know, when their conferences and stuff hashtag prevent tomorrow's victim, I'm like, no, we don't do that. We don't fight crime. We are science and we don't know the truth. So I think there has to be like a cultural shift, in, in forensics that I'm hoping, you know,
[00:39:46] Angela: Well, you know, like you said, there's been a lot of focus in recent years on understanding bias in forensic science. You know, that Dr. Dror has done a good amount of work in that realm. I know the Forensic Science Regulator in the UK has also issued an entire document about, bias and forensic science. Are there any, I've been out of the United States so long now? I can't, I'm not even a hundred percent sure if we have a similar document, like maybe one of the OSAC committees has done something?
[00:40:16] Tiffany Roy: Well, they have a human factors committee at OSAC. And then I'm also on a NIST working group where we're writing guidance, to mitigate human factors in forensic DNA.
[00:40:26] Angela: Right?
[00:40:27] Tiffany Roy: So they've done, this did two reports before this. I want to say one is definitely fingerprints. I've read that document. And then another one, they have one other one. I can't think of off the top of my head where they have addressed human factors in each discipline that I'm sure they'll go through all of them and get to them all. But yeah, we're working on that now. I've been doing that now for two years and, we're going into our third year. It's a lot. I'm on the testimony...
[00:40:53] Angela: I imagine.
[00:40:54] Tiffany Roy: Yeah. ..Testimony and reporting subcommittee. So some of these things that we're talking about now, like language, and I was not aware of, you know, these things hadn't occurred to me either until I started doing this work.
[00:41:08] Angela: Until somebody challenges what you've said in court, and you're like , oh...I was just thinking of it from I'm a bench scientist, and this is the jargon we use in the laboratory without any thought for necessarily how the defendant would feel...
[00:41:22] Tiffany Roy: Yeah.
[00:41:22] Angela: ...when those words are used.
[00:41:24] Tiffany Roy: So it, you know, I'm thinking more critically about it. And I think that it's a big part of what we need to implement into our forensic science, you know, collegiate programs into our laboratory training. And part of it is, if you look at some of the research that's been done, in the area, like you alluded to this earlier in an earlier conversation where scientists have a tendency to think they know that, that some people are prone to cognitive bias, but not them, it's that guy over there right now, really not doing it. Yeah. And so there's just this general kind of rejection where people think science somehow is immune to bias. And, and so they don't, there's a lot of big portion of it of the community that just rejects the concept in, in its total. So until we really grapple with that, like here, me and you were talking about training people to train the culture, and then there's some people that are like, no, that's not even a real thing. Cognitive bias doesn't impact my work as I just. So I don't know how to fix that, but, you know.
[00:42:31] Angela: Time, sometimes you just have to let people have time to stew it over in their own minds and think about it. And you know, maybe it's one of those things until they have some kind of direct incident that they're involved in, you know, sometimes that that practical experience is what teaches you to maybe be a little introspective and learn from experience.
[00:42:57] Tiffany Roy: Even the culture around science here in this country, like I've seen it with the pandemic response and vaccine response. And, just the attitudes. Sometimes people just have different views that, you know, are shaped by their life experiences. And some of those people are forensic scientists. So I don't know that it's something we will be able to fix completely. Cause this is something that's, you know, innately human. They decide what science they want to accept and what size they want to reject. You know? just in general, I think.
[00:43:29] Angela: I'm just like, look at the data, just look at the data. You don't need to look at what everybody else is saying around it. Just look at the data.
[00:43:37] Tiffany Roy: And that's really, I mean, in all aspects of what we're talking about, is at the core of what I wish to see happen in forensics that could help some of these labs that are struggling, is that. You know, Peter Stout in Houston, he doesn't say, well, just trust me that I know how to validate. I'm doing things correctly. He comes to you with the data and I'll say, here, look at my stuff, I'll show you. And that's the difference between, you know, true leadership in as a scientist and, you know, leadership that comes from political pressures or other pressures that may be on forensic scientists. But that should always be what the answer is. Come back to the data, show me the data. I'll show you my data. That I'm right. You know,
[00:44:21] Angela: Now, is his lab the one that's there, they're putting out, not only do they have all of their policies and procedures and their validations are like open to be reviewed on their website they also put any kind of, incident reports that they have are freely available for people to come and look at?
[00:44:38] Tiffany Roy: Yeah, I think that's what they're doing either that I can't remember. I haven't been to their website specifically, but I mean the Texas Commission puts out a lot of things on any self-reported incidents. They write reports about them and, you know, I think that's really what we need to demand in forensics. the NIST foundation review that just came out on mixture interpretation, solidified how I feel about this in that, you know, a lot of laboratories pushed back on making their validations public. And I think everything needs to be public full transparency, even in our, even in our publication process. I want to see everybody's data being submitted with their publications. And I don't want to take the author's word, I don't want to take, you know the developer...
[00:45:24] Angela: You're right. It should, it should be out there and open. And that's not, I wouldn't limit that to forensic science either.
[00:45:30] Tiffany Roy: No thinking this already. I want to say, like, if you came to Pfizer and they were developing this vaccine and they weren't making their stuff, you know, available, not just to the FDA for inspection, but to the general public, then I think a lot more people would reject, you know? And I think we need to demand that from forensics. I want to see everything publicly available, just because you're involved in the legal system, doesn't exempt you from full transparency of all your quality. Like every...
[00:46:01] Angela: You've just hit the exact reason why I called this podcast Secrets from the Crime Lab, because the whole point is there shouldn't be any secrets. It should just be open. Science is, is there for everyone to use. It's an, a very important tool. We're using it for very specific tasks in forensics. And that intersection between the science and the legal system complicates things, but the science is it's, it's the data. We have these, these observations, we've tested them. Here's our interpretation of this. And one of the things that, you know, you look back historically with, how we used to report DNA results and the words we used to use and the test reports and how we reported our statistics and how much that's changed just in the last five years. Even though the test that you're doing in the lab, you know, running it on your analytical equipment, hasn't changed. It's just how we view and understand and interpret that data has evolved as we've been transparent and had discussions about eliminating bias in that interpretation process. And making sure that we're giving a result that has some kind of meaning that the courts can understand, because what we were doing before, really in the US at least with the CPI, really, wasn't very helpful.
[00:47:31] Tiffany Roy: I'm a frequentist. My, my,
[00:47:34] Angela: Oh, are you? You don't like the likeihood ratio?
[00:47:37] Tiffany Roy: I understand it. it makes sense to me, right? You, you need X amount of people before you would see this for small or large amounts so that I can, I can see that in my mind, the likelihood ratio is really abstract for me and I, it's hard to explain and lawyers don't like it. And there's just...
[00:47:58] Angela: I think that's a US thing though.
[00:48:00] Tiffany Roy: I know growing pains, I see a lot of analysts that, that are confused about it. And...
[00:48:08] Angela: I would agree based on some of the testimony excerpts that I've seen you post on LinkedIn.
[00:48:13] Tiffany Roy: Yeah. So I would say, you know, we're growing and forensics is like weirdest thing, because just when you, like, I've been in this field now for 15 years and it changed just so much, you know, from night and day, the differences are significant. And so it's really hard sometimes to keep up with all the advancements that happen regularly in this field. And I don't envy the analysts that are doing this work, but this is a growing pain where I can see people struggling to understand it fully and maybe them not liking it, in the same way that I liked it, you know, it made sense to me conceptually how we were doing it before. And this is a little bit more abstract, although...
[00:48:55] Angela: It made sense to me before too. I mean, I understand frequency approach. I, I've just learned to love the likelihood issue a lot more.
[00:49:02] Tiffany Roy: And I like, what I like about the likelihood ratio is the acknowledgement of an alternative, right? This is more likely, but I can't rule this other thing out. I'm not ruling it out. And I love that, you know, because I think in science we don't use absolute terms and we have in this field in the past and other fields are using absolute terms and identification terms. And we need to move away from that because it's one of the, it's one of the limitation areas where I feel like we have not always done a good job of making clear to people, what the limitations of what we do are.
[00:49:35] Angela: Yeah. I would definitely agree with you on that because I can't, I cannot think of any case where it's going to trial and I'm being asked questions by either the prosecution or the defense, just so that they can try to understand the scientific report that's been issued and they don't, they, they, they read it and they make this... draw this conclusion. And you're like, that's, that's not what that means at all. That's not even remotely what that means.
[00:50:06] Tiffany Roy: And it's super hard to do, right. To make sure that your work is understood and not misunderstood. And that really is what we have to do every time. the question that the court is asking anytime a forensic DNA analyst is in there is really whose DNA is it, is it, this guy's DNA and that's not what the likelihood ratio addresses. And so, but that's what they want to know. So, and I think that's what you're there to tell them. And so...
[00:50:32] Angela: Well, you can say, no, , I wasn't there. So I cannot answer that question. None of us were there, this is not a question we are ever going to have the answer to with a hundred percent certainty.
[00:50:42] Tiffany Roy: Yeah and so....
[00:50:44] Angela: I might be able to get to 99.99999%, but that's never going to be a hundred percent. There's always that alternative that you have to consider.
[00:50:53] Tiffany Roy: So I think that's one of the hardest things right now, that we're trying to adjust to is just moving away. And even though we're considered this in forensic DNA, the gold standard, you know, there's still improvements that we need to make. Some of these are cultural, you know, just being able to admit that it's not, nothing is a hundred percent, and no one is without error. And so that's all right.
[00:51:16] Angela: And that should make everybody pause, right? Because DNA for so long has been considered the gold standard, but DNA, we still have so many issues that we're working through. I mean, the NIST that these mixture studies that are sent out to, you know, hundreds of laboratories across the U S we're still not as consistent in our interpretations as we should be. Even though all these labs are accredited, everybody's got validated procedures, they've got interpretation guidelines, but everyone is, you know, there's still a, not enough consistency across laboratories.
[00:51:53] Tiffany Roy: And I'm still there, some laboratories that aren't doing it right. I mean, I see them.
[00:51:57] Angela: That doesn't really surprise me. But that's why your role is important because the court wouldn't know that otherwise. And maybe even the lab that's doing it don't know that they're not doing it. Right?
[00:52:08] Tiffany Roy: Yeah. I think that's most often. Okay. Let's just be clear that I think that the vast majority of forensic scientists are honest and they're trying to do a good job and there's just a knowledge gap, you know, because, because this moves so fast and because this stuff is so complex when we bring in all these computer programs and we switched the math up and it's a lot and I, I, you know, mixtures are very difficult and it's because I have focused, you know, my entire career on understanding what we were doing wrong before, and you know what we're doing now, but we're moving quickly and there's more change coming. And so it's only gonna get harder. To get on top of it. and so I'm happy to do this work, although it's not always well-received.
[00:52:55] Angela: Necessary though. It's very necessary. Always need some another perspective.
[00:53:00] Tiffany Roy: I definitely don't want to be the guy. I want ANAB to be the guy, or I want Bruce Budowle and the Texas Commission to be the guy and the, you know, we should have a guy. It just shouldn't have to be me, you know?
[00:53:11] Angela: Well, it didn't, it shouldn't, it shouldn't be so adversarial. Everyone should understand. That's why I think we could learn something from, you know, more the UK system or maybe some stuff in Europe where you've got the experts are the experts and they talk with each other. And if there's interpretational discrepancies, we work through those types of things. The same way you would be doing internally when you're, when you have a second scientist reviewing your work in the first place. It shouldn't be any different. It's just another technical review.
[00:53:43] Tiffany Roy: It is. And then I, what my big thing is like, sometimes I can't make them understand. Sometimes that I, so I, in Florida where I practice primarily, we have deposition. So a lot of times I'm able to go in and then the other experts can sit and listen to what I'm saying, or they get to hear my testimony. And they still walk out of there thinking that they are correct and I'm wrong. And so what I really want is like the UK regulator, where I can go before... I can take that scientist, like, yeah, we can communicate about all this stuff we agree upon. But then where we differ, like, I want a judge Judy to say, you know, this person is right in this instance or you're, you're wrong, Tiffany, in this instance and they're doing it. Okay. And you know, I really need a scientist in that position and not a judge, not a lay judge because they just don't, they can't get it.
[00:54:34] Angela: Yeah.
[00:54:34] Tiffany Roy: I don't know why we expect them to really honestly.
[00:54:38] Angela: Well, I mean, if you think about it, they have a lot that they have to deal with. You know, officers of the court, they've got a very specific job to do, and it's very difficult for them to also learn the science. And when the science, you know, as we learn more in the field evolves and changes, scientists have enough of a hard time keeping up with the changes, how do we expect the officers of the court to be able to do that as well? Especially when they've got the government laboratory is saying one thing and the independent expert is saying something else.
[00:55:15] Tiffany Roy: Well, and that's the key, right? So I, it's hard enough to convince like even the crime lab, if they are making some kind of egregious error that they don't understand. They're experts don't understand it. How can I expect a judge to, to get that, to get on this level? So it's really just like an impossible task a lot of times. And I feel it.
[00:55:40] Angela: Yeah, the groups like the Texas Forensic Science Commission, it'd be good if those started to be adopted more widely across the US because you know, that is, you know, it is a mixture of lawyers and scientists, and, but they have scientists that are appointed to the commission. They bring in the external experts in the field and, you know, I'll link, I'll link to it in the show notes, but there was a report, you know, where they came in, the experts came in and they did an audit. They made recommendations. And even though at first the person wasn't ...the person that was the subject of the complaint wasn't very receptive to it. In the end. They did learn from it. Not only did they learn from it, they used it as a learning opportunity for the entire organization across the board so that everybody, they, they identified deficiencies paid, they audited themselves on top of the external audit. And then they introduced all sorts of improvements across the system.
[00:56:41] Tiffany Roy: Yeah. And I, I just read that and I opine for that in every state, across this union and in the state that I practice in, but you know, it doesn't always function the way that it should. I, I, I had hoped and I still have hope that ANAB can be this body. I have a couple... so my new year's resolution is to put everything up to ANAB if I see something that's wrong, I first have to go and file a quality complaint with the laboratory and give them the chance to self correct. And then if they don't, then I put it up to ANAB. And I'm going to do that all year, 2022. Every time I see something egregious, I'm going to send it up. And I want them to see what, what I see. And I'm hoping, so there's three there right now, that have already gone through the laboratories, and the laboratories claim that, you know, I'm wrong, that I don't know what I'm talking about. And you know, I'm hoping there'll be investigated well, and not from the perspective of ANAB as you know these laboratories are their clients and, you know, they're servicing their clients and they don't want to necessarily find fact with their clients, but you know, ANAB on some level, after what happened in Washington, DC should know now that they have some role, they have some culpability in what all transpired and they need to take this stuff a lot more seriously and perform real meaningful investigations of, of complaints when they come up. So I'm hopeful. I'll let you know, I can keep you posted.
[00:58:19] Angela: Well, I guess in a way, because I'm, I've been a quality manager for, you know, over a decade and it's difficult for accrediting bodies, like ANAB too, because they're not, they're not a policing organization for forensic laboratories, but they are required if a complaint is filed to investigate that complaint, but there's only so far, they're able to go with it because they are bound by the ISO requirements and ANAB they also have their accessory requirements, their specific requirements that 3125 document. Other other labs that are accredited by A2LA in the United States. It's, it's the same thing. Right? So they can only assess whether the laboratory is in conformance or not in conformance. So if the lab has policies and procedures in place and they've validated things, they, they kind of have to give a check mark to that. But when you get into DNA, you've also had the added layer, the FBI Quality Assurance Standards, and those can get much more specific in the technical and I think you might be able to take further action that... But of course, they're always supposed to go back to the lab and give the lab the opportunity to correct. I am wondering in the DC instance, if it was strictly, they revoked the accreditation because it was such a risk to ANAB as an organization to continue to accredit a laboratory that was under criminal investigation.
[00:59:54] Tiffany Roy: And it was, I mean, it forced their hand and it shouldn't have to be that way. Like if, if they are interested in quality and if quality matters, then it's not just whether they have a procedure and whether they have a validation, you know, is their validation sufficient to support their procedure. And have they validated to the extent of the interpretations that they're making ANAB absolutely has to, has to be concerned about that and has to enforce this, especially when it's brought to their attention. So, you know, where we have a lot of requirements now about the extent of a mixture of validation and you know, whether the procedures are supported. and it's to prevent, you know, erroneous interpretations. And I have one right now where I looked at this validation and then there is a validation, you know, it was done a year after the case that I'm looking at,
[01:00:44] Angela: Hmm, no that's not how that's supposed to work.
[01:00:48] Tiffany Roy: Nope. And then, you know, I look at the validation and it doesn't support the procedure at all. Even though the write-up says, oh, it supports it. And I'm looking at this data and I don't think these people have any idea how to draw, you know, conclusions from the data to see the trends, because what they saw from that, you know, I, I honestly have no idea.
[01:01:11] Angela: You think that's a technical leader? Wasn't...
[01:01:14] Tiffany Roy: Yeah.
[01:01:14] Angela: ...the right person for that role?
[01:01:16] Tiffany Roy: He was the person who did the validation, or his name was on it. And it looks like his handwriting, but I don't think he understands what he's, what that procedure is supposed to be doing. What. you know, what things he was supposed to be looking for in, in being able to identify this was for a major mixture, calculations that are at a binary lab that's just doing manual interpretation still. And they, I don't think the validation that they have in place or it's their method that they're using. They're not...
[01:01:47] Angela: Yeah, it's not backwards applicable anyways. You can't do the work and then do the validation study. It's the other way around.
[01:01:54] Tiffany Roy: Yeah, no, and that's a red flag. That's usually a big red flag for me, but I could tell from the data that they didn't know how to identify this in, in a meaningful way. So I could tell that the interpretation was not good. I just needed to figure out where that stems, where it flowed from. You know, and it's definitely the, you can see in the validation that they don't know,
[01:02:16] Angela: And this issue sounds like it goes back to a training and competency issue, which we do see again and again, that, that seems to crop up a lot in when these scandals for these laboratories come to light it's that the training was perhaps insufficient or continuing education and training is insufficient, or maybe just the basic competency of people are in question. And maybe it's not their fault. Maybe it is the organization's fault for not maybe having the funding to provide that type of continuing education. Do you think that's...?
[01:02:50] Tiffany Roy: There was so much, yeah, there's so many layers to this problem. So in this particular instance, this had come up, because they were being externally audited by their, CODIS , NDIS you know, they're SDIS level. So the SDIS lab came in and audited them in 2018 and found that they had only validated this Globalfiler kit for mixtures, of two people. And they were interpreting up to five.
[01:03:20] Angela: Oh, no, you can't do that.
[01:03:22] Tiffany Roy: And they did a further mixture study. And then I'm not sure at what point they realized that they hadn't done a major mixture study, but they were making these interpretations and then they added onto it again.
[01:03:35] Angela: So did they go back and review all the mixture cases?
[01:03:39] Tiffany Roy: No. No, it's just coming up now.
[01:03:43] Angela: Okay. So maybe they will go back then.
[01:03:45] Tiffany Roy: It should have really been done. I couldn't see in the, the SDIS audit that what their remedial action was. I think that they thought the remedial action was just to do the validation and make sure they had it validated. And then I think from a, from a cognitive bias aspect, you always have to kind of be concerned anytime someone's doing a validation after they've already started with a procedure that it's, you're just painting the target, you know? Oh yeah, it works just like we thought it was gonna, so it's good. And so I always look at those with a lot more scrutiny. You know, the subsequent validation,
[01:04:22] Angela: It seems like it it's a perfect opportunity for this laboratory to reach out to someone external. And it doesn't necessarily have to be someone who like yourself, that's an independent person. You can also reach out to the laboratory in the neighboring state. You know, if this was an NDIS thing, talk to the other CODIS administrators in, in another state. Maybe ask them if they can loan you someone from their lab to come in and do a review for you. If you don't like that idea of the defense expert coming in. And, and have that external person who's not part of your laboratory come in and looking at it and then they can make some recommendations on corrective actions that you could take. Because you know, a lot of times I can say as a quality manager, it's, it's difficult sometimes to get the person who's doing the primary investigation in something, because they're the ones that was their issue, they have to do the investigation and root cause analysis, but getting them to understand whether or not their suggested corrective action actually addresses the issue, corrects the issue and prevents the issue from happening again in the future. It's a lot of times it's that it's not a ... They don't see how to fully correct the issue. They only correct it that one time, rather than understanding it's, it's perhaps broader than that, requires more corrective action, and that you also have to prevent it from happening in the future. And the accrediting bodies, you know, especially for that laboratory, next time they come in for a surveillance assessment, they should be looking at that audit and findings and....
[01:06:09] Tiffany Roy: They have the audit I sent it to them, you know, to show the sort of progression. I think it's important to look at it through the lens of, yeah, they were caught with their pants down once before, and then they fixed it and here they got caught with their pants down again, and the same procedure. And it's just, I think part of this issue too...
[01:06:27] Angela: That's just, they just didn't understand how to correct it the first place.
[01:06:30] Tiffany Roy: And just mentally. So it's a young technical leader, and I think there's some weird things that happen once you become a technical leader or an expert it's that you don't want to, you don't want people to think of you as, you know, inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough. And so you don't ask sometimes the questions that maybe you need to ask, or you only ask people that are your friends, you know, that your colleagues that you used to work with, and that you trust, but you're not going deep enough. You're not going out far enough. Or you're not going to the guy who wrote the article or, you know, the people who are writing the standards. You're not getting the guidance from where you need to get it because you don't want to hear not to know what you're talking about.
[01:07:08] Angela: Yeah. I see what you're saying there. I think that that's one of those situations where it's important to know that you're not expected to have all of the answers. You're not expected to be all knowing you're expected to go: Oh, this is new, I'm not really sure how to handle this. Maybe I should reach out to some other external groups that I don't talk to on a regular basis to make sure that I get a clearer view of, of what could be going on or how to react to it. Because what is the thing that I've, I've always learned, the more I learn, the more I learn I don't know.
[01:07:45] Tiffany Roy: Yeah.
[01:07:45] Angela: And cause it's like, oh my gosh, there's so much stuff. I read a paper and then I go and look at all the other papers I need to read. So I understand everything that was in that paper.
[01:07:54] Tiffany Roy: And that has been the progression of my field. That my expertise is that I think when I was young on the bench, I didn't realize how much I didn't know. And now that I know more, I realized then, you know what? My attitude was, how, how much I relied on my technical leadership and my colleagues without really fully understanding, you know, why we did things. And I think it's a mistake that a lot of analysts make cause they have that comfort of that. And the more I learn now, the more I realize why it's important to do it. And, and I also, it makes me feel like I'm not impervious. I know that I don't know everything, but I know where to get the information from a reliable source. And I think that's the most important thing that, I would want these crime labs to take away from my involvement in any of these, all of these labs scandals, right? The information is out there, you just have to make sure yours is good and you have to do everything in your power to do that. And that includes going to the very top guy and saying, Hey, look at this, or, or hiring someone to come in, you know, that can really dig down deep, like Catherine [G...], you know, and have her come in and look at your validation and make suggestions for how you can make improvements. It's just so important. It can't be overstated. You have to know you're not impervious to error and you have to know where to get information.
[01:09:17] Angela: And go and take some, you know, I think, especially if you're working for a government lab, you feel like training, if you want to get extra training in validations and how to actually do them and how to scrutinize the data so that you know how to implement these new procedures and really understand the, the limitations of them, you know, you can't always rely on the agency that you work for to provide that training for you.
[01:09:43] Tiffany Roy: Yeah.
[01:09:43] Angela: I have spent many of my own dollars on getting training for myself because there was no way the public organization that I worked for was going to be able to send me away to a training.
[01:09:55] Tiffany Roy: No, and it is...
[01:09:56] Angela: It's your responsibility. You are the expert.
[01:10:00] Tiffany Roy: Financial commitment, you know, formal classes and also CLEs like, you know, at trainings and stuff, you have to make that investment of your time and your money. Otherwise you're going to be behind the eight ball. You will, there'll be something you don't know. I agree with you 100%.
[01:10:15] Angela: Yeah. Take, take the responsibility for yourself. You know, that doesn't mean don't ask your organization to do it, right. Ask them to, to fund you and support you in it. If maybe if they won't pay for it, maybe they'll at least let you not have to take vacation time to go away for the training stuff. But, you know... forensic scientists are actually paid quite a bit better than scientists in other fields, especially if you're talking about biological scientists, like when I was in cancer research did not make very much money. ...
All right. So we're recording again now. So it's been a very interesting conversation. Thank you so much for taking the time to come on and talk. I think that we definitely should have more of these conversations in the future, and make sure that we let other scientists know that having these open conversations and like you were saying that you don't have to know everything, it's okay to ask for help. And that defense expert there is, is not trying to say that you're... They're being helpful. Take, take everything that they're giving you as it's a gift, feedback is a gift.
[01:11:31] Tiffany Roy: Yeah. We all have the same goal and that is to make sure the best science gets before the court. So we're all wanting the same thing. It's just that maybe we might have different opinions about what that might look like.
[01:11:43] Angela: Right, right. Right. Well, I think that we are going to do an episode in the future on human factors and bias. And since you're involved in a committee, maybe you'll come back and have that conversation as well?
[01:11:57] Tiffany Roy: Yeah. That would be great.
[01:11:58] Angela: Sounds great. Thank you again for your time. Appreciate it.
[01:12:00] Tiffany Roy: Thanks for having me.
[01:12:02] Angela: You are welcome.
And that's all for today's episode. I hope that you learned something in our conversation. I think Tiffany and I probably could have kept speaking to each other for at least another hour and... whether or not everyone else has the stamina to listen to us talk for that amount of time is another matter.
If you would like to connect with, Tiffany, I will be linking her information in the show notes. Along with references to articles and the report that we mentioned in this discussion. Those are going to be available at my website at practicalforensics.science on the podcasting page. And I would like to take some, a moment to tell you that at the moment, this podcast is in its infancy, and I would appreciate any kind of support that you could give me. So if you would like to support the podcast and this endeavor that I have embarked on, I would really appreciate it. And if you visit the podcast website at secretsfromthecrimelab.com, there's a link there for you to buy me a coffee and you can do whatever denomination you want. I don't need a fancy coffee, but every little bit helps to support the podcast, which is completely financed by me at this point in time.
If you would like to join me for the next episode where we're going to be speaking with an expert from the UK, please make sure that you subscribe so you'll be notified when the episode is available. And if you would be interested in being a guest on the podcast, please send me an email at hello@secretsfromthecrimelab.com. And also if you have any feedback, things that you would like to have me discuss in the future or questions that you might have after having listened to this episode or the previous one, I really would like to hear from you. So again, email me at hello@secretsfromthecrimelab.com. And with that, I would like to say, I hope that you will give us a listen next time.