The chemist at the center of the state drug lab scandal carried on an unauthorized, sometimes personal, e-mail and phone correspondence with a prosecutor whose drug evidence she analyzed, a violation of office protocol that may give defense attorneys even more ammunition to throw out drug convictions involving Annie Dookhan’s work.
Though State Police have concluded that Dookhan was not romantically involved with Norfolk Assistant District Attorney George Papachristos, Dookhan’s husband was suspicious. At one point, Dookhan’s husband tried repeatedly to contact a startled Papachristos, according to someone involved in the investigation, apparently out of concern that the two were having an affair.
Comments
This sounds like a sopa opera that should have been ended long before it ended. Dookhan is not the only one who failed to execute properly.
Sounds like the prosecutor's superior should have cautioned him against the contact in violation of the lab's protocols, and if it didn't stop from the prosecutor's end, discipline or fired him. And it sounds like lots of prosecutors violated the lab's rules, and in doing so helped create this mess. More information is needed about who contacted the Dookhan and other lab techs in violation of these rules, what happened in those contacts, and what's being done on the lab and the DA side to make sure this never happens again. Has the Globe talked to the Board of Bar Overseers about whether this is a violation of the attorney ethics rules? Are they investigating? If it isn't a clear violation of the ethics rules, will be be made so in the future?
Gloria Phillips, an evidence officer, told police that Dookhan “always wanted Norfolk County” cases to analyze. Yup...here is is again. The question is how deep Morrisey is already involved in the cesspool of Norfolk County law enforcement. And of course Keating has nothing to say citing an ongoing investigation. And we still wonder how Amy Bishop got free? It's simply matter of investgating Norfolk County for being the swill of corruption it's been for years. Delahunt: http://bumbeefed.com Keating: http://corruptcourts.us/norfolkda How does this get done? Check out my experience with the family of a court clerk, Archie Keohan, one of Keating's friends. http://corruptcourts.us/courtclerkfamily It seems that there is little that can't be bought in law circles in Norfolk County, and when justice is served as it was written to be. folks like Archie Keohane will lose their pension, and friends like Phillip Sheridan and Lynne Sheridan will be called to answer to their abuses, of course, in Norfolk County courts and more....Docket 03D1651DV1 at NPFC would be a start for any lawyer who wants a great case with many big name participants involved as cooperative culture-worshipping partipants. Do the feds have to get into this? I hope and pray they do. It's not abiout Annie, it's about people around her buying tampering for their clients and Anne just doing it. We need to quit looking at who got nailed and look at who was freed as a result of lab "favors."
So we have here two Globies writing a story about emails that may have a very heavy bearing on a case that involves the dropping of charges against dozens of persons, both suspects and those convicted of drug offenses. BUT THESE TWO GLOBIES ARE RELYING ON SECOND HAND INFORMATION FROM SOME UNIDENTIFIED PERSON WHOM THE GLOBIES HAVE BEEN TOLD READ THE EMAILS. . . MAYBE. The Globies have no evidence that the unnamed source did read the emails or at least write their story that way. But then reporters sometimes construct stories to cover up the role of source whose behavior is out of line with what it is supposed to be. There has been reason all along to think that he lady chemist (whom the media has convicted of any number of different offenses) was acting in a way favorable to the general prosecution if her alleged behavior in handling drug tests was actual. But now to have two Globies convict her not only of the alleged drug case crimes, but also of adultery in her heart (as President Carter would have said it), Globe readers are getting entertained by a supposed lovelorn behavior by a supposedly unhappy wife. And again, these two Globies are being fed this stuff by unnamed sources who may or may not have read source materiel that the Globies have nothing but rumors to verify. While it is possible that the Globies' reporting may turn out to be correct, there are also chances that it may turn out to be wrong. It has been said before that the Globe is leading a lynch mob after the lady chemist - this Oct. 17, 2012 story strengthens that obvious behavior by these two reporters and their supervising editors.
So, now, think deeply about this situation. How do you reliably prevent possible collusion between the chemist tester and one or the other side in a case? It may have happened in this case, but no one would have known if the violation of procedures had not risen to such a level that it was finally detected.
The answer is double-blind, redundant testing. Two samples of the evidence are separated out, sent to an independent authority which codes each one with a number. No one but the coding authority knows which case the numbers corresponds to. The samples are sent out to 2 independent testing labs who then test and return results to the coding authority. If the results are the same they are deemed valid and the coding authority returns the result to the test requester. If the test results differ the testing authority sends out a 3rd sample. If the 3rd sample results match one of the previously 2 test results the non-matching one is thrown out and the results returned. (The 3rd sample takes care of when a mistake is made by a tester for whatever reason.)
The key is that the requester does not know who is doing the testing and, therefore, can't manipulate the results. The testers do not know who is requesting the testing and also cannot manipulate the results.
Periodically, pre-tested known samples are sent out for testing so that the test results are verified to be accurate. This verifies that the test insturments (scales, etc) and process are accurate.
It is probably getting more difficult to detect manipulated testing after the fact. Communications can be instant, cell phones can be pre-paid and therefore not tracable, someone else's email account could be used.
By the way, I first thought about this issue when I was goiing through my divorce in Concord, Mass. I mentioned the name of a child phychologist who testified at custody trials to an attorney I was interviewing to see if I might want them to take the case. He said something like, "Yes, we know her...we have used her in a number of our cases". It was said in a way that I was left with a strong impression that she returned results that were "friendly" to the attorney.
This comment has been removed.
Several things about this article bother me not the least being Matthew R. Segal's inference that there is something wrong with a prosecutor contacting Annie Dookham about the work she was doing. I don't know what Segal's experience in the Massachusetts justice system is but it should not surprise him that often prosecutors are under pressure to try some cases and there is a need that the analysis be done on time. There is nothing wrong with prosecutors talking to a chemist asking that the analysis be done more quickly. Some cases are urgent, others are not. Nor is there anything wrong with a prosecutor contacting an expert witness. In fact, a good prosecutor talks to all his witnesses as much as he or she can to better understand the case. Matthew Segal's statement that the ACLU has asked Attorney General Martha Coakley and the district attorneys to agree to throw out all drug cases "involving a police officer or prosecutor who, at any time, communicated directly with Annie Dookhan” shows extreme naivete and undercuts the good work the ACLU does in other areas. In every case that is tried in Massachusetts prosecutors and cops have spoken directly with Dookhan and every other chemist. It is part of their job. Segal's inference that something is wrong with this is a far, far stretch. Next, there is nothing wrong with a prosecutor having a personal relationship or friendship with a witness. Many police detectives and prosecutors are friends and discuss cases as well as person events and even socialize together. These police detectives often are witnesses. For Segal to suggest there is something wrong with that is plainly wrong. Where the wrong comes in is if the witness or prosecutor does something wrong as a result of the relationship. There is no showing of this in the Dookhan case. Next, there is a breach of professional conduct occurring in this case which should be investigated. Someone with access to the information taken by the state police is trying to prejudice the pending criminal case against Dookhan by leaking information to the Globe. DA Morrissey is absolutely correct in refusing to be part of that activity. The personal emails of Dookham should not be in the newspapers. Whoever is doing the leaking is the person who is not living up to his or her obligation. Finally, the inference of wrongdoing against the ADA in Norfolk is unjust. Whatever his relationship is with Dookham does not indicate there is any wrongdoing in his presentation of his cases. I would expect a greater deal of caution on behalf of the Globe before it suggests wrongdoing in what appears to me to be the everyday happenings in the handling of any criminal case.
So, you appear to be saying that the appearance of collusion is not an issue, and, in fact, is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for how things are done in the Mass system of justice. And you are saying that certain incestuous relationships and the communications around them are no one's business but the involved parties, and that the relationships and communications persuant to these relationships should be protected, secret, and not accessable by the public or the media. So, what you are saying is that the Mass system of justice is, in general, unprofessional, and likely to be fraught with special considerations, favors, cronyism, and corruption. If you are correct (and I don't know if things are this bad or are not) then what we have here is ANOTHER example of SYSTEMIC INCOMPETENCE AND CORRUPTION. And so, Globe, what we need is the EXACT REVERSE of what this person (whomever he is) has posted. And, if he is indeed correct, SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND.
There is something wrong -- that's why the lab required communications go thru the supervisor. At a guess, the most common concern would be confirmation bias -- an issue raised most recently in the 2010 National Academy of Sciences report on forensics. Dr. Itel Dror has also done a great deal of work on this. Essentially, if the person doing the testing has extraneous informationa about the case, then they may be subconsciously biased in how they evaluate the data. Thus, a limit on communications between anyone with knowledge of the case and the person doing the test, at least until all the tests are run, results are in, and everything has been documented. Here, of course, you've got the much more serious problem of intentional misconduct at the lab for reasons that are not yet clear, but the improper communication seems to be part of it. Has anyone actually quoted this lab rule in any story, so we'd know the exact parameters. If direct communication was prohibited prior to results being documented, and the prosecutors and police were aware of that rule, and intentionally violated it, then there's a much, much more serious problem here.
What's the point of the "Story Behind the Story" video segment? Do you assume that the Globe readers have become too stupid to read? The hostess looked like she spent way too much time with a stylist. The actual reporter interviewed looked like one would expect - like he had better things to do than primp before a mirror to get ready for a waste of time chat. What was covered in the video segmnent was covered more succinctly in the written pages.