
Government Chemist Tampered With 40,000 Cases - scotty79
http://filmingcops.com/corrupt-government-chemist-tampered-with-40000-cases-locking-countless-innocent-americans-in-prison/
======
jjoonathan
3-5 years?! THREE TO FIVE YEARS???!!!

There are no words. Agents of the law need to be held _more_ accountable for
their actions than your average citizen, not less. This is disgusting.

~~~
ics
I have mixed feelings about jail terms in general, but I agree– this is
precisely the sort of crime I would imagine carrying a life sentence. The
number of cases affected & lives disrupted here is hardly fathomable.

~~~
jjoonathan
Me too re: jail times, but since being "hard on crime" is the politically
convenient position for politicians, why not be hard on the right kinds of
crime?

What's worse is that the system didn't detect the problem for such a long
time. Why isn't laboratory analysis blinded? We already spend truckloads of
money funding an elaborate appeals process, why isn't there a check on lab
analysis? With the drug industry imploding, chemists ( _real_ chemists) are
struggling to find work, so they could even call it a jobs program if need be.

How can a voter rock the boat over an issue so far down on the political issue
list?

~~~
bodyfour
> Why isn't laboratory analysis blinded?

Exactly my thought. The chemists doing the analysis shouldn't have any way of
finding out who the defendant or prosecutor in the case is until they've given
their report. Similarly, the parties in the trial shouldn't know what chemist
will be doing the analysis in advance.

The part of the story where a prosecutor was practically begging the chemist
for a particular result is mindblowing. I hope the feds come in and clean
house.

It will be interesting to see how many wrongful imprisonment suits this ends
up causing.

------
DigitalSea
The chemist involved was believed to have tainted over 40,000 cases over the
duration of about 10 years and they'll only get 3 to 5 years? Seriously? Weev
who was involved in the arguable AT&T data breach got a 41 month jail term,
people who've been caught selling counterfeit DVD's have been given similar
sentences.

Dookhan should serve the sentences that she was responsible for, every single
case. If anything, I think the death penalty is fair. Imagine all of the lives
she ruined. all of the families and children who grew up thinking their dad,
mother, grandparent or relative were convicted criminals. Not to mention the
trouble convicted inmates have when they get out adjusting to reality and
getting a job, credit, etc.

What about the main prosecutor involved here? Is he going to be subjected to a
court case as well? Or will the system prove itself reliable once again and
the chemist will be vilified and blamed.

This is appalling.

~~~
goldenkey
Why is your focus on the chemist despite the fact that she was basically
bribed? This is a conspiracy and the prosecutors and DA should be
investigated. But of course, they're going to be the ones bearing the case
against her, and taking the spotlight off themselves. And the only ones who
will correctly investigate the DA/prosecutors would be the FBI, I really doubt
anything is really going to be done here that will be substantial other than a
political panzy-dance.

~~~
DigitalSea
The chemist could have easily spoken out. Protections would have been put into
place to ensure that she and her family wouldn't have been harmed. Obviously
blackmail and fear plays a part here, but evident by the fact she didn't seem
to be upset about being caught nor deny anything, sounds like a classic case
of a sociopath (or even part sociopath). How could you live with yourself
knowing for ten years you've ruined countless lives? Whether she believes it
or not, she had her chance and the blame sadly does lay with her and the
prosecutor for being complacent in the crimes taking place.

~~~
goldenkey
I'd have to disagree. It's not easy to out a prosecutor, considering that they
could be the one to tell their buddies (other prosecutors) to fix you good.

~~~
Crito
Doing what is right isn't always easy, but we should still _demand_ it.

------
whiddershins
How hard would it have been to insert a random cross check in to the system?
So every 300 tests, the sample is retested by another lab?

There's no motivation or incentive whatsoever to structure the process to
decrease convictions, that is one of the unspoken but defining features of our
legal system.

There is an ideal that two sides are arguing something in a neutral setting,
but one side is the government, and literally everyone who should be acting
impartially is also employed by the same government. How can that create a
balanced process?

Only in a naive and delusional imaginary world.

~~~
DontGiveTwoFlux
Well, it wouldn't necessarily preclude tampering with the evidence. The
article seemed to indicate that it wasn't just reports that were falsified.
For instance, in the marijuana weight issue mentioned in the article, she
could have slipped in some extra to put it over the weight limit before
sending it off to another lab. Maybe cross checking would help, but systemic
changes would probably be better.

~~~
sigstoat
fwiw, to be a DEA registered lab, and thus, have known marijuana (or other
controlled substances) just hanging around, you've got to keep it locked up
such that it requires two people to access it, and you've got to track it
(very precisely) by weight. and the DEA can check your records any time. they
have caught at least some people (who were "diverting" cocaine up their nose)
with this.

~~~
MichaelGG
I may be talking out of my ass here, but I was under the impression that for
weighting, the transport or container will be considered. For things like LSD,
this is really idiotic, as the transport (like paper) will weight many, many,
times any prohibited substance.

If the same rules are used for all drugs, then adding weight might not require
any prohibited substances. Also, a record of something going up in weight may
be odd, but probably is less interesting than it going down in weight.

Not that it negates your point. She may have just written down false weights
on the data they sent to court.

~~~
sigstoat
there should be super careful weighing with, and without the packaging. i'm
too lazy to ask my wife who'd know, but i believe that for tracking purposes
they include the paper. for sentencing purposes they sample the paper in a
couple of places, work out average concentration, and then math math back from
there to whatever number is necessary.

going up in weight (by more than the uncertainty of the scales' measurement)
is going to be a hell of a lot more interesting to anybody who actually cares,
since that can't happen in the normal course of testing. certainly going down
is what implies diversion, but it is also necessary for testing purposes.

------
goldenkey
Are we seriously up in arms about the chemist? The prosecutors are the worse
filth here. And the worst thing about it is that the DA and the prosecutors
are going to bury her into the ground, and villify her, while they get away
totally scott-free. The system just keeps on churning..

    
    
       “Any help would be greatly appreciated!” he wrote, 
        punctuating each sentence with a long string of 
        exclamation     points. “Thank you!”

~~~
aeturnum
I agree that the prosecutors are probably guilty of some kind of misconduct.
However, I think the email you quote is the kind we would see either way. We
expect prosecutors to be unabashed in their pursuit of convictions - it's
their job. They should cajole and berate, in turn, people who help or hinder
their cases.

That may be a shitty model, but it's the model we use. We have a
responsibility to only punish people for things they knew to be wrong -
thanking a lab tech for a favorable result doesn't cross that line.

~~~
goldenkey
Results should be impartial. Bribing the lab tech is not what I would call a
fair and balanced process.

~~~
aeturnum
That email, unless pleasantries or enthusiasm count as bribes, would not be
considered a bribe. It's just good practice to be polite to those who can help
you. Perhaps we should legislate that prosecutors should be dour towards
everyone they encounter, less a pleasant experience bias someone?

P.s. I realize that improper conduct by both parties is probable in this case,
but the quoted email certainly does not cross the line.

~~~
MichaelGG
Why should prosecutors ever be in direct contact or even know the people
running the actual tests? Except in cases where the lab must testify, in which
case there should be separate controls (perhaps someone else runs the tests).

Allowing prosecutors to "do their job" and try to be polite or have any
influence _at all_ on what's supposed to be a purely factual system is
completely and utterly wrong.

------
DanBC
This kind of case is fascinating.

The woman wasn't evil. But her actions really are.

It's very easy, too easy, to say that she is evil because what she did was so
bad. But that's lazy, and it misses the interesting stuff. How do people get
caught up in performing such horrendous acts?

There's a bunch of cognitive stuff going on, and some subtle manipulation. I
suspect that something similar is how we end up with app stores full of "free"
games that are full of micro-payments and ads. (Instead of the Doom model of a
few free levels and a paid for full version).

~~~
3pt14159
No. It is simpler than you are making it out to be.

If you say "I did the test that proves it is heroin" and you didn't, and you
are smart enough to be a chemist, and you see some poor guy get put in jail,
then you are evil.

~~~
DanBC
Okay, sure, whatever.

But _she didn 't think_ she was being evil. She somehow persuaded herself that
what she was doing was okay.

That's the interesting bit. Why do people go along with things that they know
are wrong. She wasn't alone in this, there are a bunch of other people
involved too. And it's similar for other frauds and deceptions.

She didn't wake up and think "Fuck it, I'm going to jail thousands of innocent
people". So, what was she thinking?

Can we test for that kind of thinking in other people? How do we protect
against is?

~~~
yetanotherphd
I think you need to dig a bit deeper than the rationalizations people give for
their actions.

There is a difference between a person who genuinely considers what they are
doing to be OK, and people who are actually rationlizing things they know deep
down to be wrong.

I think your implicit assumption that anyone might have acted like she did, in
her position, is wrong. Both a person's innate (not necessarily genetic) moral
goodness, and the circumstances a person finds themselves in, play a role in
how they are act.

In trying to avoid one kind of simplistic viewpoint, I think you are falling
for the opposite one.

~~~
DanBC
I look at her and I think "I would never do anything like that!"

But is that really true or am I just rationalising with the benefit of
hindsight?

There was an article on HN about a man running a family business who started
defrauding money. It needed the cooperation of other people. Rather than
creating any elaborate lies he simply told them, and asked them for help. (I
can't remember any more about it, which is making search tricky!). But they
all went along. He was a nice guy, and they were helping him, and no-one was
really being hurt. Except they were all committing serious criminal offences.

~~~
sejje
If you go deep enough, some chemical reactions managed her thoughts and
behaviors, and negotiated your reaction, as well.

At some point people have to be held accountable and called names like evil.
The idea that she can talk herself into believing otherwise is a travesty,
mostly because it allowed it to continue.

I think the word evil was invented to describe people exactly like this woman.

------
pasbesoin
So, it appears that evidence processing has something akin to zero controls
and (effective) auditing?

Where prosecutors either knew of or had strong reason to suspect this
misbehavior, their immunity should be dissolved and they should be prosecuted.
Their personal assets should also be subject to forfeiture for compensation.

~~~
kmfrk
Don't worry, it gets worse: [http://www.npr.org/series/133208980/post-mortem-
death-invest...](http://www.npr.org/series/133208980/post-mortem-death-
investigation-in-america).

~~~
sigstoat
buddy, that's not even scratching the surface. when rural counties are barely
willing to pay the elected coroner their stipend, they're surely not going to
fund a forensic pathologist ($$$!) and the staff/tools/testing to make them
effective.

there are homicides that go undetected left and right, and a distressing
number of forensically sophisticated criminals out there.

but everybody thinks the cops whip out some crazy CSI team for every case, and
leave no stone unturned, and no test unperformed (hahaha!), so there's no
motivation for anybody to try and get the funding necessary.

------
honzzz
The chemist did something horrible and I am not trying to justify her actions.
But I think that the true culprit of this is the system of incentives typical
for US penal system. If the prosecutors are rewarded based on the number of
convictions and prisons can be privately owned and prisoners can be exploited
for private gain... something like this is inevitable. If sending people to
prison is profitable business there is always going to be someone who decides
to expand their 'business' by making sure as many people as possible get sent
to prison no matter whether they are guilty or not.

------
vph
What about the prosecutors who have been asking her to tamper with evidence?
Are they going to jail?

~~~
TDL
The investigation is expanding. Another lab worker is now being investigated
and I read something about some of the prosecutors behavior be questioned. It
seems as though this is the beginning not the end.

------
austinz
I find it hard to believe she'd be the only person to do these sorts of
things. How many other people across the US in similar positions are
surreptitiously tampering with the legal system right now? And how can we find
them?

~~~
marvin
Spot on. It's outrageous that one person was able to cause this much damage,
but the sentencing in this case very strongly indicates that there is a
perverse system of incentives which allows things like this to happen. As long
as someone profits, economically or otherwise, on people being sent to jail,
there is an incentive structure which perverts justice. It's shocking to be
that there isn't more focus on this problem.

------
moocowduckquack
there's a second employee at the same place now caught up in it, with possibly
up to 190,000 cases now needing review -
[http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/11/26/chemist-
related-...](http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/11/26/chemist-related-
dookhan-case-fired-for-allegedly-misstating-
credentials/HhWnT898pjWVJgdAKSnUWJ/story.html)

~~~
seivan
Oh this is rich.

'she took some chemistry classes in college but her degree is actually in
sociology,'

Hot diggittiy.

Edit: Goes to prove that a _GOOD_ defense lawyer would have dig that up during
cross exam. (if that is a thing)

~~~
sigstoat
> Edit: Goes to prove that a _GOOD_ defense lawyer would have dig that up
> during cross exam. (if that is a thing)

sure, the defense lawyer can ask questions, but what series of questions do
you think they could've asked that would've done anything here?

they would've needed to perform pre-trial investigations of the lady (such as
the state police performed) to discover this. which isn't out of the question,
but isn't very likely to be worth it for the defendants. (cost high,
likelihood of useful information low.)

~~~
seivan
Hmm not sure, but well, wouldn't a simple question of "where did your degree
in chemistry come from" while the person in question is under OAuth?

EDIT: Oath. I've been working too much recently.

~~~
sigstoat
since that is exactly what she was lying, or confused about, i fail to see how
asking it one more time would help.

in fact, the state prosecutors probably asked her that question a bajillion
times, as part of qualifying her as an expert witness.

(added: in case you don't know, i'd like to clarify that qualifying expert
witnesses occurs in open court. the defense, judge, jury, anyone watching the
case, etc would all hear the question asked, and her answer. this would come
after a copy of her CV, including relevant degrees, was submitted.)

~~~
DanBC
How much does it cost to check whether someone got the degree they said they
did from the place they said they did?

It's an interesting question about who should bear that cost.

------
Someone
Embarassing for the government, criminal, etc? Yes, but the title (both on HN
and in the original) is sensationalistic. 40,000 cases in 10 years? That's
around 15 cases per working day. She must have almost done a search and
replace to be that 'productive'.

Because of that, I suspect the 'up to 40,000' means there are 40,000 cases
that she might have affected, not that she is known to have affected.

~~~
mr_spothawk
Did you see the link @ the bottom of the article?

> "Another Chemist at Dookhan’s Lab Accused of Deception, More than 180,000
> Cases Need Review"

Seems your suspicion about how the counting gets done is accurate.

------
alexeisadeski3
Those convicted should be released pending retrial immediately.

~~~
eps
Judging by the article she wasn't fabricating evidence, but rather she was
"strengthening" what she was given. All her cases clealry need to be re-
evaluated, but unconditionally releasing everyone convicted is hardly a
sensible option.

~~~
Crito
There is no way of knowing of that "strengthened" evidence was the difference
between any given person walking or going to jail. They all need to be
retried, and imprisoning them until that can happen is an injustice. Give them
all the opportunity to make bail again until new trials can be arranged.

If the circumstances of their crime make it such that they cannot be retried
_(for example, all the substantial evidence was bloodwork that was corrupted
and cannot be taken again, many months or years later)_ then they should be
released. Guessing that they actually are bad guys isn't good enough.

------
dreamdu5t
Justice has not been served. People get longer sentences for marijuana
possession. The prosecutors in those emails should be jailed for life along
with the chemist.

... this is not justice.

------
bayesianhorse
Remarkable is the motivation of this chemist. No substantial money has changed
hands, and she probably hasn't even received a promotion due to her higher
conviction rates. She probably did it for the recognition or out of some
perverse sense of justice. That's actually good news, because it means this
case is probably very special.

~~~
sigstoat
there have been a number of other forensic scientists who've done pretty
similar things for exactly the same motives.

a bunch have done similar things because they were just too lazy to do the
testing.

others because they were incompetently trained.

~~~
aestra
Sources?

------
marze
What about the prosecutors involved in requesting faked evidence? One would
expect some long sentences.

~~~
gergles
I would expect them never being allowed to be a prosecutor ever again. There's
plenty of other legal jobs they can have, but they abused the public's trust
too much to ever hold this one ever again.

~~~
scarmig
Uh, no. They shouldn't be allowed to have any legal profession again.

Think about all the wrongfully convicted people who are marked as felons now.
They can't get a job in the legal field now. Hell, they have difficulty
getting a job at a fast food restaurant.

The fact that the sociopaths who committed this travesty against justice have
expensive mortgages to pay and private schools to send their kids to isn't any
reason for excess gentleness.

------
memracom
This indicates a serious level of corruption in the police, in the
prosecutors, and possibly even in the politicians who are in charge of these
things. If this had happened in Putin's Russia, the people in charge would all
be fired in disgrace, and the prisoners would be freed with compensation
payments.

But in America? What will happen?

Americans like to talk loudly about corruption in other countries but when
they learn about corrupt police in many states, corrup sherriffs, corrupt
prosecutors (2nd recent case in Mass.) then what do they do? Not much!

This is why the American Empire is on the way out. My family is learning
Mandarin Chinese and Russian because it is clear that the two big powers of
Asia will dominate the world of the 21st century.

------
b6
How were her crimes discovered?

~~~
b6
> In July, the AG’s Office began a criminal investigation into the matter
> after there were allegations of impropriety at the Hinton State Laboratory.

[http://www.mass.gov/ago/news-and-updates/press-
releases/2012...](http://www.mass.gov/ago/news-and-updates/press-
releases/2012/2012-09-28-dookhan-arrest.html)

------
forktheif
I find it disappointing that the majority of posts here only want revenge with
long sentences or even death, and only a minority want to change the system or
put systems in place to make this less likely to happen again.

~~~
gaius
It's a deterrent, so it's both.

------
noonespecial
She did not act alone. It is abundantly clear that the prosecutors knew that
there was some funny business going on. There are extremely perverse
incentives for prosecutors to cheat by any means possible for career
advancement.

The only way to fix this is to set it up so that "getting a conviction" in no
way whatsoever enhances a prosecutor's career.

------
spdmn
She'll get off on a "tampering with evidence" loophole. Sick sick woman.

~~~
rooshdi
Sick sick system.

------
squozzer
I gather from the article there was a lot of contact between the chemist and
various prosecutors. That should stop. Maybe we should consider evidence-
gathering a judicial function instead of an executive one.

------
atmosx
breaking bad? hehe

