Forensic science services, at the heart of many trials, are under the microscope like never before. Last month, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee published a report concerned about lack of labs’ independence from police. On March 4, 2026, in Melbourne this year, an expert panel discussion will explore the apparent wrongful conviction of Stephen ‘Shorty’ Jamieson for rape and murder, driven off course by old school verballing, made possible by ignorance of linguistic forensic science. In a December 2025 Science Direct article, Aaron Olson (Truth, power, and the crisis of forensic independence) paints a picture of forensic independence in crisis. See extracts below.
The common central concern is summed up in Olson’s first key point: forensic labs operating under police hierarchies face pressure to support the prosecution case. That is a loud red alarm; will any Attorney-General take notice and act on recommendations to separate forensic labs from the auspices of law enforcement? This is a prime reform demanded to improve our legal system. (As we have argued for years; it is also listed as one of the key reforms needed in Andrew L. Urban’s 2018 book, Murder by the Prosecution (Wilkinson), Chapter 12: “emphasis on serving the court not the police or prosecution”.
Truth, power, and the crisis of forensic independence – Abstract
Forensic laboratories operating within law enforcement hierarchies face an inherent structural conflict between scientific independence and institutional loyalty. When scientists challenge prosecutorial narratives or expose systemic problems, they frequently experience professional retaliation, forced resignations, or career marginalization. This editorial examines documented cases of such retaliation and argues that these patterns reflect deeper cultural mechanisms that protect institutional authority by expelling dissenters who threaten the myth of forensic objectivity. Drawing on historical parallels to religious and state orthodoxy and René Girard’s theory of scapegoating, the analysis demonstrates that these conflicts are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a fundamental governance failure. Genuine scientific independence, mandatory full disclosure, external peer review, and whistleblower protections are essential to restore public trust and ensure that forensic science is guided by truth rather than institutional interests.
***
Forensic science faces an institutional crisis: laboratories claim scientific independence while operating under the administrative and financial control of law enforcement hierarchies. This tension between truth and power is ancient, appearing whenever those who generate knowledge must answer to those who wield authority. This editorial explores the influence of institutional authority on the determination of knowledge within both laboratory and courtroom contexts. It encourages forensic scientists to reflect not only on the methods used in evidence analysis, but also on the specific truths sanctioned by those in positions of power.
The credibility of forensic science depends on the public’s trust that laboratories are objective, transparent, and independent of the institutions whose cases they serve. Yet, when laboratories operate under the administrative or financial control of law enforcement agencies, scientists face subtle but powerful pressures to conform to prosecutorial expectations. Those who reinforce official narratives are rewarded with deference and institutional protection, while those who question or contradict them often face heightened scrutiny, marginalization, or retaliation
Historically, religion provided a unifying moral framework for society. In the modern world, that role has been largely assumed by the state. Like the Church in earlier eras, it defines acceptable belief, provides for those in need, and enforces orthodoxy. In ancient texts, those who dared to defy the divine order were condemned. The Biblical story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego recounts how three men who refused to bow before King Nebuchadnezzar’s golden idol were cast into a furnace for their disobedience. Their ordeal symbolized the cost of independence in the face of absolute power. Today, the mechanisms of punishment are more subtle. The flames are reputational and professional, but the purpose is the same: to preserve the legitimacy of the governing order by consuming the dissenter.
The scientist who questions the state’s conclusions stands in the same lineage as those ancient resisters. Galileo Galilei, whose telescopic observations contradicted Church doctrine, was condemned not because his science was wrong but because it threatened the authority of the institution that claimed a monopoly on truth. His forced recantation was an act of political preservation, not intellectual correction. In a similar fashion, modern forensic scientists who challenge institutional orthodoxy risk professional exile, even when their claims are empirically sound. The machinery of authority has simply changed its symbols. Where the Church once guarded the heavens, the state now guards the laboratory.
The 2009 National Academy of Sciences report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, recognized the structural problem with remarkable clarity. It warned that forensic laboratories cannot claim objectivity while operating under the administrative control of law enforcement. The report called for independence, transparency, and rigorous external oversight. Yet more than a decade and a half later, the institutional framework remains largely unchanged. The lessons have not been absorbed. Forensic science too often serves to legitimize authority rather than to question it. Without independent oversight and consistent feedback, forensic systems tend to repeat and reinforce their own biases rather than correct them.
______________________________________________________________
The author investigates the circumstances that led to the trial and conviction of child welfare officer Frank Valentine on charges of historical sexual and physical abuse at the Parramatta Training School for Girls decades earlier. It is his fifth book exposing what he considers to be unsafe convictions.
Kindle $11.99 Paperback $23.20
Andrew I write this with personal invested involved outcomes -it is as brief as I could make it.
A Structural Reform Australia Can No Longer Delay: Independent, Blind, 24/7 Forensic Science
Australia’s forensic system stands at a crossroads. The question is no longer whether reform is needed, it is whether governments are prepared to confront the structural conflict at its core.
Recent commentary, including Andrew Urban’s article Forensic Science Services in Crisis Forensic Science Services in Crisis and Aaron Olson’s 2025 editorial in Science Direct, underscores a problem that has been identified internationally for more than a decade: forensic laboratories embedded within police hierarchies cannot plausibly claim full scientific independence.
The solution must be structural, not rhetorical.
1. Australia Should Establish the World’s First Fully Blind, Court-Centric Forensic Lodgement System. To the best of current comparative practice, while some jurisdictions have adopted “blind testing” protocols internally, no nation has created a national system in which both prosecution and defence may lodge evidentiary material without the laboratory knowing which side submitted it.
Australia should start a Core Reform
• All forensic evidence lodged through a neutral court registry, not police.
• All submissions assigned anonymised identifiers.
• Laboratory analysts blind to:
o Whether evidence was submitted by police or defence.
o The theory of the case.
o The identity of the accused.
• Mandatory dual review of contested findings.
• Full disclosure of raw data to both parties simultaneously.
This model shifts loyalty from institutional allegiance to the only legitimate client: the court.
Why Blindness Matters
Cognitive bias in forensic science is not hypothetical. Research repeatedly shows that contextual information; even subtle cues alters interpretation. When a laboratory sits within a police command structure, analysts know who pays them, who briefs them, and who expects results.
As Olson argues, laboratories under law enforcement control face “subtle but powerful pressures to conform to prosecutorial expectations.” That is not an attack on individuals; it is a recognition of institutional gravity.
Blind submission eliminates:
• Confirmation bias.
• Prosecution-driven framing.
• Defensive institutional loyalty.
• Subconscious alignment with investigators.
The system becomes adversarially neutral — not adversarially aligned.
2. 24/7 Forensic Availability: Justice Delayed Is Justice Distorted
Forensic science is not an administrative luxury. It is liberty infrastructure.
Lag times in forensic testing:
• Keep accused persons remanded in custody.
• Inflate legal costs.
• Extend trauma for victims.
• Create plea pressure unrelated to guilt.
• Compromise fresh-evidence integrity.
In a nation that operates emergency medicine 24/7, aviation 24/7, and policing 24/7, it is indefensible that forensic science — often the decisive factor in whether someone remains imprisoned — operates on limited schedules with chronic backlogs.
The Principle
If the state has the power to incarcerate, it must fund the scientific mechanisms necessary to test that incarceration promptly.
Backlogs are not neutral inefficiencies. They are:
• Coercive leverage.
• Financial punishment prior to conviction.
• Structural unfairness disguised as resource constraint.
A modern forensic system must be:
• 24/7 operational.
• Statutorily time-bound.
• Transparently audited for turnaround metrics.
• Adequately funded and technologically current.
Anything less is an admission that justice is rationed.
3. Australian Forensic Failures: Not Isolated Errors or Systemic Symptoms
Australia has experienced repeated forensic failures that expose structural weakness.
Examples of Forensic System Failures
Queensland DNA Laboratory Crisis (2022–2023)
Queensland Health Forensic and Scientific Services
• Thousands of samples inadequately tested.
• Serious sexual assault cases potentially compromised.
• Use of outdated DNA thresholds.
• Independent Commission of Inquiry established.
This was not rogue conduct — it was institutional complacency.
Victoria – Misclassification and Lab Backlogs
Victoria Police Forensic Services Department
• Delays in toxicology and DNA processing.
• Cases impacted by procedural and interpretative inconsistencies.
• Repeated concern about laboratory resourcing and oversight.
New South Wales Drug Analysis Errors
NSW Police Force Forensic Evidence & Technical Services Command
• Questions raised about drug quantification processes.
• Issues surrounding expert interpretation and disclosure obligations.
Western Australia Forensic Misconduct Concerns
ChemCentre
• Criticism regarding quality assurance processes in drug testing matters.
• Questions about training standards and procedural oversight.
These are not partisan attacks. They are documented episodes revealing:
• Outdated equipment.
• Inadequate training.
• Lack of independent governance.
• Internal loyalty structures overriding scientific challenge.
• Disclosure failures.
When laboratories answer administratively to police, error correction becomes institutionally threatening.
4. Independence Is Not Symbolic — It Must Be Structural
The 2009 US National Academy of Sciences report called for separation of forensic science from law enforcement control. Fifteen years later, many jurisdictions — including Australian states — still embed forensic units within policing frameworks.
Urban’s article (28 February 2026) highlights the same tension: loyalty to courts or loyalty to police?
This is not an academic debate. When forensic scientists:
• Challenge investigative narratives,
• Question evidence sufficiency,
• Identify contamination,
• Or refuse overstated conclusions,
they should be institutionally protected , not professionally marginalised.
Without:
• External peer review,
• Whistleblower protections,
• Mandatory full disclosure,
• Governance independent of police hierarchies,
objectivity becomes aspirational rather than operational.
5. The Cost of Inaction
When forensic systems fail, three things occur:
1. The innocent are convicted.
2. The guilty remain unidentified.
3. Public confidence collapses.
And when science fails to support a case, the vacuum is often filled by:
• Tunnel vision.
• Witness over-reliance.
• Confirmation bias.
• Speculation.
• Improper influence.
A justice system that tolerates forensic dependency invites epistemic corruption.
6. The Reform Blueprint
Australia should legislate:
A. National Independent Forensic Authority
• Statutorily independent from police.
• Reporting to Parliament, not police commissioners.
• Transparent annual audits.
B. Blind Dual-Side Lodgement
• Court-based submission portal.
• Identical disclosure obligations.
• Analysts blind to party identity.
C. 24/7 Operational Mandate
• Tiered urgency categories.
• Maximum statutory turnaround periods.
• Public reporting of compliance rates.
D. Technology and Training Standards
• Mandatory equipment currency audits.
• National accreditation oversight.
• Continuing education requirements for forensic analysts.
E. Whistleblower Shield Legislation
• Protected disclosure for dissenting scientists.
• Independent review body.
7. The Core Question
Forensic science must decide: is it an arm of investigation, or an arm of justice?
It cannot be both. If laboratories serve police hierarchies, they serve power.
If they serve the court, they serve truth.
Australia has the opportunity to become the first nation to create a genuinely blind, adversarially neutral forensic lodgement system — one that eliminates structural bias rather than merely condemning it.
The question for Attorneys-General nationwide is simple: Will forensic science in Australia serve the court , or continue to serve the institution that controls its budget?
Justice requires the courage to choose. Anything less is maintenance of a myth.
Excellent reform plan; the one thing missing is … who has the gumption, courage and foresight to start it? I don’t see any the politicians nor relevant organisations willing to take it on; as you say, these issues have been begging for reform for decades and nobody within the system has moved towards it. Where are the legal bodies? Where are the Law Reform Commissions? Where are the Attorneys General? It’s pathetic. We – those who do care – must keep putting these issues in the spotlight.
The legal vultures are hardly likely to pursue an outcome that could be deleterious to their business models. ie revenue streams.
The “law” is the greatest racket in the western world.
Agree 100 %
Forensic Science Services in Crisis: When the Labs Stay Silent, Some Investigators Turn to the Spirit World
Forensic science is meant to be the gold standard , objective, evidence-based, the ultimate check on human fallibility in the justice system. Yet across the Western world, that standard is cracking under the weight of institutional loyalty.
Last month the UK House of Lords Science and Technology Committee issued a stark warning about forensic laboratories’ lack of independence from police. On March 4 in Melbourne, an expert panel will dissect the wrongful conviction of Stephen “Shorty” Jamieson, where old-school “verballing” went unchallenged because linguistic forensic science was ignored. And in the December 2025 Science Direct editorial “Truth, power, and the crisis of forensic independence,” Aaron Olson lays bare the structural conflict: labs embedded in law-enforcement hierarchies face relentless pressure to deliver results that support the prosecution.
Olson’s central point is damning: when forensic scientists challenge prosecutorial narratives, they risk professional retaliation, marginalisation or outright exile. The machinery of authority — once the preserve of churches and kings — now operates inside police headquarters and government labs. Dissenters are quietly removed so the myth of forensic objectivity can be preserved.
Australia has not escaped this pattern. In one Queensland murder investigation, the complete absence of forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime scene, no DNA, no fingerprints, no blood did not halt the case. Instead, police turned to a self-proclaimed necromancer.
A key witness, who openly claimed a spirit had revealed the identity of the killer, was treated as a legitimate source. Police supplied him with a recording device and facilitated a meeting with the person of interest. The prosecution carefully avoided any mention of that police-orchestrated, recorder-equipped encounter throughout the trial. The audio recording itself was never logged, never disclosed, and never provided to the accused.
The accused who was nevertheless convicted and spent years in prison. This is not ancient history. It is a documented modern example of what happens when accurate forensic science is unavailable or unhelpful: investigators reach for the spirit world instead. When laboratories cannot, or will not, deliver the hard scientific exclusions that should have ended the matter, the vacuum is filled by speculation, tunnel vision, and, in this extraordinary instance, the supernatural.
Olson draws the historical parallel perfectly. Just as religious orthodoxy once demanded conformity and punished heretics, today’s law-enforcement hierarchies reward forensic alignment and marginalise challenge. The 2009 US National Academy of Sciences report warned of exactly this structural failure. Fifteen years later the warning remains largely unheeded.
The consequences are measured in destroyed lives, wasted public money, and eroded public trust. A system that claims to serve justice cannot simultaneously serve the police hierarchy that funds and directs it. Genuine independence, mandatory full disclosure, external peer review, and real whistleblower protections are not optional extras, they are the minimum requirements for forensic science worthy of the name.
The Melbourne panel on March 4 is a timely reminder. So is the Queensland case where a necromancer’s “evidence” filled the void left by absent forensics.
Until forensic services are structurally separated from police and prosecution loyal first to the court and to truth, we will continue to see the same pattern: pressure to conform, retaliation for dissent, and, in the most desperate moments, a quiet turn toward the occult when science refuses to cooperate.
The question for every Attorney-General, Police Commissioner and forensic regulator is simple: will you act on the recommendations, or will the next scandal involve yet another “expert” whose insights came not from the laboratory but from the spirit realm?
The evidence is already in. The only question left is whether anyone in power will finally listen.
It is a deplorable state of affairs, no question. Speaking of questions, your last sentence is depressingly cynical…but prophetic.
Eve Ash, who has done much to further Sue’s case for release and exoneration/quashing of conviction, hired a psychic medium, Debbie Malone, and brought her from New South Wales to visit the Sandy Bay area, and to meet Sue in prison. Colin McLaren, author of ‘Southern Justice‘, was involved in putting questions to the medium, so too was Alfred Podhorodecki, a forensic and clinical hypnotherapist.
Malone writes about these meetings in her book, ‘Clues from Beyond.‘ My overall impression of the section in that book, ‘What Happened to Bob Chappell? ‘ section was that no significant new and/or useful material was present. It was unfortunate (in my view) that precise information (e.g. car registration number plates, names of assailants) was not forthcoming. However, Malone was instrumental in the production of 3 identikit images – of 3 young persons: a girl and two males.
I assumed that the identikit image of the girl was presented as being that of Meaghan Vass, yet in my opinion, the image is bland and lacks the two facial physical features which are immediately noticeable in Meaghan.
Malone says of McLaren, “Colin and I had met previously while working on the case of Mr Cruel in Victoria” This supports your [Bill Jones] observations regarding what I hope is at most an occasional resort to the occult by police seeking assistance in their investigations. Personally, I have no belief in a ‘spirit world’.
See:
Clues from Beyond : True Crime Stories from Australia’s #1 Psychic Detective, by Debbie Malone
and
Debbie Malone – her website [https://www.debbiemalone.com/] which includes the following advert:
“Debbie’s insights into the criminal mind are shocking and very real.”
Colin McLaren – Former Detective-Sergeant
Task Force Team Leader, Victoria Police