More on the junk science of scent identification

The Innocence Project of Texas has released its report on the junk science behind scent identification. The report castigates Fort Bend County Sheriff's Deputy Keith Pikett and his claims about his dogs' ability to identify suspects by scent.

The report notes that Fort Bend County defense attorney Derek Smith has put together a yet-to-be published paper for Texas defense attorneys to use to attack scent identification.

In a report issued earlier this year, the National Research Council stated that:

There are two very important questions that should underlie the law's admission of and reliance upon forensic evidence in criminal trials: (1) the extent to which a particular forensic discipline is founded on a reliable scientific methodology that gives it the capacity to accurately analyze evidence and report findings and (2) the extent to which practitioners in a particular forensic discipline rely on human interpretation that could be tainted by error, the threat of bias, or the absence of sound operational procedures and robust performance standards... [I]t matters a great deal whether an expert is qualified to testify about forensic evidence and whether the evidence is sufficiently reliable to merit a fact-finder's reliance on the truth that it purports to support. -- "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward"

In one trial, Mr. Piket claimed to have a B.S. in Chemistry from Syracuse University and a Master's degree in Chemistry from the University of Houston. In another case he claimed he had a Master's degree in Chemistry from the University of South Alabama. All these claims were false.

Mr. Pikett has testified that he did not think it important to obtain formal training, that he doesn't follow scientific protocols when conducting scent lineups and that he discounts scientific studies in the field.

There is no telling how many lives Mr. Pikett has ruined with his pseudo-scientific bullshit.

Scent identification - the new "poo-poo" science?

The Innocence Project is set to release a report next week that labels scent identification as junk science. Fort Bend County Sheriff's Deputy Keith Pikett is the lightning rod who claims his dogs have picked more than 2,000 suspects out of "scent line-ups."

Deputy Pikett is on the receiving end of two federal lawsuits filed by individuals who Pikett implicated in criminal acts. Charges against the two men have been dropped.

According to this article in the Victoria Advocate, Deputy Pikett's credibility has been challenged as he claims his dogs rarely, if ever, make mistakes.

In 1998, Keith Pikett turned his hobby into a career with the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office.

Since then, police, prosecutors and the media have praised the deputy and his dogs' work in more than 1,000 investigations.

But Pikett's credibility is being tested in both civil and criminal court. Two federal lawsuits, filed little more than a year apart, claim Pikett's scent lineups are designed to implicate suspects - not to gather objective evidence.

Meanwhile, judges have twice excluded him from testifying as an expert because of questions about the science supporting his work or his honesty.

In 2007, Pikett testified that three of his dogs, Jag, James Bond and Clue, never erred in scent identifications, despite having sniffed hundreds of lineups. A fourth hound, 12-year-old Quincy, performed 1,483 scent lineups and made only two mistakes early in her career, Pikett said.

Last month, Grits for Breakfast posted this article in which he compares Deputy Pikett's dog-and-pony show to the exploits of a horse trainer who was able to influence the "answers" his horses gave to math problems.

Have the courts thrown in the towel on their duty as gatekeepers of scientific evidence?