The Vilas County district attorney plans to recruit volunteers for a second round of controversial tests designed to prove that a woman was drowned by her husband in a toilet – and didn’t commit suicide as he claims.

The experiments involve positioning women the size of the late Genell Plude of Land O’ Lakes at a toilet to determine whether the version of events told by her husband, Douglas Plude, is plausible.

Defense lawyers say it’s junk science.

Plude, 42, was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide in 2002. But the Wisconsin Supreme Court threw out the conviction last year after learning that an expert witness who conducted the first round of toilet tests exaggerated his credentials. Plude has been released from prison pending the second trial, which is expected to begin in October.

Prosecutors contend Plude murdered his 28-year-old wife because she was about to leave him. They say he poisoned her with a migraine drug and pushed her face into the toilet to drown her while she vomited.

Plude says his wife was depressed, committed suicide by taking the pills on her own and then drowned. He claims he found his wife slumped over the vomit-filled toilet and tried to perform CPR to keep her alive.

Prosecutors called on expert witness Saami Shaibani to shoot down Plude’s story at the first trial.

Shaibani said that, based on his tests involving volunteers he positioned at a toilet, Plude had to be lying about the positions he claimed to have found his wife in. Genell Plude also could not have inhaled toilet water on her own and someone must have forced her head into the water, he testified.

Defense lawyers from across the country have derided the tests and call them an example of unfair expert testimony. One of them, North Carolina lawyer David Rudolf, who clashed with Shaibani in another case, laughed about the tests in an interview last year.

“He had women sticking their heads in toilets!” he said. “That’s just not science. How do you peer review that? How do you test his conclusions?”

The state high court ordered a new trial for Plude after discovering Shaibani lied about being a clinical associate professor at Temple University who taught physicians and surgeons there about injuries. He had no relationship with Temple; years earlier he had a “loose courtesy affiliation” that gave him parking privileges but little else.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice is considering whether to charge Shaibani with perjury.

Unfazed by the controversy, Vilas County District Attorney Al Moustakis has hired Christopher Damm of the Milwaukee School of Engineering to do a second round of tests. Judge Neal Nielsen III last month granted his request to allow the testing of the toilet and a floor display of the bathroom in the court’s custody.

“The testing is likely to be the same type of testing that Shaibani did,” Moustakis said. Prosecutors routinely re-create crime scenes to prove their theories of crimes and hire accident reconstruction experts to analyze what might have caused someone’s death, said Gerald Mowris, former president of the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

“It’s really a question of, is the testing done properly, is it done according to scientifically accepted standards and is it by someone who is a qualified expert?” he said. “There are people who hold themselves out as experts who aren’t experts. That’s a major issue.

“He added: “The type of test you’re describing – whether someone could drown in a toilet or would need help – I’m not sure the type of expert who would be able to testify about that. I don’t know what the purported qualifications of the new expert is. The old one was essentially a charlatan.

“Damm, an associate professor of mechanical engineering, said he is a consultant in accident reconstruction and has testified in civil cases but this would be his first criminal case.

He said he was still reviewing testimony from the first trial and hadn’t yet designed the tests, which are expected to take place in June, but agreed they would be similar to Shaibani’s.

As for claims that it’s junk science, he said: “I don’t think you can make blanket statements like that. It would take an understanding of why the tests are being done and the methods that were used.

“Moustakis noted Shaibani’s conclusions were in line with some of the other evidence, including bruising Genell Plude had on her neck.

Other medical testimony was inconclusive on the cause of death.

For a person to call themselves a General Practitioner of medicine, they must register on the General Medical Council’s GP Register and adhere to the qualification and practice standards it requires. Similarly, a person is only permitted to call themselves a solicitor if they complete a set training path and register with The Law Society, practising in line with the Solicitors’ Code of Conduct.

However, for computer forensics experts – specialists who analyse computers and other electronic devices to recover information admissible as evidence in legal trials and tribunals – no such regulation exists. In fact, anyone can refer to themselves as a computer forensics expert, which could mean that sub-standard analysis or testimony is presented at trial at the risk of leading a judge or jury towards an incorrect verdict.

While there is no compulsory regulatory body in place to help impose minimum standards upon the computer forensics profession, there are several bodies that offer non-compulsory registration, which typically involves a vetting procedure that requires an expert to meet certain quality standards.

For example, lawyers or corporate organisations looking to secure the services of a computer forensics expert in support of a case, might choose to select only those who are registered on the Sweet and Maxwell Expert Witness Register. Successful registration on the register is only possible after a robust vetting procedure which looks at their level of knowledge as well as their experience in conducting investigations and giving evidence. Registration also requires agreeing to adhere to a Code of Practice that ensures experts are dependable, reliable and conduct their activities with due diligence.

Similarly, police forces typically follow a set vetting procedure to help reduce the risk of hiring a sub-standard computer forensics expert. For example, practitioners are expected to be able to demonstrate that all investigations are carried out in line with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) good practice guidelines for computer-based evidence. These guidelines also recommend that any external expert be assessed with regard to specialist expertise, investigative knowledge, contextual knowledge, legal knowledge and communication skills. Vetting might include a visit to the analyst’s laboratory and a full background check on the expert and any other personnel who might come into contact with the evidence.

Another mark of quality that can be sought when engaging the services of a computer forensic expert is British Standard European Norm International Standardisation Organisation accreditation. In particular, BS EN ISO 9001:2000, which signifies adherence to management systems standards, and BS EN ISO 27001, which signifies adherence to Information Security standards. T

he various standards set out above would seem to offer the perfect framework for a government backed regulatory body, but a recent attempt to instigate such a body ended in failure. The Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners (CRFP) was set up in 1999 with the remit of promoting public confidence in forensic practice in the UK, but was closed on 31st March 2009. The organisers cited a lack of funding from the government, and a lack of support from the ACPO and the Metropolitan Police Service as the reasons behind the closure. For those keen to see compulsory regulation become a reality, the closure of the CRFP represented a significant setback.

Until such time as clear cut regulation becomes a reality, it seems that it will continue to be the responsibility of those engaging computer forensics experts to ensure that they meet sufficient standards. For court cases, careful vetting and due diligence could spell the difference between a safe conviction and a miscarriage of justice.