Aug 22 2007
DNA Testing of Spouse’s Fidelity Leads to Walking Papers
Welcome to Scuttlebutt Pipeline! If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or sign up to receive email notifications of new entries.
Also, don't forget to check out Fifty for the Fall, your chance to win $50 cash - no strings attached!
LANSING, Mich. - A state forensics scientist who said she tested her husband’s underwear for DNA to determine if he was cheating on her has been fired.
Ann Chamberlain of Okemos testified in a March 7 divorce hearing that she ran the test last September on the underwear of Charles Gordon Jr. Asked by his attorney what she found, she answered: “Another female. It wasn’t me.”
She said during another hearing that she ran the test on her own time with expired chemicals that were set to be thrown away.
The Michigan State Police, which oversees the Lansing forensics laboratory where Chamberlain worked, announced Tuesday that it had fired her effective Aug. 16 after conducting an internal investigation into violations of department administrative policy.
State police policies dealing with the care and use of property state that “department supplies, materials or equipment shall not be used for any non-duty or non-department purpose.”
Chamberlain could not immediately be located for comment. A phone listed for Ann Chamberlain in Okemos was disconnected.
The 33-year-old scientist received an award for Outstanding Contribution to the Michigan State Police Biological Services in 2006 for her research and method development in embryonic/fetal DNA recovery, according to Forensic Science Consultants Inc., which lists her among the forensic scientists it employs.
The sad thing is, I can’t help but to wonder what the outcome would have been if it had been the other way around. If it had been a man testing his wife’s fidelity would the fuss have been made? Would they have fired him? I can’t help but to speculate but a part of me highly suspects that had it been a man this would have been swept under the rug and laughed about on coffee breaks. Perhaps I’m far too cynical and mistrusting.
Mari can’t help but agree. If it had been a male scientist testing his wife’s fidelity, it would have been mentioned on coffee break and ignored.
Mari,
I’m sad to hear that you suspect the same thing. This suggests that it’s necessarily cynicism but reality. What a cold place to live in. Then again, maybe this isn’t reality and we’re just waiting for a Neo to come and save us all?
I think you’re probably right, either that or Ann has just been caught up in the cogs of petty bureaucracy.
I personally think that if it were a man, people would probably think he was kind of a paranoid sicko, but not give him as much heat as she got. but probably would be fired, yeah.