Thursday, November 5, 2026

November 5: Jordan Coleman: (National Registry of Exoneration) - Posted on October 16, 2026; From our 'Rape prosecution from hell,' department: (If there was a Guiness Book of Records for evidence withheld by prosecutors, this would be right up there at the top. As NRE scribe Maurice Possley (a superb criminal justice scribe) reports, the withheld evidence included the fact that: "On September 20, 2023, Judge Lawler granted the motion and dismissed the case...Altogether the withheld evidence would have assisted the defense in challenging the testimony of nearly every State’s witness,” Judge Lawler said. “This includes the complainant, her mother, the Lewis County Sheriff’s Deputy responsible for investigating and referring the case for prosecution, the Lewis County Sheriff’s Deputy [Yocom], the nurse that examined the complainant, and the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory Analyst that served as the State's DNA expert.”



PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: After the verdict, Coleman retained attorney Kimberly Gordon as his post-conviction attorney. On August 25, 2022, the day before Coleman was scheduled to be sentenced, Gordon filed a motion for a new trial.  The motion contended that the prosecution had failed to disclose exculpatory evidence and that Coleman’s trial defense attorney had provided ineffective assistance of counsel.  The motion said that the prosecution had failed to disclose reports from Child Protective Services (CPS) showing that in the past, M.J.J.M. had accused two family members, including her father, of sexually assaulting her. 
-------------------------------------------

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The prosecution, the motion said, had failed to disclose that Deputy Yocom had been disciplined previously for making false representations in a search warrant application that resulted in the arrest of an innocent man."

-------------------------------------------

PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "The motion also said the prosecution had allowed Schouten to testify falsely and made arguments to the jury that were not based on the evidence and misstated the evidence, in particular the argument that Coleman’s DNA was a “match.” 

--------------------------------------------

PASSAGE FOUR OF THE DAY: "The motion included a declaration from Dr. Jennifer L’Hommedieu, an emergency physician for the Madigan Army Medical Center at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Pierce County, Washington. Stankus said she was prepared to testify about numerous inaccuracies and deficiencies in McLeod’s examination of M.M.J.M. and in McLeod’s testimony at the trial.  (Heather McLeod, the SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) who had examined M.J.J.M. at the hospital when the rape kit was taken, testified that she checked boxes for “no acute physical trauma observed.” McLeod also testified about the neurobiology of memory formation, the rates of delayed reporting by sexual assault victims, and the reasons for delayed reporting.  McLeod also testified that she saw petechiae on M.J.J.M’s chest, which McLeod said confirmed M.J.J.M’s testimony that Coleman had choked her during the March 11, 2021 rape.")

 ----------------------------------------------

PASSAGE FIVE OF THE DAY: "In March 2023, the defense learned that the prosecution had failed to disclose that Dixon, the DNA analyst, had a prior conviction." "The judge rejected the prosecution argument that failing to disclose Dixon’s prior conviction would not have affected the case. “This was a ‘she said/he said’ case in which the DNA evidence, and the testimony of State’s DNA expert, was crucial,” Judge Lawler said. “This exculpatory evidence would have impacted all five counts, even those to which it did not directly apply. It was used to try to corroborate one of the complainant's allegations, thereby bolstering them all.” The judge said that a new trial was an “insufficient remedy” for the prosecution’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.  “Here, exculpatory evidence was withheld throughout the entirety of the first trial, sentencing, and litigation of a motion for a new trial,” the judge said. “Evidence was withheld even as the parties litigated the Motion to Dismiss.” 
------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE SIX OF THE DAY: "On September 18, 2026, Coleman filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against Lewis County as well as Dixon, Schouten, Yocom, and other officers “Though the accusation was obviously false—[Coleman] had not raped a teenage girl—law enforcement officers elevated the false accusation into bogus criminal charges,” the lawsuit said. “In so doing, the Defendants wrote false documents, omitted materially exculpatory information, and suppressed evidence of Coleman’s innocence and other favorable information that would have undermined and completely precluded any prosecution.” 

GIST: On March 12, 2021, a 16-year-old girl, identified as M.J.J.M., reported that she had been raped by her uncle, 39-year-old Jordan Coleman, in Pe Ell, Washington. She went to the hospital where she was examined by a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE), and a rape kit was collected.

M.J.J.M. told a Lewis County sheriff’s deputy that she had been raped on March 11 in Coleman’s home and that he had raped her there on three other occasions in January 2021.

On March 14, 2021, Coleman was arrested. He was charged with one count of second-degree rape for the March 11 attack and four counts of third-degree rape for the other attacks.

Coleman denied raping M.J.J.M. He said that she had stayed with him occasionally when her parents were not getting along. Coleman said that he believed M.J.J.M. was seeking revenge because Coleman had been a witness for the prosecution in the summer of 2020 when 24-year-old Gene Anthony Carlos II was prosecuted for the statutory rape of M.J.J.M., who was then 15.

In September 2020, Carlos had been sentenced to nearly four years in prison. Coleman’s defense attorney, Thomas Keehan, learned that Coleman had caught M.J.J.M. and Carlos flirting, that Coleman had warned M.J.J.M. about having a relationship with Carlos, and that he had told Carlos about M.J.J.M.’s age and the illegality of any sexual relationship. Jordan had repeatedly helped M.J.J.M.’s parents find her when she ran away to be with Carlos. Coleman had caught M.J.J.M. sneaking out of Carlos’s house and had caught her using Coleman’s iPad to have clandestine communications with Carlos. Coleman’s efforts had led to the prosecution of Carlos after M.J.J.M. learned she was pregnant (she later had a miscarriage). Coleman had assisted law enforcement in their investigation by providing detailed interviews as well as screenshots of M.J.J.M.’s communications with Carlos.

Keehan prepared a report based on interviews with Coleman and family members and others that the defense contended showed that Coleman and M.J.J.M. were not in the same place at the same time during the month of January.

Subsequently, the Lewis County Prosecuting Attorney’s office amended the charges. Coleman remained charged with rape on March 11, 2021, but was charged with four counts of third-degree rape between October 28, 2020 and January 31, 2021.

The trial was scheduled to begin in Lewis County Superior Court on May 17, 2022. On May 12, Keehan and the Lewis County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Joseph Bassetti appeared for a hearing to confirm that both sides were on track to go to trial. At that time, Bassetti presented a motion seeking to bar any evidence relating to the prosecution of Carlos under the rape shield law, which prohibits a defendant from introducing evidence of a complainant’s past sexual behavior.

Keehan would later concede that he was taken by surprise, and, because he had not done any research on the rape shield statute, he said he had no objection.

A jury was sworn in on May 17, 2022. During his opening statement, Bassetti told the jury that Coleman’s DNA “matched the DNA found in M.J.J.M.’s vagina and in her mouth.”

M.J.J.M. testified that Coleman had dragged her up the stairs of his house and raped her. She said that in the March 11, 2021 attack, he had ejaculated on her face and chest. She said that he kept her locked up in the house, and she could not leave.

Lewis County Sheriff’s Deputy Sam Schouten, who was the lead investigator on the case, was called to testify about the day that Coleman was arrested. During a hearing outside the presence of the jury, Schouten said, “I asked him if there was any truth to the allegation of sexual assault or any kind of sexual interaction. And his words were, ‘No, that’s disgusting. That’s my niece.’”

Schouten said, “And I said, ‘Okay. If there’s no truth to it, would there be’—I don’t remember the exact words, but it was ‘Would there be or why would there be your DNA—or would there be your DNA in her shorts or on her person—or in her clothes or on her person, something to that effect.’”

Coleman replied, “No. It’s disgusting. That’s my niece.”

Schouten said, “So at that point, I explained to Mr. Coleman I was going to ask for two things from him, a recorded statement and a voluntary buccal swab….[H]e asked what a buccal swab was, and I explained to him it’s a DNA swab of the inside of your mouth.”

Moments later, in front of the jury, Bassetti asked Schouten, “[D]id anyone tell [Coleman] or allude that his sperm or DNA was found anywhere prior to that?”

“No,” Schouten replied.

“Thank you,” Bassetti said. “Nothing further.”

Sheriff’s Deputy Andrew Yocom testified that he accompanied Schouten. In his report of the day Coleman was arrested, Yocom had written that at one point Coleman said that because M.J.J.M. had been in his house on multiple occasions, she would have had access to whatever was in the house, such as a “DNA bottle.” However, when Yocom testified, he said that Coleman called it a “sperm bottle,” and that it could have been the source of DNA on M.J.J.M.

Heather McLeod, the SANE who had examined M.J.J.M. at the hospital when the rape kit was taken, testified that she checked boxes for “no acute physical trauma observed.” McLeod also testified about the neurobiology of memory formation, the rates of delayed reporting by sexual assault victims, and the reasons for delayed reporting.

McLeod also testified that she saw petechiae on M.J.J.M’s chest, which McLeod said confirmed M.J.J.M’s testimony that Coleman had choked her during the March 11, 2021 rape.

Brad Dixon, a DNA analyst at the Washington State Police Crime Laboratory testified that prior to the trial, two rounds of DNA testing had been conducted. In the first report, dated April 14, 2021, Dixon stated that no male DNA was found in the swabs of M.J.J.M.’s vagina, mouth and breast. Dixon reported finding DNA from an unidentified third person—neither M.J.J.M. nor Coleman.

Dixon said Bassetti asked him to conduct a further microscopic analysis of swabs taken outside of the vagina and outside of M.J.J.M.’s mouth. In June 2021, Dixon reported finding a single sperm. He said that based on the finding of one sperm, he ran the data through STRmix, software that employs biological modeling and mathematical calculations to assign probabilities to the likelihood that a specific individual’s DNA profile is, or is not, included in a DNA mixture.

Dixon said the software program generated a response that suggested “very strong support” for Coleman’s “inclusion” as a “possible” source of the DNA.

Dixon said the DNA samples were subject to a differential DNA testing process that attempted to separate sperm cell fraction DNA from non-sperm cell fraction DNA, which comes from saliva, skin, or hair. He said the process was not completely efficient. Sometimes cells from non-sperm material still stay in the mixture that purports to be only cells from sperm.

Coleman testified and denied committing the crimes.

During closing argument, Bassetti told the jury that Dixon had testified that “the swabs that match DNA of Jordan Coleman were sperm fractions and they were present both on the perioral, meaning the mouth area swabs, and the vulvar, meaning the outer vaginal swabs of [M.J.J.M.].”

On May 23, 2022, the jury convicted Coleman of one count of second-degree rape and four counts of third-degree rape.

After the verdict, Coleman retained attorney Kimberly Gordon as his post-conviction attorney. On August 25, 2022, the day before Coleman was scheduled to be sentenced, Gordon filed a motion for a new trial.

The motion contended that the prosecution had failed to disclose exculpatory evidence and that Coleman’s trial defense attorney had provided ineffective assistance of counsel.

The motion said that the prosecution had failed to disclose reports from Child Protective Services (CPS) showing that in the past, M.J.J.M. had accused two family members, including her father, of sexually assaulting her. Moreover, the prosecution had failed to disclose that the day after M.J.J.M. reported she had been raped by Coleman, her mother said M.J.J.M. “seemed good” and that M.J.J.M. was “heartbroken” when Carlos was sentenced to prison.

The prosecution, the motion said, had failed to disclose that Deputy Yocom had been disciplined previously for making false representations in a search warrant application that resulted in the arrest of an innocent man.

Other withheld records included an email written by Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Karin Phomma who was the prosecutor assigned to the Carlos statutory rape case. Phomma also was a co-prosecutor of Coleman. The email said that even after Carlos was arrested for statutory rape of M.J.J.M., her attachment to Carlos remained strong. The email showed that M.J.J.M. repeatedly ran away from home and initiated contact with Carlos. In fact, her ongoing contact with Carlos had led to the revocation of his pretrial release. In another email, Phomma had written that M.J.J.M. was unhappy with the prosecution of Carlos and wanted “leniency” for him.

The motion also said the prosecution had allowed Schouten to testify falsely and made arguments to the jury that were not based on the evidence and misstated the evidence, in particular the argument that Coleman’s DNA was a “match.”

In addition, the motion said that the prosecution had stressed that M.J.J.M. had no motive to falsely accuse Coleman, despite the evidence about Coleman’s involvement in the prosecution of Carlos that had been excluded by the trial judge.

The motion said that Keehan, Coleman’s trial attorney, had failed to obtain home security video footage and telephone records that could have contradicted M.J.J.M.’s account. The motion said that Keehan had failed to obtain M.J.J.M.’s social media records.

“The records would have demonstrated that M.J.J.M. lied about her social media handles, lied about her use of social media, and hid alarmingly relevant posts that would have been consistent with the defense theory that M.J.J.M. fabricated the allegations out of revenge,” the motion said. “The records would also have been relevant to impeach M.J.J.M…. in this ‘she said/he said’ scenario that involved no other corroborating witnesses.”

Keehan had failed to subpoena CPS records and had failed to oppose the prosecution motion to preclude the evidence of the prosecution of Carlos based on the rape shield law. “The rape shield law cannot be used to exclude relevant evidence,” the motion said.

Had Keehan investigated Coleman’s home, he would have discovered that all the doors have locks that can be manually opened from the inside, contradicting M.J.J.M.’s claim that she was kept locked in the house.

The motion included a declaration from Dr. Jennifer L’Hommedieu, an emergency physician for the Madigan Army Medical Center at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Pierce County, Washington. Stankus said she was prepared to testify about numerous inaccuracies and deficiencies in McLeod’s examination of M.M.J.M. and in McLeod’s testimony at the trial.

The following day, Superior Court Judge James Lawler sentenced Coleman to an indeterminate sentence of up to 23 years and four months in prison. Judge Lawler ordered that Coleman be kept in the Lewis County Jail pending a resolution of the motion for a new trial.

In March 2023, the defense learned that the prosecution had failed to disclose that Dixon, the DNA analyst, had a prior conviction.

On March 27, 2023, the prosecution conceded that Coleman should get a new trial, and his convictions were vacated. Coleman was released to home confinement on March 28, 2023. The retrial was scheduled for September 11, 2023.

On August 28, 2023, Gordon filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the prosecution had continued to withhold exculpatory evidence despite agreeing to a new trial.

On September 20, 2023, Judge Lawler granted the motion and dismissed the case.

“Altogether, the withheld evidence would have assisted the defense in challenging the testimony of nearly every State’s witness,” Judge Lawler said. “This includes the complainant, her mother, the Lewis County Sheriff’s Deputy responsible for investigating and referring the case for prosecution, the Lewis County Sheriff’s Deputy [Yocom], the nurse that examined the complainant, and the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory Analyst that served as the State's DNA expert.”

The judge noted that the Carlos prosecution was “on going. As such, exculpatory evidence continued to be created after Mr. Coleman was granted a new trial. The Court finds that, as new records were created, the State also withheld some of these from the defense. The State did so, despite telling the defense that all the records would be provided. The State continued to withhold some records even as it told this Court ‘there have been missteps by the State in this case that have been corrected and are sure to never be repeated[.]’”

The judge rejected the prosecution argument that failing to disclose Dixon’s prior conviction would not have affected the case. “This was a ‘she said/he said’ case in which the DNA evidence, and the testimony of State’s DNA expert, was crucial,” Judge Lawler said. “This exculpatory evidence would have impacted all five counts, even those to which it did not directly apply. It was used to try to corroborate one of the complainant's allegations, thereby bolstering them all.”

The judge said that a new trial was an “insufficient remedy” for the prosecution’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.

“Here, exculpatory evidence was withheld throughout the entirety of the first trial, sentencing, and litigation of a motion for a new trial,” the judge said. “Evidence was withheld even as the parties litigated the Motion to Dismiss.”

On September 18, 2026, Coleman filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against Lewis County as well as Dixon, Schouten, Yocom, and other officers.

“Though the accusation was obviously false—[Coleman] had not raped a teenage girl—law enforcement officers elevated the false accusation into bogus criminal charges,” the lawsuit said. “In so doing, the Defendants wrote false documents, omitted materially exculpatory information, and suppressed evidence of Coleman’s innocence and other favorable information that would have undermined and completely precluded any prosecution.”

The entire post can be read at: 

https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/20452

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.  Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;


Wednesday, November 4, 2026

November 4: Shaken Baby Syndrome: The American Bar Association is to be applauded for publishing Jules Epstein's excellent analysis of the groundbreaking Nieves decision .(New Jersey Supreme Court..."For anyone who litigates, defends, or judges in criminal prosecutions, Nieves is a must-read first because it details the genesis of SBS. That historical exegesis is also essential reading for anyone interested in science, “fit for the forum,” i.e., forensic science. Read carefully, it is a tale of unjustified extrapolation from a handful of studies—not all of which involved infants—to a conclusion among certain members of the medical community that this was solid science. This is reflected in the language the court uses to trace that history:For anyone who litigates, defends, or judges in criminal prosecutions, Nieves is a must-read first because it details the genesis of SBS. That historical exegesis is also essential reading for anyone interested in science, “fit for the forum,” i.e., forensic science. Read carefully, it is a tale of unjustified extrapolation from a handful of studies—not all of which involved infants—to a conclusion among certain members of the medical community that this was solid science. This is reflected in the language the court uses to trace that history:


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "New Jersey did not shut the door on SBS testimony in no-impact cases in the future if the science developed and could establish the reliability of its premises. But that day is not yet here. Nieves stands as a comprehensive assessment of SBS; as a cautionary tale of the dangers of extrapolating cause from inadequate or inapposite studies; and as a reminder of the importance of rigorous application of the standards for admitting expert proof, evidence that has special impact because of the witness’s “singular status in the courtroom … as having been deemed, by the court, sufficiently knowledgeable to offer testimony beyond the specifics of a particular case.” Id. at 1132 (internal quotations and citation omitted). In other words, jurors see the expert as approved by the court, so it is that institution’s responsibility to police such testimony."

---------------------------------------------------

PASAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "There is one final note. The reason the court could issue such a comprehensive opinion was because the litigants included the statewide office of the New Jersey Public Defender. That office ensured that the litigation was well-resourced with an abundance of top-caliber experts. In a nation where indigent defense is often underfunded and where court-appointed and many retained lawyers lack the time and finances to put such a case together, Nieves is a poignant reminder that if the accuracy of science is going to be tested in the context of a criminal case, to get it right there is a need for expertise and money—and if courts confront such claims without those two essentials, they should pause and bring in amici or ensure funding before making decisions that can have long-lasting consequences."

---------------------------------------------------

ARTICLE: "General Acceptance, Reliability and Disagreement: A case study of "Shaken Baby Syndrome,"  by Jules Epstein, published  on October 28, 2026 by The  American Bar Association, in its  Fall 2026, edition. (Julius Epstein: Temple University School of Law);

SUMMARY: "The New Jersey Supreme Court found that expert testimony on shaken baby syndrome in “no-impact” cases does not meet scientific reliability standards. The Court emphasized that such testimony is not generally accepted in the scientific community. The ruling underscores the importance of robust evidence and appropriate resources in handling these complex cases.

GIST: "Although Daubert remains the predominant test for the admissibility of expert opinions, a number of jurisdictions retain Frye and its general acceptance threshold as the standard. But the two strands—reliability and general acceptance—were intertwined in a late 2025 decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court addressing the admissibility of “shaken baby syndrome [SBS]” testimony in a “no-impact” case, one where the baby is shaken, but there is no banging of the child’s body against a wall, floor, crib, or similar hard object.

The case is State v. Nieves, 345 A.3d 1127 (N.J. 2025). And the New Jersey Court ruled on the claim of Mr. Nieves and another defendant as to whether the lower-court exclusion of expert testimony that shaking an infant, without more, could cause brain injuries. To determine whether to affirm the exclusion, the court detailed the history of SBS and the scientific challenges to the same and then reviewed how New Jersey’s Frye test incorporates “reliability.”

For anyone who litigates, defends, or judges in criminal prosecutions, Nieves is a must-read first because it details the genesis of SBS. That historical exegesis is also essential reading for anyone interested in science, “fit for the forum,” i.e., forensic science. Read carefully, it is a tale of unjustified extrapolation from a handful of studies—not all of which involved infants—to a conclusion among certain members of the medical community that this was solid science. This is reflected in the language the court uses to trace that history:


In the years following Dr. Caffey’s 1974 study, the theory of whiplash infant shaking syndrome, later referred to as shaken baby syndrome, began to gain traction in the medical community. That acceptance was based almost entirely on Dr. Guthkelch and Dr. Caffey’s case studies, both of which relied on Dr. Ommaya’s scientific study as the sole source of experimental scientific data behind the theory, notwithstanding the fact that Dr. Ommaya’s study had nothing to do with the shaking of infants.

345 A.3d at 1137 (emphasis added). The court emphasized that “Dr. Caffey did not conduct any biomechanical experiments of his own in support of that study and relied on the review of cases from other studies. …” Id. at 1135. Elsewhere, the court referenced the reliance on “purported direct evidence” that the researchers themselves admitted was “meager.” Id. at 1136.

What clearly impressed the court was the contrary research, that based on biomechanical studies. Also important were the analyses by researchers relied on by the supporters of SBS that called its hypothesis and research into question.


Regarding the biomechanics of retinal hemorrhages, Dr. Ommaya opined that “the levels of force required for retinal bleeding by shaking to damage the eye directly is biomechanically improbable,” given that small masses like the eye require levels of force even higher than larger masses like the brain.


Significantly, Dr. Ommaya critiqued the assumptions upon which theories about mechanisms of pediatric retinal and brain injuries in literature have been based. … Dr. Ommaya stated that “[t]hese assumptions individually and in concert are ambiguous or incorrect” even though those very assumptions had been used as the bases for the differential diagnoses of SBS, “usually without reference to available biomechanical analysis.”


A decade after Dr. Ommaya signaled that SBS lacked an underlying scientific foundation, Dr. Guthkelch, whose study relied on Dr. Ommaya’s whiplash experiment and was in turn cited by Dr. Caffey, also questioned the science behind SBS.

Id. at 1139. Put simply, the court seemed to weigh hard science against more conjectural approaches and found the latter to be wanting.

Beyond a lesson in how to weigh competing forensic claims, Nieves had to fit it into an evidence-law framework. Although New Jersy has shifted to a Daubert-like standard for expert evidence in criminal cases, the court returned to Frye because that is the legal regime Mr. Nieves’s case was tried under.

New Jersey’s framework, even under Frye, mandated a reliability determination. “Notwithstanding the Frye test’s emphasis on general acceptance in the relevant field(s), the science underlying the expertise must have a sufficient scientific basis to produce uniform and reasonably reliable results. …” Id. at 1160 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

The court set the reliability threshold as a high one, explaining that “[g]eneral acceptance entails the strict application of the scientific method, which requires an extraordinarily high level of proof based on prolonged, controlled, consistent, and validated experience.” Id. at 1161.

What proved critical to its ruling was then defining the relevant “community,” or here “communities.” Finding the roots of SBS theory in the work of biomechanical research, the court determined that “the relevant scientific communities for purposes of determining the reliability of SBS/AHT expert testimony are both the medical/pediatric community and the biomechanical engineering community.” Id. at 1366. Because the latter did not “generally” accept SBS in no-impact cases, Frye was not satisfied. [The court also reminded us that general acceptance is not forever—as science changes, so can the level of acceptance.]

On the reliability prong, the court found that independent of the acceptance determination, the research simply did not support the claim, doing so in an incisive review of decades of study:

[T]here was no test supporting a finding that humans can produce the physical force necessary to cause the symptoms associated with SBS/AHT in a child. The trial court further found SBS/AHT to be a theory not anchored in facts developed through reliable, scientific testing to confirm the diagnosis. This Court acknowledges that humans cannot be used as test subjects in potentially dangerous experiments regarding SBS/AHT, so there may never be a perfect scientific test. It is true that there are limitations to researching and understanding SBS/AHT and the forces necessary to result in the injuries associated with the diagnosis. But those limitations should not give way to assumptions in making an SBS/AHT diagnosis for which significant criminal liability follows when no other evidence of abuse is present.

Id. at 1168.

New Jersey did not shut the door on SBS testimony in no-impact cases in the future if the science developed and could establish the reliability of its premises. But that day is not yet here. Nieves stands as a comprehensive assessment of SBS; as a cautionary tale of the dangers of extrapolating cause from inadequate or inapposite studies; and as a reminder of the importance of rigorous application of the standards for admitting expert proof, evidence that has special impact because of the witness’s “singular status in the courtroom … as having been deemed, by the court, sufficiently knowledgeable to offer testimony beyond the specifics of a particular case.” Id. at 1132 (internal quotations and citation omitted). In other words, jurors see the expert as approved by the court, so it is that institution’s responsibility to police such testimony.

There is one final note. The reason the court could issue such a comprehensive opinion was because the litigants included the statewide office of the New Jersey Public Defender. That office ensured that the litigation was well-resourced with an abundance of top-caliber experts. In a nation where indigent defense is often underfunded and where court-appointed and many retained lawyers lack the time and finances to put such a case together, Nieves is a poignant reminder that if the accuracy of science is going to be tested in the context of a criminal case, to get it right there is a need for expertise and money—and if courts confront such claims without those two essentials, they should pause and bring in amici or ensure funding before making decisions that can have long-lasting consequences."

The entire story can be read at: 

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/resources/magazine/2026-fall/general-acceptance-reliability-disagreement-shaken-baby-evidence/?shem=aimgspe,

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true

Tuesday, November 3, 2026

November 3: Christa Pike: Death Row; Tennessee: Re the nightmarish, horribly botched, inhumanly painful attempt to execute Christa Pike: A message from this Canadian to the people of Tennessee, and to all Americans, from Harold Levy, Publisher of The Charles Smith Blog.. .Message to the people of Tennessee , and to all other American's: You too can make this botched execution the last execution ever in your country. Learn from us. We ended capital punishment in Canada after - and perhaps because of - the brutal botched execution of Arthur Lucas at Toronto's Don Jail, on December 11, 1962.


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Re the nightmarish, horribly botched execution of Christa Pike. Message to the people of Tennessee, and to all other American's: You can help make this botched execution the last execution ever in your country. Learn from us. We ended capital punishment  in Canada after - and perhaps because of - the brutal botched execution of Arthur Lucas at Toronto's Don Jail, on December 11, 1962. I was parading outside Toronto's  Don Jail that night, reporting a vigil protesting the back to back execution of Ronald Turpin and Arthur Lucas for The Pro Team - the new student newspaper of the recently opened York University  - and protesting out of my own antipathy for the death penalty, having no idea that something terrible had happened inside those walls -  something which ultimately may have ended the death penalty in Canada. Author Robert L Hoshowsky described the botched back-to-back execution and its aftermath, in his book "The last to Die: Ronald Turpin, Arthur Lucas, and the end of capital punishment in Canada.  (Link below): Per Hoshowsky: "What happened next is the stuff of nightmares. Turpin and Lucas never heard the end of the word salvation.  The hangman sprung the trap, the platform falling beneath their feet with a deafening crash that echoed throughout the room as they plummeted to their deaths. No one who was at the hangings revealed what happened that night for many years, and newspapers at the time were not given the full story. "The hanging was bungled. Turpin died clean. But Lucas' head was torn off. It was hanging just by the sinews of the neck. There was blood all over the floor. The hangman had miscalculated his weight. What a way to die," said (Salvation Army Chaplain Cyril) Everitt in an interview published just before his own death many years later..... Toronto homicide detective Jim Crawford who attended the double hanging that cold December night. "Everybody was taken aback by the spray of blood that was literally like a water pipe had burst, and the walls were sprayed with blood." Howshowsky continues: " The Coroner's report made no mention of Lucas almost losing his head. Doubts about Lucas' conviction  lingered even to 1976 - the year capital punishment was abolished. The botched death of  Arthur Lucas may have marked the end of capital punishment in Canada;" In similar manner,  I hope that the botched attempt to kill - the torturing of Christa Pike - will help end the death penalty in the  USA>



Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;

--------------------------------------------

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.  Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;

Monday, November 2, 2026

November 2: (From our 'Gatekeepers of the world unite' department): Flawed firearm evidence, bloodstain pattern analysis, and drug detection dogs: (A Canadian perspective): University of British Columbia law professor Sara Gordon is arguing in a trio of periodical articles that Canadian courts have leaned too heavily on three long-accepted investigative techniques: firearms identification, bloodstain pattern analysis and drug-detection dogs - and her research finds the scientific support for each is weaker than the legal system has assumed, 'Forensic' (Editor-in-Chief Michelle Taylor) reports.


QUOTE OF THE DAY: “Just because a technique has been used in court for decades doesn’t mean we should take its reliability for granted, especially when someone’s liberty is at stake in a criminal trial,” said Gordon. “My hope is that this research will help judges and lawyers better understand the limitations of these techniques and ensure that forensic evidence is presented in a way that accurately reflects what the science can—and can’t—tell us.” 

--------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Canadian Law Expert Questions Ballistics, Bloodstain and Sniffer Dog Evidence," by 'Forensic' Editor-in-Chief Michelle Taylor, published on O October 26, 2026.   (Michelle Taylor has worked on the Forensic brand since 2016. Well established in the industry, Michelle has attended dozens of scientific conferences and conducted interviews with key opinion leaders, including multiple Nobel Prize winners and award-winning forensic scientists. Michelle enjoys writing about investigative forensic genetic genealogy, novel psychoactive substances, next-generation sequencing, sexual assault kits and more. Michelle received her BA in journalism from Elon University in North Carolina)

GIST: "A University of British Columbia law professor  is arguing that Canadian courts have leaned too heavily on three long-accepted investigative techniques: firearms identification, bloodstain pattern analysis and drug-detection dogs. Her research finds the scientific support for each is weaker than the legal system has assumed.

Sara Gordon, an associate professor at UBC's Peter A. Allard School of Law, examined how courts treat the evidence in three recently published papers. Gordon said she noticed a gap between advances in the scientific understanding of forensic evidence and the way courts handle it.

“Just because a technique has been used in court for decades doesn’t mean we should take its reliability for granted, especially when someone’s liberty is at stake in a criminal trial,” said Gordon. “My hope is that this research will help judges and lawyers better understand the limitations of these techniques and ensure that forensic evidence is presented in a way that accurately reflects what the science can—and can’t—tell us.” 

Firearms evidence


Canadian courts have accepted ballistics evidence for more than a century. Gordon found that the research does not support the level of certainty with which examiners often testify. In practical testing, examiners misidentified bullets 37 percent of the time.

Her firearms paper focuses on Canada, where the evidence is still routinely admitted. In 2023, a Chicago court became the first in the United States to bar ballistics-matching evidence in a criminal case.

Bloodstain pattern analysis

Canadian courts have long treated bloodstain pattern analysis as a physical science. Gordon traced the discipline to a chemist who experimented in his basement and later helped establish its journal and early textbooks, which gave the field the outward markers of an established science. She said practitioners often cite concepts such as fluid dynamics with little or no formal training in physics.

Emerging studies point to significant error rates. In one, analysts correctly classified patterns about 70 percent of the time on rigid surfaces and 62 percent of the time on fabrics. Another found that different analysts frequently reached different conclusions on the same evidence, and additional research showed that what examiners were told about the case or scene could sway their conclusions.

Drug detection dogs


In Canada, police can use a sniffer dog to search when they have reasonable suspicion of a drug offense, a lower bar than most warrantless searches require. The Supreme Court of Canada has justified that on the grounds that such searches are minimally intrusive, narrowly targeted and highly accurate. Gordon's review of research published since the Court's 2013 rulings points the other way.

“They're not nearly as reliable as many courts seem to assume,” she said.

She cited an Australian study in which no drugs were found after nearly 75 percent of police dog alerts. Dogs can alert in the absence of drugs because of poor training, residual odors or even scents associated with some common baking ingredients. A handler can also unintentionally cue the animal, for example by slowing down or acting differently near a person he or she suspects. Searches that follow an alert can also cause fear, anxiety, anger and humiliation, Gordon noted, and may disproportionately affect racialized people.

Her proposed reforms include clearer standards for training, certification and performance monitoring of detection dogs, and applying the same standard used for other warrantless searches to sniffer dog searches.

Taken together, the papers urge judges to take a more active gatekeeping role, ensuring forensic evidence is reliable and that experts stay within what the science can support. Gordon also calls for greater scientific literacy among lawyers and judges.

---------------------------------------------------------

Prof. Gordon's papers are published in:

The Alberta Law Review:  Police dogs: 

The Canadian Bar Review: Blood pattern Analysis;

The Dalhousie Law Journal. Firearms evidence; 

---------------------------------------------------------

The entire story can be read at: "


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;

Sunday, November 1, 2026

November 1: Jailhouse Snitches: 'Reason' Reporter Billy Binion interviews Pamela Colloff - an astute commentator on the US criminal justice system who is well known to the readers of this Blog - author of the best-selling book, 'Catch the Devil' noting that: "Catch the Devil, chronicles Skalnik's career helping prosecutors secure dozens of convictions—despite being a serial liar and criminal. His cartoonishly long rap sheet included elaborate frauds, multiple grand thefts, and sexual assault of a child; at various times, he passed himself off as a Southwest Airlines executive, a high-powered attorney, and a Vietnam War hero."


PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  July 14:  Jailhouse informants: Paul Skaldic; Major (Welcome) development: Sarah Andrews reviews Pamela Collof's debut book in The Texas Chronicle, under the heading, "Catch the Devil Reveals a Criminal Justice System Caught Up in Its Own Delusions,"... "Both daunting and enraging, Catch the Devil burns down the illusory details of a “solved” murder case from the 1980s and wipes away the ash to reveal the sinister and self-serving criminal justice system beneath. Colloff is not under any delusion that her story will bring justice to Jim Dailey or fix the corrupt system that locked him up. To the reader, Colloff has just one thing to say: “This is happening, and you need to look at it.”


-----------------------------------------------------

INTERVIEW:" Source: Reason Magazine:  Pamela Colloff on America's biggest jailhouse snitch." 

SUB-HEADING: "Pamela Colloff on America's Biggest Jailhouse Snitch, Wrongful Convictions, and Criminal Justice: "I am obsessed with this idea that the system is built to compound its own errors," the author of the best-selling book Catch the Devil tells Reason's Billy Binion."

INTERVIEWER: "BILLY BINION | FROM THE NOVEMBER 2026 ISSUE." (Billy Binion is a reporter at Reason, where he writes about criminal justice, civil liberties, and government accountability. He has been published in Newsweek, the San Francisco Chronicle, HuffPost, The Saturday Evening Post, and the Washington Examiner, among other publications. His work has been cited in The New York Times, The Atlantic, National Review, Fox News, Vice, and The Daily Beast. A story he broke exploring law enforcement misconduct in Louisiana was later the subject of a CBS Evening News broadcast. He is a frequent guest on podcasts, TV, and radio, including appearances on CNN, Blocked and Reported, NPR, 2WAY, and Newsweek's "The Debate" podcast."

BACKGROUND: "How Jailhouse Snitches Send Innocent People to Death Row" (Pamela Colloff discusses the dangers of incentivized testimony, the difficulty of overturning wrongful convictions, and how the justice system compounds its own errors. Billy Binion
-------------------------------------------------------

INTRO: "Paul Skalnik was one of the most prolific jailhouse snitches in American history. A new best-selling book, Catch the Devil, chronicles Skalnik's career helping prosecutors secure dozens of convictions—despite being a serial liar and criminal. His cartoonishly long rap sheet included elaborate frauds, multiple grand thefts, and sexual assault of a child; at various times, he passed himself off as a Southwest Airlines executive, a high-powered attorney, and a Vietnam War hero. In July, Reason's Billy Binion interviewed author Pamela Colloff, a staff writer at The New York Times Magazine and reporter at ProPublica."

Q: How is it possible for someone with such an intense history of dishonesty to still earn the state's trust for decades?

A: I think you hit upon the big question of the book, right? Skalnik was a former police officer himself, so he sort of knew how the game worked. When he got to whatever county jail he ended up in, he could size up whoever it was that prosecutors most wanted a conviction against. And he would produce these incredible quote-unquote "confessions." And in return for his testimony about those confessions, he would usually be let free.

You can imagine how there were police and prosecutors who bought this. I think what becomes more difficult as he's used more widely in [Pinellas County,] Florida—where he helped send upward of 40 men to prison—at what point does someone say, "What are the odds that this guy in the jail has a better batting record than our best detectives?" No one ever says that.

Q: The book covers a lot of disturbing cases, but the one central to it is a murder case in Florida. Can you set the scene?


A: There was a 14-year-old girl named Shelly Boggio who was found in a body of water. She'd been stabbed over 30 times, and the assumption was that she'd been sexually assaulted.

The investigation quickly narrows down to a man named Jack Pearcy, who had a long history of violence against women. He was the last person seen with Boggio. When he's interviewed by investigators, he realizes they know too much. So he pivots to saying that he had his housemate—Jim Dailey—with him that night, and that it was Jim who committed this crime. Jim did not have that kind of record, and there's no physical or forensic evidence tying him to the crime, or any motive whatsoever.

Skalnik is brought in very shortly before the trial starts. He is moved in the jail to be close to where Jim Dailey was. Within 24 hours, he says he has procured Dailey's confession—a total stranger who's awaiting trial. It was a story that really played upon jurors' sympathies. He talked about how Jim Dailey had supposedly told him about stabbing Shelly Boggio to death and how she'd been staring at him in this pleading way, but she wouldn't die. It's this horrific image, and he is sentenced to death.

Q: What makes you think Dailey is actually innocent?

A: There have been over 200 people in the U.S. who were sentenced to death who have since been exonerated. We know that jailhouse informants—who are notoriously unreliable—are a factor in 25 percent of those wrongful convictions.

As far as Jim's case, there's no there there. When you see a case with three jailhouse informants, no physical evidence, no motive, and your quote-unquote "eyewitness" is the main suspect in the case? There are a lot of questions.

Q: To me, the secondary theme was that when credible evidence may exonerate someone after a jury has rendered a verdict, it is depressingly difficult to get another chance.


A: I am obsessed with this idea that the system is built to compound its own errors. When new evidence comes out—and there's a lot of new evidence that comes out over the years that really points toward his innocence—you would think that would be enough. For some very good reasons, a jury verdict is sacrosanct. But what you see is that courts really look backward at precedent and jury verdicts rather than forward at new evidence.

Jim gets terrific attorneys in this case—too late. They do incredible work, and it doesn't matter. Too many judges have rubber-stamped this testimony by Paul Skalnik. There's no way for the courts to essentially say, "Hey, let's go back and look at this holistically and see if any of this makes sense." It was shocking to me to see that.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity."

The entire interview can be read at: 

https://share.google/1uifRh9hxnmoUUFjc

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;

Saturday, October 31, 2026

October 31:Diamond Keen. St. Louis, Missouri: Shaken Baby Syndrome: Major (Welcome) Development: Yet another 'groundbreaking' SBS case; As the official court release tells us: "In recorded police interviews played at trial this week, Keen repeatedly denied dropping or abusing Emerald and told police she did not know how he could have gotten hurt. Keen’s lawyers presented testimony from medical experts to challenge autopsy findings that Emerald's injuries were the result of shaking and to explain how research into medical conclusions "shaken baby syndrome" have changed in recent years."



PUBLISHER'S NOTE: This important decision has just come to my attention. I will be keeping an eye out for further reports.

Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.

-----------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "St. Louis woman acquitted of fatal child abuse charge," reported by The St. Louis City Circuit Court, on October 30, 2026.

GIST: "A St. Louis woman was acquitted at trial this week in the death of a 5-month-old boy in 2023.

Jurors on Thursday found Diamond Keen, 27, not guilty of one count of child abuse resulting in death. She was accused of causing severe head injuries that led to Emerald Johnson’s death in August 2023. Emerald’s mother had asked Keen to watch her baby because while she was recovering from a shoulder injury.

Keen was watching the baby for a friend in an apartment at 600 North Kingshighway for a couple of days when the boy was found in cardiac arrest and died at St. Louis Children’s Hospital. Charges said an autopsy showed the baby suffered internal brain bleeding and died of closed head trauma resulting from being shaken.

Prosecutors argued that Keen caused the boy's injuries by shaking him. Keen told police Emerald was only out of her sight for 30 seconds, according to charges. Charges also said two other people had visited the apartment within four hours of Emerald’s death but that they told investigators the child seemed normal when they two hours before the child was hospitalized.

In recorded police interviews played at trial this week, Keen repeatedly denied dropping or abusing Emerald and told police she did not know how he could have gotten hurt.

Keen’s lawyers presented testimony from medical experts to challenge autopsy findings that Emerald's injuries were the result of shaking and to explain how research into medical conclusions "shaken baby syndrome" have changed in recent years.

The entire report can be read at: 

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true


October 31: Scott Watson: New Zealand: From our 'Defending the Indefensible?' department. Prosecutors attempting to justify flawed police 'identification' practices have have met with severe challenges from justices presiding over his appeal, which is confined to the central identification issue, as the appeal draws to a close, Radio New Zealand (RNZ) Senior reporter Ellen O'Dwyer reports, noting that: "The justices questioned Baker on Watson's lawyers' argument that police pressured Wallace to identify Watson in an interview in early January, 1998. "It was inappropriate wasn't it?" Justice Joe Williams asked. "I've never in all the trials I did read an interview like that," Williams said."



BACKGROUND: I often check out Martyn Bradbury's Blog ' The Daily Blog' - when reporting a New Zealand case, as his posts are interesting and insightful, and  he doesn't hesitate to call the proverbial ' spade' a spade - as is his recent Blog  which is called "The Scott Watson Miscarriage of Justice'  (October 22, 2026)  -Scott Watson's appeal being heard in Supreme Court) and provides excellent  background information:


"Scott Watson’s appeal being heard in Supreme Court:  Scott Watson’s defence lawyers argue police pressured and “primed” a key witness to identify Watson as the man he saw on a yacht in the early hours of New Years’ Day. The argument came as Watson’s appeal of his double-murder conviction is being heard in the Supreme Court. Watson was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering Ben Smart and Olivia Hope in the Marlborough Sounds and has now been behind bars for 27 years.  The Blenheim friends, aged 21 and 17, were last seen stepping off a water taxi onto a stranger’s yacht in Endeavour Inlet the early hours of 1 January, 1998, after a New Year’s Eve party at Furneaux Lodge. Their bodies have never been found. Watson was found guilty of the murders in 1999 after an 11-week jury trial involving about 500 witnesses. He appealed his convictions after the trial but the application was dismissed. He made another two applications that were unsuccessful before a 2017 bid for a royal pardon was granted, with the case heard by the Court of Appeal in 2024. Watson’s appeal focuses on one key point – the photo identification process used in the original trial  The 1998 murder of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope in the Marlborough Sounds is one of NZ most notorious double homicides and one of our most questionable convictions. There have always been enormous question marks over this case and it is right for the Supreme Court to review it because this could be a cruel miscarriage of justice. For me it never sat right that boat people saw a double masted Ketch and not the single masted boat Watson had. The convenient finding of hairs belonging to Olivia used to frame Scott Watson. The use of prison narks to frame Watson and most disturbingly, the fact that Police OffIcers involved in the Scott Watson case later went on to develop interview programs for the NZ Police that were found to be incredibly unsafe and produced false confessions. There’s an election on, the economy is melting down and we have run away climate change to worry about, but if Scott Watson is not guilty, we have kept an innocent man in jail for 27 years for two murders he didn’t commit. We need to give a damn about that."


---------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Another key issue that came up in the hearing was the photo police used of Watson in Montage B. Watson had his eyes half-closed in this photograph, and his lawyers said yesterday it unfairly stood out and led to Wallace and others identifying him. Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann put to Baker that this was "quite an extraordinary photograph", and asked him whether it was acceptable for police to choose a photo that most closely matches witness descriptions. Baker replied that he thought it was acceptable, but the other photos in the montage needed to have other similar characteristics. He said it didn't have the effect of substantially leading people to choose Watson, because about half of the 53 people shown the photo in montage b chose Watson."


-----------------------------------------

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Watson's Court of Appeal bid sought to overturn his convictions on the question of reliability of DNA evidence of two blonde hairs found on Watson's boat, as well as the photo montage evidence. The Supreme Court is only considering the question of whether a miscarriage of justice arose from the decision of the original trial judge to admit Wallace's photo ID evidence. Tuesday's concludes the Supreme Court appeal hearing, with the justices reserving their decision."

-----------------------------------------

STORY: 'Photos only a part of 'overwhelming' case against Scott Watson', Crown says, RNZ (Senior Reporter Ellen O'Dwyer covers Wellington issues, stories about the Capital, and its people - as well as stories on a national scale, including social issues, health and justice.)


GIST: "Crown lawyers in the Supreme Court today say a photo montage at the heart of Scott Watson's appeal is only one piece of evidence in an "overwhelming" case against him.


Watson is appealing his conviction for the murders of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope in Marlborough Sounds on New Years' Day in 1998.


His lawyers argue the evidence of water taxi driver Guy Wallace - used in the original trial - who picked out Watson in "Photo Montage B" as the man seen boarding a boat with the young pair, is inadmissible.


Crown lawyer Madeleine Laracy said the Crown always relied on a "large volume of evidence" - not just a photo montage.


"This was and is an overwhelming case."


Laracy referred to the Court of Appeal's judgment in 2024 - which rejected a previous bid by Watson to quash his convictions.


The Court of Appeal had found there were just too many factors pointing to Watson, Laracy said.


"If Mr Watson was not the man on the Naiad, then the lone man, like Mr Watson, happened to be alone, happened to have a yacht, happened to have moored his yacht out from the jetty, happened to be in the same age range, late twenties or early thirties, happened to have an appearance that was so like Mr Watson's as to mislead Mr Wallace into thinking it was the same man."


Crown lawyer Stuart Baker said Wallace's evidence did not solely rely on picking him out of a photo montage.


"This was not a case of a fleeting glance by Mr Wallace, rather Mr Wallace observed the male at the lodge for some time throughout the evening, both in the main bar and the garden bar."


Baker said Wallace gave descriptions of the "lone man", prior to going to the wharf, including who was on the naiad, where exactly they went, what was said, and a description of rafted boats in the bay, where the three people disembarked.


The justices questioned Baker on Watson's lawyers' argument that police pressured Wallace to identify Watson in an interview in early January, 1998.


"It was inappropriate wasn't it?" Justice Joe Williams asked.


"I've never in all the trials I did read an interview like that," Williams said.


Baker replied: "I accept that the officer...that the questioning was challenging, and was at a level that quite clearly wouldn't be dealt with at the present day."


Baker said Wallace didn't succumb to pressure at the time to identify Watson, and ended up identifying him due to other reliable factors.


Another key issue that came up in the hearing was the photo police used of Watson in Montage B.


Watson had his eyes half-closed in this photograph, and his lawyers said yesterday it unfairly stood out and led to Wallace and others identifying him.


Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann put to Baker that this was "quite an extraordinary photograph", and asked him whether it was acceptable for police to choose a photo that most closely matches witness descriptions.


Baker replied that he thought it was acceptable, but the other photos in the montage needed to have other similar characteristics.


He said it didn't have the effect of substantially leading people to choose Watson, because about half of the 53 people shown the photo in montage b chose Watson.


Laracy said a major point in the Crown's case at the original trial was motive.


"The motive is a long-harboured intention to kill a woman," she said, and in her address she referred to witnesses who had pointed to such comments expressed in different words and different places.


"It [That motive] is suffused throughout this Crown case, and the way it is held together, it's a very important aspect of the Crown's case for identity."


Watson's Court of Appeal bid sought to overturn his convictions on the question of reliability of DNA evidence of two blonde hairs found on Watson's boat, as well as the photo montage evidence.


The Supreme Court is only considering the question of whether a miscarriage of justice arose from the decision of the original trial judge to admit Wallace's photo ID evidence.


Tuesday's concludes the Supreme Court appeal hearing, with the justices reserving their decision.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/crime-and-justice/2053374/photos-only-a-part-of-overwhelming-case-against-scott-watson-crown-says

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;