June 20: Robert Dillon: Florida: Technology: Facial Recognition. Question of the day: What could possibly go wrong? ABC News (Reporters Raphael Louis Hipos and Yi-Jin You) reports. His lawsuit alleges that authorities had been searching for a suspect who allegedly tried to lure a child at a Jacksonville Beach restaurant, more than 300 miles away from Dillon's home." Guess who ended up being investigated for the very ugly crime!..."Dillon said he knew he had been incorrectly identified, because he had never been to Jacksonville Beach. "I argued with the police officer for 20 minutes, and he insisted that 'I know that I'm looking at your mugshot,'" he said. The state attorney's office dropped Dillon's case weeks after his arrest, but Dillon said it took nearly a year to get the arrest wiped from his record, with help from the American Civil Liberties Union."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Dillon and the ACLU are currently suing several law enforcement authorities and agencies, including the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, which oversees the use of the AI facial recognition technology across Florida. "Despite [a] well-documented history of [facial recognition technology]-driven wrongful arrests, neither Jacksonville Beach PD, [Jacksonville County Sheriff's Office], nor [Pinellas County Sheriff's Office] implemented safeguards sufficient to prevent exactly the type of wrongful arrest that occurred in Mr. Dillon's case," the lawsuit alleges. It further alleges that Dillon's arrest was "the predictable consequence of Jacksonville Beach PD's failure to provide its officers with the training, guidance, and supervision necessary to use [facial recognition technology] in a constitutionally compliant manner."

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

STORY: "Man sues law enforcement alleging AI facial recognition technology led to wrongful arrest," by Raphael Louis Hipos and Yi-Jin You, published by ABC News, on June 12, 2026.

GIST: "A Florida man is suing multiple law enforcement agencies after he alleges he was wrongfully arrested due to flawed AI facial recognition technology.

"I don't wish this on my worst enemy," Robert Dillon, a father of one, told ABC News.

Police body camera video footage, obtained by ABC News affiliate Gulf Coast News, shows Dillon's 2024 arrest outside his San Carlos Park home.

"I was basically telling them this is crazy. I have no idea who did this, but it's not me," Dillon recalled of the arrest.

Robert Dillon is suing multiple law enforcement agencies after he claims he was wrongfully arrested due to flawed AI facial recognition technology.

ABC News

Authorities had been searching for a suspect who allegedly tried to lure a child at a Jacksonville Beach restaurant, more than 300 miles away from Dillon's home."To be accused of a heinous crime of that nature, I'm thinking I may not be coming back home," Dillon said.

During their investigation, authorities allegedly fed "poor quality" surveillance images of the suspect into an AI-powered facial recognition program, which scanned facial features and found photos of the suspect and Dillon were allegedly "a 93% match," according to Dillon's lawsuit.

Dillon said he knew he had been incorrectly identified, because he had never been to Jacksonville Beach.

"I argued with the police officer for 20 minutes, and he insisted that 'I know that I'm looking at your mugshot,'" he said.

The state attorney's office dropped Dillon's case weeks after his arrest, but Dillon said it took nearly a year to get the arrest wiped from his record, with help from the American Civil Liberties Union.

Dillon and the ACLU are currently suing several law enforcement authorities and agencies, including the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, which oversees the use of the AI facial recognition technology across Florida.

"Despite [a] well-documented history of [facial recognition technology]-driven wrongful arrests, neither Jacksonville Beach PD, [Jacksonville County Sheriff's Office], nor [Pinellas County Sheriff's Office] implemented safeguards sufficient to prevent exactly the type of wrongful arrest that occurred in Mr. Dillon's case," the lawsuit alleges.

It further alleges that Dillon's arrest was "the predictable consequence of Jacksonville Beach PD's failure to provide its officers with the training, guidance, and supervision necessary to use [facial recognition technology] in a constitutionally compliant manner."

The Jacksonville Beach Police Department and Jacksonville County Sheriff's Office both said they were unable to comment on Dillon's case and lawsuit when reached by ABC News

The Pinellas County Sheriff's Office said in a statement, "The assertion in the lawsuit that PCSO failed to train [officers in the facial recognition technology] is patently false."

It stated that training for the facial recognition program "is unequivocally clear" that the technology is "an investigative tool only."

"Facial recognition results are never 'matches,'" the sheriff's office said. "Independent investigation is required to determine whether any person in a photo array return in the facial recognition system is the person who committed a crime requires a law enforcement officer to determine probable cause through independent means."

It added, "Proper safeguards were in place to require that the system be properly used. It was wrong for the JBPD officer to determine probable cause existed to arrest someone solely based on their photo appearing in a facial recognition photo array. Liability for doing that rests solely with any officer who did so, and certainly not PCSO."

The entire story can be read at:

https://abcnews.com/GMA/News/man-sues-law-enforcement-alleging-ai-facial-recognition/story?id=133810835

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;

June 19: Research shows that how you sound on a 911 call can determine whether police treat you as a victim or a perpetrator," as The Innocence Project's Alexandria reports, in a post headed, "This Police Method Is Used to Infer Guilt From 911 Calls, But It’s Not Backed by Science," which notes that, " ProPublica investigative journalist Brett Murphy — and guest speaker in the Innocence Project’s latest Just Data conversation: “What’s Your Emergency? When Calling For Help Makes You a Suspect” — spent months documenting the adoption of these programs, which have never been backed by science. Detailing his investigation at the live virtual conversation hosted by the Innocence Project’s Data Science & Research team on May 11, Mr. Murphy was joined by Dr. Jessica Salerno, an Associate Professor of Psychology and Associate Member of the law faculty at Cornell University, who presented her research on how police form suspicion based on the sound of someone’s voice. Their findings followed Huwe Burton’s personal account of being wrongfully convicted after calling for help."

POST : "This Police Method Is Used to Infer Guilt From 911 Calls, But It’s Not Backed by Science," by Alyxaundria Sanford, published by The Innocence Project, on June 15, 2026. Alyxaundria Sanford joined the Innocence Project in 2024 as the digital engagement specialist. Alexandria has a distinguished career in local and national news at organizations like ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Daily News, and City & State Magazine. She most recently held the role of audience engagement producer at The Intercept. Alyxaundria brings an extensive background in digital engagement strategies, storytelling, and advocacy. A graduate of the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University and the Engagement Journalism program at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism, she also holds a master’s degree from John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

SUB-HEADING: "Research shows that how you sound on a 911 call can determine whether police treat you as a victim or a perpetrator.

GIST: "Police departments across the country are paying up to $3,500 — funds that often come out of taxpayer money — to learn how to tell a guilty 911 caller from an innocent one. These programs promise that with just eight hours of the “right” instruction, a dispatcher, detective, or prosecutor could learn to ascertain guilt from listening to a 911 call.

ProPublica investigative journalist Brett Murphy — and guest speaker in the Innocence Project’s latest Just Data conversation: “What’s Your Emergency? When Calling For Help Makes You a Suspect” — spent months documenting the adoption of these programs, which have never been backed by science.

Detailing his investigation at the live virtual conversation hosted by the Innocence Project’s Data Science & Research team on May 11, Mr. Murphy was joined by Dr. Jessica Salerno, an Associate Professor of Psychology and Associate Member of the law faculty at Cornell University, who presented her research on how police form suspicion based on the sound of someone’s voice. Their findings followed Huwe Burton’s personal account of being wrongfully convicted after calling for help.

Mr. Burton was just 16 years old when he came home to find his mother, Keziah Burton, murdered in their Bronx apartment. He immediately called 911 and waited for officers to arrive and help. Just days later, he was charged with her murder.

At his trial, one of the officers who first interviewed the teenager said he did not seem emotional enough during questioning. The officer’s subjective observation and interpretation of grief set Mr. Burton’s wrongful conviction case in motion. He was exonerated in 2019 — three decades after his arrest and after serving more than 20 years in prison — with the help of the Innocence Project, Northwestern University, and Rutgers University.

Mr. Murphy’s investigation found that these “analysis” methods are built on a foundation that repeatedly failed scientific validation tests. Yet they have continued to gain acceptance in courts and police departments across the country.

The original study around which these 911 analysis methods were developed examined just 100 calls and was solely intended to be exploratory research. One of its co-authors even told Mr. Murphy its findings were not ready for real-world application. Since then, other researchers have published at least eight scientific studies attempting to replicate or test the method, repeatedly finding that its supposed indicators of guilt do not hold up under scrutiny. Those findings have directly challenged the reliability and validity of 911 call analysis. Yet 911 call analysis continued to be taught to law enforcement, cited in court proceedings, and credited by its creator with having helped solve more than 1,500 homicides.

Some prosecutors have acknowledged 911 call analysis “will not hold up to scientific scrutiny,” Mr. Murphy said. “So they get creative.”

Rather than introducing the method as expert testimony — where it could be challenged under scientific evidentiary standards — prosecutors often present it indirectly through testimony from detectives or dispatchers who have received the training. Jurors then hear testimony about “guilty” behavior inferred from word choice or tone of voice on 911 calls without learning that those observations were formed using a disputed methodology.

WATCH: Just Data | What’s Your Emergency? When Calling For Help Makes You a Suspect

Rather than guilt or deception, what jurors and investigators are often picking up on is the absence of an expected display of emotion, Dr. Salerno’s research suggests.

In one series of studies, Dr. Salerno and her colleagues asked participants to listen to identical 911 call scripts delivered with varying levels of emotion. Both civilians and police officers became significantly more suspicious when callers expressed low emotion. For police officers, even moderate emotion was not enough to reduce suspicion of a caller’s guilt or deception. Callers had to sound highly emotional before officers’ perceptions changed.

In follow-up studies using real 911 calls with known outcomes, the same pattern of associating low emotion displays with guilt emerged regardless of whether the caller was later convicted or later exonerated.

But this kind of subjective behavioral analysis extends beyond emergency calls.

Robert Roberson, was viewed with suspicion after bringing his critically ill daughter to the hospital. After his daughter died, medical personnel and investigators interpreted his flat affect as evidence of guilt. Mr. Roberson has always maintained his innocence and has spent more than two decades on Texas’ death row, narrowly avoiding execution on three occasions. Years after being convicted, Mr. Roberson was officially diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, helping explain behaviors that authorities had previously characterized as cold or indifferent.

For Dr. Salerno, the lesson is clear: trauma, culture, personality, neurodivergence, and shock all influence how people respond during crises. Yet the criminal legal system continues to rely heavily on subjective assumptions about what grief, fear, and innocence should look like. And she worries about the impact of those unreliable assumptions.

“If the public learns that cops are using their behavior in the worst moments of their life against them, people are going to stop calling 911 to help others,” said Dr. Salerno during the Just Data event.

For Dr. Salerno, the first step to remedying this is straightforward: 911 call analysis training must stop. She added that accreditation organizations should evaluate such programs based on scientific evidence of their accuracy rather than simply whether they fall under the umbrella of policing. Additionally, law enforcement agencies should receive training grounded in trauma science and psychological research to prevent the interpretation of trauma responses as signs of guilt. And defense attorneys should learn to identify and challenge attempts to introduce 911 call analysis through lay testimony.

Most importantly, Dr. Salerno suggests that investigators must abandon the assumption that innocence has a predictable emotional script. When police decide a person is guilty based on how they sound during one of the most desperate and traumatic moments of their lives, confirmation bias does not stay confined to that single interaction. It also shapes the interrogations that follow, influences forensic interpretation, narrows investigative focus, and can determine which leads are pursued and which are ignored.

Mistaken suspicion is rarely corrected by the investigation that follows. More often, it shapes the investigation itself. And the wrong that results can take decades to right.

Researchers interested in contributing to open questions on this topic can visit the Innocence Project’s Call to Action document. Contact the data science and research team at science@innocenceproject.org with your research, ideas, or questions.""

The entire story can be read at: 

https://share.google/iKakNGmzsjjUxhcMK

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;

July 18: Murder on Mount Olive: Awet Asfaha: Christopher Sheriffe: Ontario: Ongoing 'Faint Hope' Hearing: In a bid for early parole - at his ongoing 'faint hope' hearing, the Toronto Star (My former Toronto Star colleague Chief Investigative Reporter Kevin Donovan reports that, Awet Asfaha, the admitted murderer, claims he shot innocent stranger ‘to gain stripes’ with gangsters," noting that: "Asfaha was not asked in court whether his actions ever gained him approval with gangsters. Today, Asfaha said he feels great remorse over what he did. In 2017, shortly after the Supreme Court of Canada denied his appeal, Asfaha confessed to his family that he was the shooter. His sister Sara testified at the hearing, saying her brother “told me he was trying to get in with gang members.” Asfaha told court he has had many years to reflect."

MURDER ON MOUNT OLIVE: BACKGROUND: From a previous post of this Blog: 

(June 5, 2026):  "Chris Sheriffe: Ontario: Major (most unusual) Development; (Murder On Mount Olive hearing): As my former Toronto Star colleague  Toronto Star Chief Investigative Reporter Kevin Donovan reports,  "One of two men convicted of first-degree murder in the death of a Toronto furniture maker 16 years ago has changed his story in a reversal that could have  significant consequences for Christopher Sheriffe — the co-accused man who continues to argue his conviction was a “miscarriage of justice," noting that:  "Awet Asfaha had long maintained his innocence in the shooting of Bishen Golaub outside a neighbourhood barbecue on Mount Olive Drive in Etobicoke on a sweltering afternoon in August 2009. In a profanity-laced police interview and at trial, he claimed he knew nothing about the murder, and a mysterious man on the street was the real shooter.  On Thursday, court heard he has now confessed to the shooting, and both earlier stories were “a lie.”"

https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/preview/120008354894645705/3496432798816836573

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The jury is expected to be sequestered later this week and begin deliberations. They will be asked to determine if Asfaha’s parole eligibility should be lowered. If it is lowered, it will still be up to the National Parole Board to determine if he should be released."

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

STORY: "In bid for early parole, admitted Toronto murderer claims he shot innocent stranger ‘to gain stripes’ with gangsters," by Toronto Star Chief Investigative Reporter Kevin Donovan, published on June 17, 2026.


SUB-HEADING: “I was thinking of approval, if I don’t do this, nobody’s going to take me seriously,” Awet Asfaha told the court at his “faint hope” hearing.

PHOTO CAPTION: "Awet Asfaha testifies at his “faint hope” hearing in Toronto before Justice Breese Davies, top left. Asfaha has admitted to killing Bishen Golaub, a stranger, in 2009 “to gain stripes” with a gang."

Seeking “approval” from gangs, Awet Asfaha walked up to a total stranger on Mount Olive Drive in 2009 and pumped three shots into his back, the convicted murderer has testified in his bid to get early parole from a life sentence.

“To gain stripes,” Awet Asfaha told a jury at his “faint hope” hearing, explaining the shooting was like an initiation into gang membership. “To be taken more serious.”

The victim, Bishen Golaub, was a husband, father of four, stepdad to one, and a much-loved worker at a furniture manufacturing company. He had no gang affiliations, but Asfaha said he gave no thought to the victim that day.

“I was thinking of approval, if I don’t do this, nobody’s going to take me seriously,” he told court, his voice never rising or falling throughout two days of testimony.

Bullied as a child, abused by his father, struggling with body image issues and alcohol, the then 24-year-old Asfaha said he hung around with members of several gangs in his north Etobicoke neighbourhood. He had a criminal record for drug trafficking, had held and fired a gun before; he’d go out in a field and take random shots. That’s the only firearms experience he said he had when, on a hot August day, he pulled a hoodie over his head, carrying a “revolver” and walked down Mount Olive Drive. On the street was a 34-year-old man standing outside a chain-link fence, waiting to see if the food at a barbecue was ready.

“I walked to where Bishen was standing,” said Asfaha. “I shot him three times, and I walked back or I ran back.” As the Star has reported, the driver of the car Asfaha had been in was Christopher Sheriffe, a one-time soccer star who was set to begin a career as a carpenter. Sheriffe, now also serving a life sentence, maintains he is innocent. He claims he had been asked by Asfaha to pull over when he was driving home from an impromptu night of partying.

Sheriffe, who was convicted as the getaway driver, claims a "miscarriage of justice" and is applying for a federal review of his conviction.

Asfaha’s sentence denied him the right to apply for parole before 2034. His bid for early parole began last week in a Toronto courtroom. His defence lawyer, Breana Vandebeek, brought a parade of friendly witnesses to court — prison guards, a life coach, a theatre director — who all said Asfaha deserves a second chance.

Taking accountability for criminal actions is one of the unwritten rules in hearings like these, and Asfaha has long denied involvement in the murder. Now serving his sentence in a minimum-security, cottage-like prison with seven private beaches on Vancouver Island, Asfaha said he is hoping to one day give back to the community, possibly teaching young people to cook and running a food truck. He was transferred last year from a medium-security institution, where he kept a cat, Peanut.

Awet Asfaha’s late confession to the murder of Bishen Golaub

In front of a jury of 11 (one member was excused earlier for a reason that cannot yet be reported), Asfaha testified for two days, beginning with the crime itself. On the day of the shooting, Asfaha said he thought a man wearing red at the gate to the barbecue was a rival gang member (Asfaha associated with the Crips, who wear blue — the Bloods wear red). When police arrested Asfaha hours later, he unleashed a torrent of profanity, yelling at homicide detectives that nobody would care about a gang member being killed. But he said, if they really wanted to close the case, they should stop wasting time with him. He knew nothing and had merely been on his “way to see some b——-s.”

“Go back into your f—-ing car and go drive!” he told the detectives. “Take me to f—-ing court. Don’t f—-ing talk to me. You guys are killing me, bro.”

Asfaha was not asked in court whether his actions ever gained him approval with gangsters.

Today, Asfaha said he feels great remorse over what he did. In 2017, shortly after the Supreme Court of Canada denied his appeal, Asfaha confessed to his family that he was the shooter. His sister Sara testified at the hearing, saying her brother “told me he was trying to get in with gang members.”

Asfaha told court he has had many years to reflect.

A man was shot at a Toronto barbecue. Another is in jail for life. The Star reinvestigated the case and found flaws — was the right person convicted?

“I feel terrible. I feel that an innocent person, a father, a good member of society, a husband, a son … I feel really, really terrible, I’ve pretty much done what happened to me to (Golaub’s sons),” Asfaha said. “I took out a good, strong role model away from them (and) that could potentially cause them to go down the wrong path.”

His comments — equating the loss Golaub’s sons experienced to Asfaha’s own upbringing by a father who was not always supportive — took some in the courtroom by surprise. Asfaha later apologized when crown attorney Katherine Rogozinski drew it to his attention.

“Your father wasn’t murdered, though, when you were a teenager?” Rogozinski asked Asfaha. He agreed.

“No one took your dad away by killing him, right?” Again, Asfaha agreed.

“Did you say that because you were looking for sympathy from the jury?”

Asfaha replied: “I was just pointing out that I was a hypocrite. But the way you are pointing it out now, I had no right. I’m sorry.”

As to his lying about who did the shooting, Asfaha told the jury, “I was trying to get away with it. I was ashamed, thinking of preserving myself.”

Awet Asfaha’s cross-examination — ‘Have you always been a good liar?’

While many previous witnesses, including prison guards, had testified that they believed Asfaha was a changed man, Rogozinski, in a withering cross-examination, asked if Asfaha was lying now, just as he had years before to the 2012 jury that convicted him.


“Have you heard of the term ‘Machiavellian,’” Rogozinski asked. When Asfaha said he didn’t know its meaning, Rogozinski replied: “A personality or behaviour characterized by cunningness, deceit and a calculated disregard for morality in pursuit of self-interest or power.”

Asfaha said he used to be like that. He agreed that at the original trial, he invented a mysterious, braided gunman who did the shooting, then ran to the car he was in, and they took off.

Rogozinski pointed out the rich detail in that testimony, including his own fear of being shot by the braided man, the phantom killer’s clothing, the way his eyes stared and his body odour. “Have you always been a good liar?” Rogozinski asked Asfaha.

“I worked hard at this lie,” Asfaha replied.

Rogozinski put it to Asfaha that, similar to how he recently acted in a play he wrote in prison, he gave a “performance to the (2012) jury” that, she said, “sounds like an action movie.”

Asfaha agreed with Rogozinski. The crown put it to Asfaha that he is doing the same thing now, “trying to leave a certain impression of yourself with the jury.”

Asfaha replied: “Now, no.”

Asked about his behaviour if he was released, Asfaha referred to the people who have spoken up for him during the hearing, saying that they have taught him how to approach the temptation of drugs or “subculture or negative associates.” He said he would reach out to the people who supported him for guidance or “by removing myself from the situation.”

Some of Asfaha’s testimony and portions of trial exhibits are under a publication ban ordered by Justice Breese Davies.

The case was the subject of a Toronto Star podcast and series.

The jury is expected to be sequestered later this week and begin deliberations. They will be asked to determine if Asfaha’s parole eligibility should be lowered. If it is lowered, it will still be up to the National Parole Board to determine if he should be released."

The entire story can be read at: 

https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/in-bid-for-early-parole-admitted-toronto-murderer-claims-he-shot-innocent-stranger-to-gain-stripes-with-gangsters/article_3efc0f40-760b-4910-9bd0-589e8baa1a0a.html

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;

June 18: Neonatal Nurse Lucy Letby: UK: (Part 2): Excellent up-to-date primer on Lucy Letby by Simone Barbon, published by 'Film Daily'. on June 14, 2026, which explains why experts' are now doubting the Lucy Letby convictions - and sets out the author's views on where the debate is heading, noting that: "The recent wave of expert re-examination has turned the Lucy Letby case from a settled verdict into an open question. International neonatologists, statisticians, and sitting MPs have filed fresh reports that challenge the medical and statistical pillars of the original prosecution. Their work now sits with the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and a Netflix documentary has widened the audience asking how much of the evidence holds up."

STORY: "Why experts now doubt the Lucy Letby Convictions," by Simone Barbon, published by 'Daily Film' on June 14, 2026. (Simone Barbon's ghostwriting resume is long and illustrious, though you'll never see it. She is also a screenwriting teacher and freelance script reader. Her grandson is her favorite thing to watch, though.)

GIST: "The recent wave of expert re-examination has turned the Lucy Letby case from a settled verdict into an open question. International neonatologists, statisticians, and sitting MPs have filed fresh reports that challenge the medical and statistical pillars of the original prosecution. Their work now sits with the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and a Netflix documentary has widened the audience asking how much of the evidence holds up."

Shoo Lee panel findings

Fourteen specialists from six countries reviewed the medical records of all seventeen trial cases. They concluded that no evidence of deliberate harm existed in any of them. Deaths and collapses were instead attributed to natural complications or documented shortfalls in unit care.

Panel chair Dr. Shoo Lee, whose 1989 air-embolism study was cited by the prosecution, said the paper had been misapplied. The group found no radiographic or clinical signs consistent with the mechanisms alleged at trial.

The February 2025 press conference and the 698-page dossier submitted to the CCRC mark the first coordinated, multi-national rebuttal of the medical evidence used to convict Lucy Letby.

Insulin testing under review

Seven biochemists and endocrinologists produced an 86-page critique focused on the two babies said to have been poisoned with insulin. They argue the Roche immunoassay relied upon at trial lacks the specificity required to prove exogenous insulin in neonates.

The authors state the prosecution interpretation has “no scientific justification whatsoever” and creates a strong level of reasonable doubt. Their report was lodged with the CCRC alongside the Shoo Lee materials in April 2025.

Independent laboratories contacted after the verdict have declined to replicate the original assay under the same conditions, reinforcing the experts’ call for re-testing of stored samples.

Statistical concerns raised

Warwick University statistician Jane Hutton reviewed the charts and probability language presented to the jury. She found implicit claims about unusual clustering were never subjected to formal statistical testing.

Richard Gill and contributors to Private Eye have echoed the point, noting that staffing data were displayed without confidence intervals or control comparisons. The Royal Statistical Society had already flagged similar presentation issues in other NHS inquiries.

Without a qualified statistician called by either side, the jury was left to infer causation from raw counts—an approach statisticians now say falls short of accepted standards.
Legal route opens

Barrister Mark McDonald filed the combined expert reports with the CCRC in February 2025. The commission confirmed receipt and began its initial sift, the first formal step toward possible referral to the Court of Appeal.

McDonald described the new material as “overwhelming evidence” that the convictions are unsafe. He has requested access to original X-rays, blood samples, and unit logs still held by the hospital trust.

Two cross-party MPs, Sir David Davis and Sir Jeremy Hunt, have publicly urged the commission to expedite its review, citing the volume and seniority of the medical signatories.

Documentary shifts focus

Netflix’s February 2026 release, The Investigation of Lucy Letby, intercuts trial footage with interviews conducted after the expert reports surfaced. One of the original accusing doctors admits to “tiny, tiny, tiny guilt” that the wrong person may have been identified.

The film also shows internal emails in which consultants debated whether consultant-led care lapses, rather than deliberate acts, explained the cluster of deaths.

U.S. viewers have compared the narrative to earlier wrongful-conviction series, prompting renewed social-media discussion of how neonatal units record and investigate unexpected collapses.

Comparison to past cases

Commentators have drawn parallels to the Sally Clark conviction, in which flawed statistical testimony and misinterpreted medical findings were later overturned. The Letby review process now mirrors the sequence that ultimately cleared Clark.

Both cases involved clusters of infant deaths in understaffed units and relied heavily on expert interpretation rather than direct forensic proof. The CCRC handled Clark’s referral; it now holds the Letby file.

Legal scholars note that once multiple independent expert groups align against the original evidence, the threshold for referral becomes harder for the commission to ignore.
Hospital response so far

Chester hospital trust has declined to release further internal mortality reviews while the CCRC assessment continues. Families of the babies named in the indictment have not issued collective statements on the new reports.

Some parents have told BBC interviewers they remain convinced of Letby’s guilt; others say they want the medical questions answered before any final judgment.

The trust’s refusal to commission an independent audit of unit practices has drawn criticism from both the expert panel and supportive MPs.
Timeline pressure builds

The CCRC’s initial review is expected to conclude by late 2026. If the commission refers the case, the Court of Appeal would likely list it within twelve months, though complex medical evidence could extend that window.

Letby remains in prison serving whole-life orders; any referral would not automatically suspend the sentence but would trigger fresh legal argument over bail pending appeal.

Meanwhile, the General Medical Council is monitoring the expert statements for possible fitness-to-practise implications for doctors on both sides of the original dispute.
Next steps for review

The convergence of neonatology, biochemistry, and statistics has created a rare moment in which three separate disciplines question the same verdict. Whether the CCRC treats that convergence as sufficient grounds for referral will determine if Lucy Letby’s case moves from headlines to retrial.

Where the debate heads

If the commission refers the convictions, the focus will shift from expert disagreement to courtroom standards for complex scientific evidence. If it declines, the same reports will likely fuel further parliamentary questions and possible calls for a statutory inquiry into neonatal care failures at the hospital. Either outcome will test how the justice system weighs new science against settled jury findings."

The entire story can be read at:

https://filmdaily.co/news/why-experts-now-doubt-the-lucy-letby-convictions/

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;

June 17: Neonatal nurse Lucy Letby: UK; (Part 1): From our 'Eagerly Awaited' department: New book being launched by Cinto Press on July 9: "Reasonable Doubt: Examining the case of Lucy Letby," by Criminal Justice Analyst Christopher Morris, who, as his publisher tells us believes that Lucy Letby has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice, that her guilty verdict is not beyond reasonable doubt, and that he is not the only one. Stay tuned. HL. Details below:..."Ever since the nurse was condemned to fifteen life sentences, highly-regarded professionals in their fields have gone on record to raise concerns about the evidence used to convict her. The science behind how her victims died, the reliance on circumstantial evidence, and the interpretation of the statistics used against Lucy Letby are all being questioned. Controversially, the defence did not call an expert witness to challenge the medical evidence presented by the prosecution. Nobody, except her lawyers, knows why."

RELEASE: "Reasonable Doubt: Examining the Case of Lucy Letby," by Criminal Justice Analyst  Christopher Morris, who, as publisher CINTO  tells us, believes Lucy Letby has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice, and that her guilty verdict is not beyond reasonable doubt. He is not the only one." (Christopher Morris is a seasoned author, researcher, and ghostwriter specialising in the analysis of the British legal system. Dedicated to investigating potential miscarriages of justice, he brings a meticulous, investigative lens to criminal cases.")

GIST: "Ever since the nurse was condemned to fifteen life sentences, highly-regarded professionals in their fields have gone on record to raise concerns about the evidence used to convict her. The science behind how her victims died, the reliance on circumstantial evidence, and the interpretation of the statistics used against Lucy Letby are all being questioned. Controversially, the defence did not call an expert witness to challenge the medical evidence presented by the prosecution. Nobody, except her lawyers, knows why.

In a quest to find out if he is correct, the author has interviewed scores of those experts. He has also pored over the thousands of documents submitted to the Thirlwall Inquiry, which is examining what went wrong at the Countess of Chester Hospital, as well as the transcripts of the trial. He has pulled this vast amount of information together into an engrossing journey through the uncertainties many feel undermine the conviction of Lucy Letby.

The answer matters for us all, as it raises serious questions about whether our justice system really does seek the truth.""

The entire story can be read at: 

https://www.cintopress.co.uk/reasonable-doubt-lucy-letby-case.html

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

Publication on 9 July 2026​

Paperback, £12.99 
ISBN 978-1917447492

Hardback - limited edition pre-pub £17 - save £5 on the RRP £22 
ISBN 978-1917447485​

c450 pages

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

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;