Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Bulletin: Henry Keogh; Australia; Momentous development; He has won the right to challenge his 1994 conviction for drowning his fiancee in a bath. Australian Associated Press; Published by The Guardian.

PUBLISHER'S VIEW: This momentous decision  is a tribute to Henry Keogh's relentless battle for exoneration in the face of the dubious  forensic evidence  used to convict him. It is also  a tribute to Dr.  Bob Moles who has committed himself to freeing Mr. Keogh for so many years - and who almost single - handedly is responsible for the enactment of the new criminal review legislation in South Australia that made this momentous decision possible. It is in fact the first case to be decided under the new bill. It must be a thrilling moment for Bob Moles, Prof. Bibi Sangha, and the many other supporters who over the years have worked incredibly hard to see this miscarriage of justice  overturned. Keogh's battle may be far from over - as he now must won over the full Court - but at the very least, he has managed to open a  very formidible door. We will continue to follow closely the many forensic developments in the case.

Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

STORY: "Henry Keogh wins right to challenge  conviction for drowning fiancee in bath," by Australian Associated Press, published by The Guardian on March 11, 2014."

GIST: "An Adelaide man can again challenge his 1994 murder conviction for drowning his fiancee in a bath. The supreme court Justice Kevin Nicholson said on Tuesday the grounds put forward by Henry Keogh’s lawyers were “reasonably arguable", as was their contention there was a substantial miscarriage of justice. He referred the case to the full court of the court of criminal appeal to determine whether the case came under new South Australian legislation that allowed an appeal based on fresh and compelling evidence. If the court decided it did, it would then hear his new challenge. ........ He has lost numerous appeals, but his lawyer argued there was fresh and compelling evidence, including the possibility his fiancee might have suffered an extreme allergic reaction. Prosectors had claimed Keogh drowned Cheney by grabbing her legs and lifting them up over her head. Referring to an alleged grip mark on her leg, his lawyers said there was now evidence from a sample of her tissue that showed the bruise was at least three to four days old at the time of her death."

The entire story can be found at:

Herald Sun story: "Keogh’s lawyers said allegations their client drowned Ms Cheney in her bathtub by grabbing her legs and lifting them up over her head could not be supported by forensic evidence . His conviction, they said, was based on incorrect claims bruises on her ankle were caused just hours before her death and matched the “grip mark” of a human hand. They said those claims had been disproved by a 2004 report prepared for then Solicitor-General — and now Chief Justice — Chris Kourakis. That report, by Professor Barrie Vernon-Roberts, formed part of the Labor Government’s refusal of Keogh’s third petition for mercy. To win a hearing before the Full Court of the Supreme Court, Keogh’s team had to convince Justice Kevin Nicholson they had an arguable case. Under the new laws, only the Full Court can decide whether or not to overturn a conviction. Keogh’s push for an appeal hinged on the evidence of Flinders University Associate Professor Anthony Thomas, who re-examined Professor Roberts’ 2004 report. Last month he suggested Ms Cheney may have suffered an extreme allergic reaction to the antihistamine drug hismanal prior to her death, rather than having been murdered. Professor Thomas said photos of Ms Cheney taken post-mortem showed her face to be swollen in a manner potentially consistent with anaphylactic shock . He further claimed bruises on Ms Cheney’s ankle — caused, prosecutors maintain, when Keogh drowned her — were several days, not hours, old."


Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.

I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.

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. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
I look forward to hearing from readers at:

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;