Saturday, October 17, 2015

Editorial: Steven Mark Chaney: Texas; Dallas Morning News editorial focuses on "freedom for a prisoner of bad science"; "Bite mark science joins a host of other questionable techniques, such as some arson forensics and police lineups using sniffer dogs to identify supposed perpetrators, that have undergone a through and welcome vetting by the Texas Forensic Science Commission. The review was prompted, in part, by the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham based on highly suspect arson science that linked Willingham to the deaths of his three daughters in Corsicana. Chaney was wrongfully convicted. But he still faces an arduous process of filing for official designation as an exoneree, after which he could be eligible for up to $50,000 for every year he spent in prison. The state must waste no time processing this review and compensating Chaney for the freedom robbed from him by junk science."


EDITORIAL: "Freedom for a prisoner of bad science, published by the Dallas Morning News on October 14, 2015.

PHOTO CAPTION:  "Steven Mark Chaney hugs his mother, Darla Chaney, after being released from prison on Monday at the Frank Crowley Criminal Courts Building. Chaney, imprisoned for 28 years for the 1987 slayings of two people in Dallas was released after his conviction based on now-discredited bite-mark analysis was overturned by State District Judge Dominique Collins."

GIST:  "Steven Mark Chaney emerged from 28 years behind bars after a Dallas County judge ruled Monday that junk science played a decisive – and clearly wrongful – role in winning his 1987 murder conviction. It marked not just a victory for Chaney but also for landmark 2013 legislation that made it easier for convicts to challenge the shenanigans that prosecutors resort to when their evidence is weak. In Chaney’s trial, Dallas County prosecutors faced an uphill battle countering testimony by nine witnesses that they saw Chaney the day a Dallas couple, John and Sally Sweek, were slain in 1987. Prosecutors introduced the “expert” testimony of dentist Jim Hales and another forensic odontologist. They asserted that the scientific study of bite marks could determine with precision that indentations found on John Sweek’s arm could be traced directly to Chaney’s teeth. Hales was so confident, he declared that there was a “one to a million” chance that anyone other than Chaney bit Sweek’s arm. His confidence, combined with some apparently manipulated evidence and other prosecutorial misconduct, were enough to sway the jury to convict. But Hales now says he was wrong based on findings by fellow scientists debunking bite-mark science...  The path to Chaney’s victory was paved by landmark legislation passed in 2013 in the wake of high-profile exonerations, including that of Michael Morton, a Texan wrongfully convicted for the 1987 murder of his wife. SB 344, one of several bills signed into law that year, allows judges to overturn convictions that were based on forensic science later proven to be meritless. Bite mark science joins a host of other questionable techniques, such as some arson forensics and police lineups using sniffer dogs to identify supposed perpetrators, that have undergone a through and welcome vetting by the Texas Forensic Science Commission. The review was prompted, in part, by the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham based on highly suspect arson science that linked Willingham to the deaths of his three daughters in Corsicana. Chaney was wrongfully convicted. But he still faces an arduous process of filing for official designation as an exoneree, after which he could be eligible for up to $50,000 for every year he spent in prison. The state must waste no time processing this review and compensating Chaney for the freedom robbed from him by junk science."

The entire editorial can be  found at:

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20151014-editorial-freedom-for-a-prisoner-of-bad-science.ece

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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:

 
 http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
 
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
 
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html  

I look forward to hearing from readers at:

hlevy15@gmail.com; 


Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.