Wednesday, July 13, 2016

The Charles Smith Blog Award: "Presented To Professor Jane Ireland , a psychologist, who was brought before her professional body - The Health and Care Professions Council (UK) - in connection with a research study she published in 2012 which cast doubt on the validity of family court decisions with its finding that around 20 per cent of psychologists acting as expert witnesses for the family courts are not qualified."...I was stunned to learn that Prof. Holland's alarming research findings had not been perceived as an urgent wake up call to the quality of professional testimony in the UK's family courts. Dr. Holland is a hero who has been attacked by peers who appear to be more concerned about hiding the secret of their gross lack of qualifications - then with reforming the quality of justice in the family courts. Bravo to Prof. Ireland. I am pleased to present her with the Charles Smith Award."


THE  CHARLES SMITH BLOG AWARD: : "Psychologist probed over study that hit national headlines; Prof Jane Ireland, from the University of Central Lancashire; A psychologist who poured doubt on the validity of family court decisions has been dragged before a fitness to practice hearing."..."The research found serious concerns across a range of issues beyond the startling finding that around a fifth of so-called psychologist expert witnesses are not qualified. The assessments of the expert reports found that some 20 per cent of the psychologists were working beyond their area of knowledge; around a third had no experience of mental health assessments; and some 90 per cent of experts were not in current practice. The net result was that the research concluded that around 65 per cent of expert reports in the study were of either 'poor' or 'very poor' quality. Professor Ireland told Channel 4 News: "I think we were very concerned and perturbed by some of the reports that we read, not just in terms of qualification but also the quality of the reports that we read." As publisher of the Charles Smith Blog I noted that "the timing of the hearing is no doubt coincidental - but I couldn't help but think about the recent attack by Britain's medical profession on Dr. Waney Squier, for her counter-establishment - read 'unpopular' - research and findings on 'shaken baby syndrome.' The complaint undoubtedly was an assault on Prof. Ireland's competence and reputation  and meant to chill her from pursuing her disturbing finding that around 20 per cent of psychologists acting as expert witnesses for the family courts are not qualified: In reponse to a letter to Council, I was succinctly told:  "Thank you for your email received on 13 June 2016 querying the outcome of the Fitness to Practise hearing. Please accept my apology for the delay updating you on this matter. The Panel decided that the case was not well founded at the Impairment stage of the process. This means that no further action will be taken on the case. In the circumstances, the HCPC does not publicise the outcome." I was stunned to learn that Prof. Holland's alarming research findings had not been perceived as an urgent wake up call to the quality of professional testimony in the UK's family courts. Dr. Holland is a hero who has been attacked by peers who appear to be more concerned about hiding the secret of their gross lack of qualifications  -  then with reforming the quality of justice in the family courts. Bravo to Prof. Ireland. I am pleased to present her with the Charles Smith Award. 

ORIGIN OF THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG AWARD:  I launched the award in 2009 as a forum in which I could honour these individuals who help  expose and remedy miscarriages of justice caused anywhere in the world by flawed pathology, flawed pathologists, junk science, pseudo-experts or a combination of any of the above.

UNUSUAL NATURE: This award is entirely virtual. There is no no ceremony; There is no prize; There is no certificate. It is a pure and unadulterated honour bestowed by myself as publisher in recognition of contributions  by others to this important facet of criminal justice.

RECIPIENTS TO DATE;

0: Kevin Morgan (AUSTRALIA): author of "Gun Alley: Murder, Lies and Failure of Justice, who single-handedly fought for and obtained the forensic materials which led to Colin Ross's pardon almost ninety years after he was executed.

0: Michael Hall (U.S.A.): For his excellent work in Texas Monthly exposing the miscarriages of justice that have occurred as a result of scent-lineups and the "experts" who conduct them, and

0: Sun-Sentinel reporter Paula McMahon (U.S.A.) for her ground-breaking reporting over a nine year period which led to the freeing and exoneration of Anthony Caravella.

O: Journalist Stewart Cockburn (AUSTRALIA) for his ground-breaking work in "The Advertiser" which exposed the miscarriage of justice suffered by Ted Splatt and triggered the Royal Commission which led to Splatt's exoneration.

0: Australian scientist Tom Mann (AUSTRALIA) for his sterling efforts to publicize the injustice perpetrated on Ted Splatt in the courts including the publication of "Flawed Forensics: The Ted Splatt case and Stewart Cockburn," a monumental book which demonstrates the tragic consequences which can unfold when science gets twisted out of proportion in the courts and those entrusted with the task of protecting our criminal justice system abdicate their responsibilities.

0: New Yorker staff writer David Grann (U.S.A.)for his awesome exposee of the faulty arson "science" that resulted in the wrongful conviction and execution in Texas of Cameron Todd Willingham. (Photo: David Grann);

0: Pamela Colloff (U.S.A) for her Texas Monthly stories which resulted in the freeing of Anthony Graves within 30 days of the appearance of her first story. Anthony Graves was convicted and sentenced to die in 1994 for six horrific murders in the Central Texas town of Somerville.

0: Spencer Hsu (U.S.A) for his  revelations in the Washington Post  that for years, the U.S. Department of Justice has known that flawed forensic work by FBI experts may have led to the convictions of innocent people, but prosecutors rarely told defendants or their attorneys. Hsu discovered that Justice Department officials began reviewing cases after defense attorneys pointed out problems with evidence coming out of FBI labs. But the review was limited. "As a result," Hsu wrote, "hundreds of defendants nationwide remain in prison or on parole for crimes that might merit exoneration, a retrial or a retesting of evidence using DNA because FBI hair and fiber experts may have misidentified them as suspects."

O: Robert Moles and Bibi Sangha. (AUSTRALIA) 
for their monumental campaign to persuade South Australia to establish a statutory right of appeal - and the impact this will have on remedying miscarriages of justice caused by flawed forensic science. 

O: Journalist Mike White; NEW ZEALAND  for his investigation of the Mark Lundy case - and his exposure to the public of  the many factors which made clear that Lundy could not have commited the terrible crimes. Wikipedia informs us that:  "In 2009, North and South magazine published the results of an investigation into the case by Mike White titled  "The Lundy murders: What the jury didn't hear.

O: Dr. Waney Squier (UK) and Meryl and Susan Goldsmith (USA) respectively for their courage and fearlessness in challenging the validity of the 'shaken baby syndrome' - in spite of the threat posed to their professional status, their reputations and their ability to perform and display their work by the Syndrome's zealous proponents in the medical profession and prosecutor's offices." 

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:


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.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html

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.