July 23: Junk Science Series: (Part 4): Pink Crime: The Appeal (Journalist/author/playwrite and much more) interviews new book which examines women and queer people convicted for crimes that never occurred, under the heading, "Pink Crime: Fighting Against the Criminalization of Motherhood, Pregnancy, and Queer Identity."...The Appeal: "You write about how the majority of known wrongful convictions of women involve cases where no crime occurred. Is there any understanding of why that is? VB: According to the National Registry of Exonerations, up to 75 percent of women who were wrongly convicted in the United States were wrongly convicted where no crime occurred. So what does that mean? That means there was no criminal act. [For example] there was a space heater that started a fire and yet police thought that the woman was at the home and intentionally set the fire. Police and prosecutors rely on faulty forensic evidence, fire science evidence, and they combine that with gender stereotypes. This is a bad mother, a bad wife, a bad woman who intentionally set the fire. The woman is wrongly convicted based on that confluence of falsehood forensic evidence and gender bias.'

PASSAGE OF THE DAY:  "The Appeal: You write about how junk science intersects with pink crime. Can you define junk science? Can you talk about how it intersects with the topic of your book—the criminalization of queer identity, motherhood, and pregnancy? VB: Junk science is a label that is often applied to forensic evidence. Forensic evidence is evidence from forensic disciplines that came up in police investigations. These were types of evidence that were created by the police for the purpose of being able to identify a suspect as the perpetrator and convict them so they’re biased from the very beginning.  When we’re thinking about this, we’re thinking about shoeprints, we’re thinking about fingerprints, we’re thinking about bite marks, we’re thinking about fire science investigations. These all grew up in police investigations. That’s where they came from. They did not come from a scientific lab where you have a hypothesis and the hypothesis is tested for whether it is accurate, for whether it is reliable."

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

{ASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "You take a piece of lung from the fetus and you put it in water to see if it floats. The idea is that if the piece of lung floats, then the baby was born and took its first breath. This test is not only notoriously unreliable, it also gives false positives.  The last example I’ll give is drug tests and drug testing people who are giving birth in a hospital. These drug tests are not necessarily reliable, and they also don’t indicate [that] there’s any harm to a child. A lot of these fetal harm charges are brought when there’s a positive drug test even when there is a healthy baby. Giving birth to a healthy child is not necessarily going to be enough to protect someone who is pregnant from allegations that they’ve caused some fetal harm. But having a child who does have health conditions at birth, immediately healthcare providers, with social workers, with police, turn on the pregnant person and say, “What did you do to cause this? What behaviors did you do or not do?” And this is so expansive. This can be: “Were you walking enough? Did you get enough bed rest? What were you eating? Did you eat soft cheeses? Did you eat certain kinds of fish?”

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

STORY: "New Book Examines Women and Queer People Convicted for Crimes That Never Occurred," by Elizabeth Weill-Greenberg, published by The Appeal.on July 22, 2026. (Based in New Jersey, she writes on prison and jail conditions, wrongful convictions, and the criminalization of disabilities. Elizabeth has also written for The Nation, New York Focus, and TruthOut. Partnering with CoLAB Arts, she has written two interview-based plays, which have been performed in the Northeast—“Life, Death, Life Again: Children Sentenced to Die in Prison” and “Banished: A Family on the Sex Offender Registry.” She worked for eight years at the Innocence Project as a case analyst where her work was instrumental in several exonerations. She is the recipient, with journalist Juan Moreno Haines, of the 2020 California Journalism Awards Print Contest. They were awarded first place for At San Quentin, Overcrowding Laid The Groundwork For An Explosive COVID-19 Outbreak, in the category: Coverage of the COVID-19 Pandemic – Fallout, weeklies, circulation 25,0001 and over.)

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

SUB-HEADING: "In Pink Crime: Fighting Against the Criminalization of Motherhood, Pregnancy, and Queer Identity, Valena Beety examines how women and queer people face punishment for their bodily autonomy and gender."

According to the National Registry of Exonerations, roughly three-quarters of women exonerated after wrongful convictions involve cases where no crime actually occurred—the wrongfully convicted women faced charges for acts of self-defense, stillbirths and miscarriages, or accidental deaths.

Valena Beety’s new book, Pink Crime: Fighting Against the Criminalization of Motherhood, Pregnancy, and Queer Identity, examines the connections between junk science and gender bias that fuels these wrongful convictions—a category of cases she calls “Pink Crime.” 

“These are criminal cases that are about punishing women and queer people for their bodily autonomy, for their gender, for their gender performance,” Beety told The Appeal. “The criminal legal system is being used to silence people, surveil, punish, and truly erase people who don’t conform.”

Proving innocence in these cases is a particularly Herculean task, says Beety, who has litigated many innocence cases herself and is co-founder of the Indiana Innocence Project. 

“DNA evidence is very helpful in reversing a conviction because it’s showing it’s not one person who did it, it’s another person,” Beety says. 

But if there was no crime, “there was no perpetrator.”

“It requires a completely different framework,” Beety says of no-crime wrongful convictions. “If you have prosecutors and courts in post-conviction that are dead set on, ‘Well, the only way a conviction is reversed is if you have DNA evidence,’ then that misses the majority of women who are in prison and have been wrongly convicted.”

Below is our interview with Beety about Pink Crime. The interview has been edited for clarity. 

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

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

The Appeal: You write, “Protecting the innocent and exemplary person does not shrink the carceral state; it only fortifies it.” Could you elaborate on what that means?

Valena Beety: This goes back to the idea of the perfect victim, which has worked against women and queer people for decades. You have survivors of domestic violence who fought back against their attacker, and they instead are the ones who are criminalized. Or you survive domestic violence or sexual violence, and you’re a sex worker, and you’re criminalized because of that. Or you call the police from your home, and your children are there, and the police come, and you’re charged with child neglect for failing to protect your children from your abusive partner. This is all tied to a perfect victim, a perfect survivor. To be that perfect victim as a woman, as a queer person, it’s about performing gender and performing gender well enough to be sympathetic—that you are worthy of help instead of punishment. 

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

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

The Appeal: You write about how junk science intersects with pink crime. Can you define junk science? Can you talk about how it intersects with the topic of your book—the criminalization of queer identity, motherhood, and pregnancy?

VB: Junk science is a label that is often applied to forensic evidence. Forensic evidence is evidence from forensic disciplines that came up in police investigations. These were types of evidence that were created by the police for the purpose of being able to identify a suspect as the perpetrator and convict them so they’re biased from the very beginning. 

When we’re thinking about this, we’re thinking about shoeprints, we’re thinking about fingerprints, we’re thinking about bite marks, we’re thinking about fire science investigations. These all grew up in police investigations. That’s where they came from. They did not come from a scientific lab where you have a hypothesis and the hypothesis is tested for whether it is accurate, for whether it is reliable. 

The only forensic evidence that is truly scientific evidence is DNA, and that did grow up in a lab, with hypothesis testing for its reliability and accuracy. DNA evidence has been able to prove these forensic disciplines are faulty.

Forensic evidence wasn’t about finding out if the evidence was reliable on its own. It was instead about creating evidence to convict defendants. We’re seeing this being used today in real time in these charges based on pregnancy, based on parenting, and based on queer identity. 

We see prosecutors who are trying to bring charges of murder against people who have a stillbirth, and what they use is the floating lung test. This is a test literally from when we would accuse women of being witches and throw them in the river, and if they drowned, they were innocent, but if they floated, they were guilty, and then they would be murdered by the state. This is how old this test is and it is incredibly unreliable.

You take a piece of lung from the fetus and you put it in water to see if it floats. The idea is that if the piece of lung floats, then the baby was born and took its first breath. This test is not only notoriously unreliable, it also gives false positives. 

The last example I’ll give is drug tests and drug testing people who are giving birth in a hospital. These drug tests are not necessarily reliable, and they also don’t indicate [that] there’s any harm to a child. A lot of these fetal harm charges are brought when there’s a positive drug test even when there is a healthy baby.

Giving birth to a healthy child is not necessarily going to be enough to protect someone who is pregnant from allegations that they’ve caused some fetal harm. But having a child who does have health conditions at birth, immediately healthcare providers, with social workers, with police, turn on the pregnant person and say, “What did you do to cause this? What behaviors did you do or not do?” And this is so expansive. This can be: “Were you walking enough? Did you get enough bed rest? What were you eating? Did you eat soft cheeses? Did you eat certain kinds of fish?”

The Appeal: You write about how the majority of known wrongful convictions of women involve cases where no crime occurred. Is there any understanding of why that is? 

VB: According to the National Registry of Exonerations, up to 75 percent of women who were wrongly convicted in the United States were wrongly convicted where no crime occurred. 

So what does that mean? That means there was no criminal act. [For example] there was a space heater that started a fire and yet police thought that the woman was at the home and intentionally set the fire. Police and prosecutors rely on faulty forensic evidence, fire science evidence, and they combine that with gender stereotypes. This is a bad mother, a bad wife, a bad woman who intentionally set the fire. The woman is wrongly convicted based on that confluence of falsehood forensic evidence and gender bias.

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

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

The Appeal: What inspired you to write this book? 

VB: I am a queer woman. I’m married to another woman, and we have a child. We’re a queer family. We were moving back to my home state of Indiana when we were pregnant. Indiana had made abortion illegal in all but the most extreme circumstances, and we knew that there might be pregnancy difficulties, and if there were, we would not have access to abortion. If there were pregnancy difficulties, we could be blamed for that. 

Being queer parents, we are, just by our identities, looked at as more likely to be dangerous towards children. We have never taken bathtub photos of our child because we know that there’s a different lens that can be applied to us as queer people, and it’s a criminalizing lens. That’s what really motivated me to connect the dots to create this term, pink crime, to say, “Hey, this is all going back to gender bias and people in power using the criminal legal system as a lever to punish women and queer people who don’t conform to gender norms.”

 

In my home state of Indiana, our governor proclaimed June to be officially “Nuclear Family Month,” which is a man and a woman married with biological children. Our lieutenant governor even posted, “Take back the rainbow.” 

[In their minds] there’s only one model for how people can be a family, and otherwise, you are deviant. This all plays a role in not only why I wrote the book, but why I continue to talk about it and continue to care about it.

The entire story can be read at: 

new-book-examines-women-and-queer-people-convicted-for-crimes-that-never-occurred

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 23: Alan Hall: New Zealand: (Arthur Easton murder): Bulletin: Lawyers have given their closing arguments in this prosecution of two former police officers charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, and the judge has reserved judgement; Journalist Matthew Theunissen reports for radio New Zealand, noting that: "A 'conscious and deliberate' act to help police secure a conviction, or a legitimate decision to exclude evidence that was deemed unreliable? Those are the key questions that a judge will consider as he determines whether two former officers attempted to pervert the course of justice in their handling of a 40-year-old murder."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I have been following this trial very carefully,  as it is very rare for police officers to be charged with perverting the course of justice decades after their conduct - way over the line - has literally caused an innocent accused person to be convicted of a very serious crime. As you will see below, in Alan Hall's case, the two  ex-police officers  are accused are accused of perverting the course of justice by  altering  the written statement of the key witness,  leaving out the reported ethnicity from the statement, while adding other erroneous incriminating information about Alan Hall into the statement and failing to disclose to the defence information about another suspect. These officers have been investigated and charged without bowing to the temptation of police, prosecutors, and politicians to expose heinous police skulduggery to the public eye.  In Tim Rees' Ontario case, police officers buried a video (discovered in an unmarked box in the police chief's office, many years after he was convicted by the jury and he had exhausted all his appeals) which utterly cleared Tim Rees, and unequivocally implicated  the deceased 10-year-old girl's  family's landlord as a viable suspect. But unlike the Hall case, no officer has been charged, it's not clear whether any of the officers  (or prosecutors) involved in the investigation have been investigated,  the case has hardly received public attention  (unlike the Hall case which led to compensation, and public rage at the police conduct which led to his being compensated, and  to a reward being offered for information leading to the conviction of the real murderer. To Ontario's great shame,  the decision of the  three judges who conducted an evidence hearing ordered by the federal minister of justice because of a likely miscarriage of justice is cold, and legalistic, and lacks the fire, the anger one would expect Ontario's highest judges to experience  when confronted by such  an unforgivable miscarriage of justice of this magnitude.  They stayed silent instead of  condemning  the outrageous, if not criminal police behaviour, which led to the imprisonment of an innocent man.  Like the Alan Hall case - 'an unforgivable miscarriage of justice.' Stay tuned,  dear readers, That's why I will be following the trial of the two officers in the UK so closely. 

Harold Levy;  Publisher; The Charles  Smith Blog.

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

STORY: "Arthur Easton murder: Lawyers give closing arguments against former police officers,  by Journalist  Matthew Theunissen, and published by Radio New Zealand (RNZ) on July 23, 2026.

SUB-HEADING: "The judge has reserved his decision in the case which is being heard in the High Court at Auckland."


GIST: "A "conscious and deliberate" act to help police secure a conviction, or a legitimate decision to exclude evidence that was deemed unreliable?

Those are the key questions that a judge will consider as he determines whether two former officers attempted to pervert the course of justice in their handling of a 40-year-old murder.

Alan Hall spent 17 years in prison for the 1985 murder of Arthur Easton.

He was later exonerated by the Supreme Court, which found a significant miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Now the former officers, who have name suppression, are facing charges over their role in Hall's conviction.

Lawyers made their closing arguments in the High Court at Auckland on Thursday.

On 13 October 1985, Arthur Easton and his teenage sons, Brendan and Kim, were at home when one heard an intruder in their home.

Crown prosecutor John Billington KC recounted what happened next.

"There was a fight and in the course of that fight Mr Easton was fatally wounded and Brendan Easton was seriously wounded. The offender escaped by leaving the home through a hedge into a walkway and made his way down Alma Crescent to Shirley Crescent and close to Clevedon Road."

Later that night, a man called Ronald Turner phoned the Papakura Police Station to reported seeing a hooded Māori man running across Clevedon Road around the time of the attack.

His description tallied with what the Easton brothers had told police in their 111 call - that they were attacked by a six-foot-tall Māori man wielding a bayonet.

Although the brothers would later cast doubt on their recollection, two further witnesses also described seeing a man of a similar description.

"Mr Hall, by reason of his ownership of a bayonet and a hat found at the scene was interviewed on 11 December, 1985. He gave a number of explanations as to why the bayonet and hat were not in his possession on the night of the murder. He was also questioned in relation to his ownership of a blue sweatshirt which was similar to that seen by Mr Turner," Billington said.

"Now obviously, Mr Hall did not match the description given by Mr Turner. Mr Hall is a Pākehā, somewhere close to five-foot-eight in height, frail build and clearly not Māori."

Billington questioned why police only presented some of Ronald Turner's evidence to the jury at Alan Hall's trial, excluding his description of the offender's ethnicity.

And why did the former officers not provide his original statement to Hall's defence team when they requested all relevant evidence?

"By modifying the Crown case, the defendants denied the defence lawyers, the trial judge, the jury, the Court of Appeal access to the prior statements.

"They each carried out an act which was intended to and had the obvious effect of preventing the courts from doing justice."

John Billington said it was difficult to accept that their conduct was anything but "conscious and deliberate".

But defence lawyer David Jones, KC, said police had "very real concerns" about Turner's recollection of the man he saw.

"What someone says in a statement to a police is not evidence. It is a statement they have made which could or could not be used as evidence in the case," he said.

"That has to go through a filtering process. And that is exactly what happened here."

Furthermore, Jones said, it was ultimately for the Crown to decide on what evidence was admissible in court.

"What we have is a recreation of events by the Crown which is castling a sinister light on an investigation which is carried out in an entirely normal and logical and legal way.

Jones urged Justice Gault not to rely on the findings of the Supreme Court when it quashed Alan Hall's conviction in 2022 because, he argued, the Crown had "capitulated" during the appeal.

Acting for the second defendant, Paul Wicks, KC, said there was no statutory framework guaranteeing pre-trial disclosure in the mid-1980s, as there is today.


"The Crown in this case has endeavoured to weave a few loose threads into a tapestry of guilt working backwards from the Supreme Court judgement," he said.

"It has failed, in my submission, to establish to the required standard that [the former officer] acted with any intention to pervert the course of justice and ultimately the only correct and safe verdict is one of not guilty."

Justice Gault reserved his decision."

The entire story can be read at: 

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/crime-and-justice/779144/arthur-easton-murder-lawyers-give-closing-arguments-against-former-police-officers

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 23: Junk Science Series: (Part 3); Robert Roberson: Death Row; Texas: Update: A judge is weighing new brief, evidence in his shaken baby case, KLTV (Reporter Travis Noriega) reports, noting that: Jackson is now tasked with reviewing the supplemental briefs, the competing arguments over new evidence and the evidence itself. From there, Jackson has several options, including granting the motion for an in-person hearing or calling for a new status conference. Ultimately, Jackson is responsible for making a recommendation to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals regarding Roberson’s case."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Following an April status hearing, both Roberson’s defense and the state filed supplemental briefs addressing the impact of a 2025 Dallas County case involving a man named Andrew Roark, who was freed after spending 24 years in prison for a shaken baby conviction..........Additionally, Roberson’s defense filed a notice regarding the case of a Jefferson County man who in 2004 was also convicted in connection with shaken baby syndrome. Much like Roberson, the man’s case was remanded in light of the Andrew Roark case and, after reviewing new evidence, the trial judge recommended he receive a new trial."

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

STORY: "Judge weighing new briefs, evidence in Robert Roberson shaken baby case,"  by Reporter Travis Noriega, published by KLTV, on July 14, 2026.

GIST: Judge Austin Reeve Jackson is reviewing competing legal filings in the case of a Palestine man convicted of killing his infant daughter, including arguments over whether new evidence should be admitted.

Robert Roberson, of Palestine, was convicted in 2003 of the 2002 murder of his daughter, Nikki.

In October 2025, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals paused Roberson’s execution just days before he was set to be the first person in the U.S. to be executed for a conviction tied to “shaken baby syndrome.”

Where the case stands;

Robert Roberson at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's Polunsky Unit in Livingston on Dec. 19, 2023. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has requested a new execution date for Roberson.(Ilana Panich-Linsman for The Innocence Project)

Following an April status hearing, both Roberson’s defense and the state filed supplemental briefs addressing the impact of a 2025 Dallas County case involving a man named Andrew Roark, who was freed after spending 24 years in prison for a shaken baby conviction.

The briefs were originally due May 29, but an extension was granted, giving both parties until June 12 to submit their briefs.

On June 18, the state filed an out-of-time motion for another extension, but it was not granted. The state also filed its supplemental brief on the same day, and it will be considered despite being late.

Roberson’s defense also filed a motion for an in-person hearing to review the briefs as “it would be unreasonable to assume that the presiding judge has had an opportunity to fully analyze the massive evidentiary record.”

Additionally, Roberson’s defense filed a notice regarding the case of a Jefferson County man who in 2004 was also convicted in connection with shaken baby syndrome. Much like Roberson, the man’s case was remanded in light of the Andrew Roark case and, after reviewing new evidence, the trial judge recommended he receive a new trial.

The evidence dispute

Roberson’s defense also filed a motion to admit additional evidence such as a letter from a doctor written in 2000 about Nikki’s health problems and other documents that weren’t used in the original trial.

On July 2, the state opposed the defense’s motion to admit additional evidence, and on July 10 the defense filed a rebuttal to that opposition.

The state’s argument centers on the absence of a specific filing from the judge that outlines issues for a hearing or trial, sets parameters for briefing, and narrows the scope of admissible evidence. Without that order, the state argues, new evidence cannot yet be allowed.

Roberson’s defense argues that the filing is not needed in a case like this, where the higher court has already told the trial court to move forward with a resolution and the parties have already agreed that additional evidence needs to be considered.

Roberson’s defense cites several cases as precedent, including prior developments in Roberson’s own case.

What comes next

Jackson is now tasked with reviewing the supplemental briefs, the competing arguments over new evidence and the evidence itself.

From there, Jackson has several options, including granting the motion for an in-person hearing or calling for a new status conference.

Ultimately, Jackson is responsible for making a recommendation to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals regarding Roberson’s case.

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.kltv.com/2026/07/14/judge-weighing-briefs-new-evidence-robert-roberson-shaken-baby-case/

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;

Former Neonatal Nurse Lucy Letby: Major Development: The BBC reports that maternity notes for the babies Lucy Letby has been convicted of murdering were not made available to her defence ahead of her trial - and that while expertstold the BBC that it is critical to fully assess the pregnancy, labour and delivery of a baby when determining why they collapsed and died, Dr Dewi Evans, the chief medical witness for the prosecution, said the full maternity notes were not relevant to the case. "I never saw any obstetric notes and I have no idea what happened to them," he said. "I don't think that maternity care was a particular issue in the Letby case. I think most of the babies I dealt with were born in acceptable condition." Evans said he did see brief maternity summaries - "usually a couple of paragraphs" - attached to each baby's neonatal notes. File on 4 Investigates has also learned from several sources that the Crown Prosecution Service did not disclose the obstetrics records to the defence. The CPS reasoned that because the prosecution did not use them to form its case against Letby, they were not relevant. The BBC has also seen evidence the defence did request the maternity notes but they were not released."

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "File on 4 Investigates spoke to various families who alleged failings of care on the maternity and neonatal units at the Countess of Chester, before during and after Letby's time at the hospital. None of them encountered Letby. They said doctors, nurses or midwives repeatedly ignored their concerns about the progress of their labour or the health of their baby. In several of these cases their babies died. Sue Pemberton, the deputy chief executive of the Countess of Chester, said they "apologise unreservedly to the families who have had poor experience in our care".

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Evans said the CPS should have disclosed the records, even if the prosecution was not using them.  He added: "With the benefit of hindsight, would that have made a difference to the outcome? I don't think so. The events that occurred to these babies were events that occurred after they were born."

However, Phil Bennett, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Imperial College London, disagreed. "It's very surprising indeed to me that little or no attention was paid to the maternity care in these cases," he says. He said that when investigating a baby's death in a hospital or as part of litigation, it is normal practice for maternity care and neonatal care to be considered together. "These experts should know that to come to the right conclusion you need an integrated opinion," he added."

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

STORY: "Seized maternity notes not given to Letby defence for trial," by Stephanie Hegarty, Ben Robinson and and Cleuci de Oliveira, Cleuci de Oliveira. (File on 4 Investigates);

PHOTO CAPTION: Cheshire Police: "Lucy Letby is currently serving 15 whole life terms."

GIST: "Maternity notes for the babies Lucy Letby has been convicted of murdering were not made available to her defence ahead of her trial, the BBC has learned.

The neonatal nurse was convicted of murdering and attempting to murder 14 babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 and 2016.

File on 4 Investigates has discovered that maternity notes for the babies in the case - which include details of the mother's pregnancy, labour and birth - were seized by Cheshire Police. But they were not reviewed by the prosecution's chief medical expert or disclosed to Letby's defence.

The Crown Prosecution Service said Letby was convicted following two jury trials and that the Court of Appeal dismissed her argument that prosecution evidence was flawed.

Letby, originally of Hereford, is currently serving 15 whole life terms.

Since her trial, and subsequent retrial on one case, there have been concerns raised about some of the evidence presented to the jury.

One concern is that the maternity history of the babies in the case was not adequately considered.

Experts told the BBC that it is critical to fully assess the pregnancy, labour and delivery of a baby when determining why they collapsed and died.

Dr Dewi Evans, the chief medical witness for the prosecution, said the full maternity notes were not relevant to the case.

"I never saw any obstetric notes and I have no idea what happened to them," he said.

"I don't think that maternity care was a particular issue in the Letby case. I think most of the babies I dealt with were born in acceptable condition."

Evans said he did see brief maternity summaries - "usually a couple of paragraphs" - attached to each baby's neonatal notes.

File on 4 Investigates has also learned from several sources that the Crown Prosecution Service did not disclose the obstetrics records to the defence.

The CPS reasoned that because the prosecution did not use them to form its case against Letby, they were not relevant.

The BBC has also seen evidence the defence did request the maternity notes but they were not released.

Evans said the CPS should have disclosed the records, even if the prosecution was not using them.

He added: "With the benefit of hindsight, would that have made a difference to the outcome? I don't think so. The events that occurred to these babies were events that occurred after they were born."

However, Phil Bennett, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Imperial College London, disagreed.

"It's very surprising indeed to me that little or no attention was paid to the maternity care in these cases," he says.

He said that when investigating a baby's death in a hospital or as part of litigation, it is normal practice for maternity care and neonatal care to be considered together.

"These experts should know that to come to the right conclusion you need an integrated opinion," he added.

Dr Dewi Evans, the chief medical witness for the prosecution, says the full maternity notes were not relevant to the case

Bennett has reviewed one case, referred to in court as Baby O, in detail on behalf of her new defence.

The jury unanimously convicted Letby of murdering the triplet after the prosecution said she had injected air into his bloodstream, into his feeding tube and inflicted liver damage.

Bennett relied on Baby O's neonatal notes as well as testimony from a police interview with the baby's mother about the infant's birth.

The prosecution argued that Baby O was born in good condition and was stable for 48 hours before he suddenly collapsed. They said that indicated that Letby attacked him.

But Bennett's opinion is that the baby died from a liver condition caused by an injury to his liver during, what he believed was, a difficult Caesarean section to deliver him.

He says though this is quite rare, there was substantial medical literature on it.

In these medical reports the injury usually happened during delivery and the baby seemed to be well for an average of 48 hours until suddenly collapsing and often dying.

Bennett said he would like to see the obstetrics notes to get a better understanding of the delivery.

In response, Evans said Baby O was born in good condition.

He added: "I don't think that anything in the obstetric notes would have improved my understanding or the understanding of all of us who became involved with this investigation."

File on 4 Investigates spoke to various families who alleged failings of care on the maternity and neonatal units at the Countess of Chester, before during and after Letby's time at the hospital.

None of them encountered Letby.

'Significant improvements'

They said doctors, nurses or midwives repeatedly ignored their concerns about the progress of their labour or the health of their baby. In several of these cases their babies died.

Sue Pemberton, the deputy chief executive of the Countess of Chester, said they "apologise unreservedly to the families who have had poor experience in our care".

She said she noted that the cases being discussed relate to maternity care between 2015 and 2020 and that if families felt their concerns had not been addressed she would urge them to contact the trust.

She said: "The Trust has made significant improvements and it is now nationally accredited for its family-integrated care approach."

The Crown Prosecution Service said: "Lucy Letby was convicted of 15 separate counts following two jury trials.

"In May 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed Letby's leave to appeal on all grounds – rejecting her argument that expert prosecution evidence was flawed."

Cheshire Constabulary said it would not be commenting."

The entire story can be read at: 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2g93n0j2ko

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 22: Junk Science: Series: (Part 2); A driver of wrongful Convictions; Nick Flannery; (Cincinnati); Robert Roberson; (Texas )Josh Burns; (Michigan); Andrew Roark. Texas; (All names familiar to readers of this Blog): Caution; What you see on Law and Order (prosecutors often relying on forensic experts dressed in white lab coats spouting microscopic hair comparisons, bitemark analysis, bloodstain patterns and other science-y stuff that’s supposedly conclusive proof of guilt, "is all too often not." Authors Van Johns and David Sfavian remind us that . Much of this so-called evidence is little more than the unsubstantiated opinion of someone with a stake in the outcome."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "To work, our justice system should depend on reliable, validated evidence rather than unproven theories and junk science. Wrongful convictions rob innocent people of their freedom, drain millions in taxpayer dollars through protracted litigation and unnecessary incarceration, and force the government to pay for the substantial settlements required to redress when those convictions are overturned. The Kentucky Innocence Project reports that junk science contributed to 52% of wrongful convictions in the cases they have reviewed, and that false forensic evidence was determined to be a contributing factor to 24% of all wrongful convictions nationally. But the most significant impact of using phony forensics is probably on public confidence in our courts."

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

COMMENTARY: "Safavian: Junk science drives wrongful convictions. That’s not justice," by Van Jones and David Safavian, published by The Spokesman-Review on July 18, 2026. (USA Today);  (Van Jones is an attorney, criminal justice advocate and TV personality. David Safavian is an attorney and a conservative activist.")

GIST: "Anyone who has watched an episode of “Law & Order” knows that prosecutors often rely on forensic experts dressed in white lab coats. They tell juries about microscopic hair comparisons, bitemark analysis, bloodstain patterns and other science-y stuff that’s supposedly conclusive proof of guilt.

Except, too often, it’s not.

Much of this so-called evidence is little more than the unsubstantiated opinion of someone with a stake in the outcome.

Yes, DNA is reliable (if collected properly). Too often, however, junk science is dressed up as factual evidence for jurors who don’t know any better. In real life, courts accept phony forensics, often with troubling consequences.

In 2023, Nick Flannery was charged with assault and child endangerment after his infant son, Arlo, suddenly collapsed in a Cincinnati suburb. In the emergency room, Arlo’s doctors found bleeding in the baby’s brain and suggested it was caused by “shaken baby syndrome.” Arlo had no bruises, no fractures, no skull injuries and no signs of neglect. His parents were the sole caregivers, with no history of abuse. There was no evidence whatsoever. It was the proverbial dog that didn’t bark.

The allegation of shaken baby syndrome nevertheless set off a chain reaction.

The Flannery children were taken away. Independent medical experts reviewing the case found that a pre-existing condition, which might have originated at birth and worsened over time, likely led to Arlo’s bleeding and collapse.

Health records also showed unusual head growth and symptoms consistent with an ongoing medical condition, rather than abusive trauma. Intent on taking the case to a jury, prosecutors will argue that Arlo Flannery’s injuries were from shaken baby syndrome, despite it being a long-disputed medical theory.

If convicted, Nick Flannery could face 12 years in prison.

The Flannery case is just one of many where unproven scientific theories are being used in criminal prosecutions. Robert Roberson was just days away from a scheduled Oct. 16 execution for the alleged murder of his 2-year-old daughter through what prosecutors were convinced was shaken baby syndrome.

On Oct. 9, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stopped Roberson’s execution because state law required convictions to be reopened if previously used forensic evidence had since been discredited or proven scientifically inaccurate. Roberson will likely get a new trial, with the lead detective planning to testify about how unreliable shaken baby syndrome evidence is.

A week. That’s how close the justice system came to an irreversible mistake.

Others, such as Josh Burns in Michigan and Andrew Roark in Texas, served years behind bars after being found guilty of shaking their kids. Their convictions were reversed by appellate courts due to the unreliable nature of the science used to convict them.

To work, our justice system should depend on reliable, validated evidence rather than unproven theories and junk science.

Wrongful convictions rob innocent people of their freedom, drain millions in taxpayer dollars through protracted litigation and unnecessary incarceration, and force the government to pay for the substantial settlements required to redress when those convictions are overturned.

The Kentucky Innocence Project reports that junk science contributed to 52% of wrongful convictions in the cases they have reviewed, and that false forensic evidence was determined to be a contributing factor to 24% of all wrongful convictions nationally.

But the most significant impact of using phony forensics is probably on public confidence in our courts.

For our system of justice to work, state courts must follow the lead of federal courts by adopting the standards outlined in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which require forensic testimony to be based on “reliable scientific principles and methods.” This rule empowers judges to filter out flawed evidence before it taints the jury.

Unfortunately, vigorous validation happens infrequently in state courts. That’s why it is more important than ever for states to adopt evidence-based standards to ensure that only credible and vetted information is given to juries.

Our Founding Fathers wanted to make sure courts were fair to every defendant. It is why we have jury trials in the first place. But the system only works when jurors are presented with trusted information rooted in sound science.

In “Law & Order,” the right person is usually found guilty. In real life, that’s not always the case. If we are to have true justice, judges must be empowered to set a high bar to screen out junk science and protect the innocent.

If states want to ensure they get it right, they should adopt the approach set out in Federal Rule of Evidence 702."

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jul/18/van-jones-and-david-safavian-junk-science-drives-w/

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 21: Tony Carruthers: Tennessee: From our 'Irony of Ironies' department: He may be alive today - still breathing and in a position to continue his battle to prove the innocence he has always claimed - because a doctor allegedly 'screwed up' by allegedly violating medical ethics by participating in an execution; by allegedly injecting Carruthers with the anesthetic lidocaine without first establishing that he was not allergic to it; and by continuing the search for a vein despite his “visible agony and distress" - and by allegedly being unqualified to place a central line because he had not done so in over a decade."

THE LATEST! Darrell Hines, another Tennessee prisoner facing execution, has successfully gone to court  for an order that  he is entitled to learn whether the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) intends to use the same physician who participated in the state’s failed execution attempt of Tony Carruthers in May during Hines’ scheduled Aug. 13 execution.  The Davis Vanguard July 19th post reads in part: "A Tennessee court has ruled that death row prisoner Darrell Hines is entitled to learn whether the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) intends to use the same physician who participated in the state’s failed execution attempt of Tony Carruthers in May during Hines’ scheduled Aug. 13 execution. The court, however, stayed its order while a higher court considers the issue. Following a hearing Thursday, Davidson County Chancery Court granted Hines’ motion to compel TDOC to disclose whether it plans to use Dr. Mark Fowler, the physician involved in Carruthers’ May 21 execution attempt, according to a statement released Friday by Hines’ legal team. The motion argued that Fowler’s inability to establish intravenous access during Carruthers’ execution attempt created a substantial risk that Hines could suffer a similar outcome if the same physician is assigned to his execution. According to the filing, Fowler spent more than an hour unsuccessfully attempting to establish IV access before Carruthers’ execution was halted."

tennessee-court-orders-tdoc-disclosure

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

STORY: Complaint accuses doctor involved in failed Tennessee execution of violating ethics," by Associated Press Reporter Travis Loller, published on July 19, 2026.

GIST: "The sister of a Tennessee death row inmate whose execution was halted because of problems inserting an IV has filed a complaint against the doctor who was involved.

The complaint filed Wednesday with the Tennessee Department of Health by Tonya Hervey says Tony Carruthers suffered excruciating pain during the May 21 attempt to administer a lethal injection and the family believes he now has partial paralysis that they attribute to a stroke.

It does not specifically say how or when they believe the stroke occurred, and Hervey declined an interview request.

During the attempted execution, the IV team established a primary line right away but then worked for more than an hour trying to insert a backup line.

Maria DeLiberato, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing Carruthers, witnessed the attempts and said the team tried to insert an IV in Carruthers’ arm, hand and foot before Dr. Mark Fowler attempted to insert a central line.

In the end Gov. Bill Lee called off the execution and gave Carruthers a one-year reprieve.

The complaint accuses Fowler of violating medical ethics by participating in an execution; by injecting Carruthers with the anesthetic lidocaine without first establishing that he was not allergic to it; and by continuing the search for a vein despite his “visible agony and distress.”

The complaint also says he was unqualified to place a central line because he had not done so in over a decade.

Fowler declined to comment on the complaint when reached by telephone.

Dr. Ervin Yen, a retired cardiac anesthesiologist who has witnessed many executions in Oklahoma and was not involved in the Carruthers case, said the fact that Fowler had not placed a central line in years is not necessarily disqualifying. He also said it is very unlikely that the attempts to place an IV could have resulted in a stroke.

The Tennessee Department of Correction declined to comment on the allegations. The Health Department said information on all complaints and investigations is confidential until formal charges are filed, including whether an investigation exists.

Carruthers, 58, was found guilty of the 1994 kidnapping and murder of Marcellos Anderson; Anderson’s mother, Delois Anderson; and Frederick Tucker. Authorities said Marcellos Anderson was a drug dealer and Carruthers was trying to take over the illegal trade in their Memphis neighborhood.

Carruthers has maintained his innocence. He was forced to represent himself at trial after repeatedly complaining about court-appointed attorneys and threatening to harm several of them.""

The entire story can be read at:

execution-of-violating-ethics/

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 21: Junk Science Series: (Part 1; Robert Wallace Lyons: Oregon: (Part 1): (Oregon Public Broadcasting): Major (Welcome) Development: From our 'Utterly outrageous' department - all these decades ripped from a man's life behind thanks to junk so-called 'science' - Conrad Wilson reports in the Oregon Public News that , "A man wrongfully convicted of murder by discredited forensic science walked out of the Lane County Jail on Friday, free for the first time in decades," in a story headed "A 1989 Eugene murder conviction relied on junk science. Now the man wrongfully convicted has been released," noting that: "The bite mark analysis that prosecutors relied on to get a conviction of Lyons would not be allowed into court as scientific evidence today. In 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued a major report that compiled many long-simmering concerns about bitemark analysis, ultimately finding the practice “lacks a sufficient scientific foundation.” Across the country, many cases relying on bitemark analysis have been tossed out or overturned."

'BACKGROUND: "Earlier this year, Oregon lawmakers also created a legal pathway to challenge convictions that relied on three now-debunked forensic science techniques. Along with bite mark comparison and analysis, Senate Bill 1515 also targets the use of comparing hairs under a microscope and the comparison of crime scene bullets with bullets found in a suspect’s possession.  All three are now considered junk science."

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

PASSAGE  OF THE DAY: "In Lyons’ case, the forensic work was done by a dentist who only got involved because he was the dentist for one of the detectives on the case. The forensic odontologist the police typically worked with was not available, according to court records. Lyons’ attorneys wrote in the filing as part of the post-conviction case that it was the “first and only time” the dentist had gone to a murder scene and examined bite marks on a dead body, and that he “was not a forensic odontologist and was not trained in forensic odontology or crime scene evidence procedures.” It appears that was a problem."

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

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "When the dentist went to the jail, he put a substance on Lyons’ teeth to create a mold he then used to create models of his teeth. He took the models to the crime scene and proceeded to place them directly on the bite marks on Stabenow’s body. “This model had very recently been in contact with Mr. Lyons’ saliva, thus very likely transferring Mr. Lyons’ saliva to the bitemarks,” Lyons post conviction lawyers noted in court filings. “Further, placing a model of Mr. Lyons’ teeth on the bitemarks may have altered the marks to make them appear to more closely resemble Mr. Lyons’ dental pattern.”

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

PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "The dentist did his work at the direction of police who were in control of the crime scene, Lyons’ attorneys note. At the time of Lyons’ 1990 trial, the defense knew the dentist had made models of Lyons’ teeth and went to the crime scene.  However, Lyons’ post-conviction lawyers later argued in June 2025, “it was not previously revealed in any document or testimony” that the dentist placed the models directly on the victim’s body “thus contaminating and altering the physical evidence.” The attorneys argued this was a violation of prosecutors’ duties to turn over any exculpatory evidence. When proven, that alone is often enough for courts to vacate a conviction and order a new trial."

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

STORY: "A 1989 Eugene murder conviction relied on junk science. Now the man wrongfully convicted has been released," by Reporter Conrad Wilson, published by OPB (Oregon Public News) on July 18, 2026. "Conrad Wilson is a reporter and producer covering criminal justice and legal affairs for OPB. Prior to coming to OPB, he was a reporter at Minnesota Public Radio. Before that he ran the news department at an NPR affiliate in Colorado. His work has aired on "Marketplace" and NPR's "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered." He has also written for Mashable, The Oregonian, Business Week, City Pages and The Christian Science Monitor. Conrad earned a degree in international political economics and journalism from the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities."

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

GIST: "Robert Wallace Lyons, 61, was arrested in 1989 for the murder of Lori Stabenow. Law enforcement relied on bite mark analysis, which has since been discredited.s.

PHOTO CAPTION: "Robert Wallace Lyons stands with his attorneys after being released from custody on July 17. Lyons is the first person to have his conviction vacated after a new rule opened up legal challenges to discredited forensic science."

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

GIST: "A man wrongfully convicted of murder by discredited forensic science walked out of the Lane County Jail on Friday, free for the first time in decades.

Robert Wallace Lyons, 61, was arrested in 1989 and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after he was convicted of murdering a woman in Eugene.

The case police and prosecutors built against Lyons relied heavily on bitemark identification, a discipline within forensic sciences that’s since been debunked. Lyons is the first person to have a conviction vacated as a result of a law Oregon lawmakers passed last year, expanding the post-conviction review process and opening up new legal challenges to discredited forensics.

“Mr. Lyons just walked out of custody for the first time in 37 years,” said Janis Puracal, one of Lyons’ attorneys. “Today is a great day.”

Lyons declined an interview through his attorneys. The Lane County District Attorney’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment about Lyons’ release.

Despite the conviction being tossed out and Lyons’ release from custody, he still faces criminal charges from the original 1989 indictment. Prosecutors could either drop those charges or decide to retry the case without the bite mark evidence.
A murder in Eugene

On September 23, 1989, Lori Stabenow was found dead in Eugene in room 5 of the Stage Stop Inn. She was strangled, partially undressed, with extreme injuries to her neck and face. Six bite marks were found on her back and buttocks.

Lyons, 24 at the time, lived in Pendleton. But he was staying at the same hotel in Eugene while attending truck driving school.

This account is based on Lyons’ criminal and post-conviction court records.

Prior to her death, Lyons, Stabenow and her brother, Leon Elliott, spent the evening together socializing and drinking at the hotel. During Lyons’ trial, Elliott testified that at one point his sister sat on Lyons’ lap and gave him a brief kiss. Lyons said she was “nice looking and she ought to be a model,” according to court records.

At one point during the evening, Stabenow got upset after Lyons told Elliott about logging jobs in Eastern Oregon and offered to help Elliot get a job. Stabenow worried about her brother’s safety, and the siblings argued. Elliot and Lyons left the hotel to drink more at the apartment of one of Elliot’s friends.

After they returned to the hotel, Lyons said he wanted to apologize to Stabenow for causing tension with her brother. When he went to her room, the door to her room was ajar, and he saw Stabenow on the floor.

“He assumed that she was passed out drunk, so he went inside, picked her up, and put her on the bed,” according to a court document filed by Lyons’ attorneys as part of his post-conviction case.

Afterward, he went back to his room.

In the morning, he realized his wallet was missing, so he retraced his steps from the previous night, looking for Elliott and Stabenow.

Later that day, the door frame to Stabenow’s room was found broken. Inside, Stabenow was injured and unresponsive.

Lyons was arrested while police were still processing the scene. His wallet was found in her room. Later, his DNA was found on one of her fingernails.

“Despite the violent nature of the attack and the victim’s extensive injuries, no blood or other biological material connected to the victim was discovered on Mr. Lyons’ clothing or in his room, and he had no injuries on his body indicating he had been involved in a struggle,” his attorneys noted in court documents filed as part of his post-conviction case.

Lane County Circuit Court Judge Jay McAlpin, who presided over Lyons’ July 15 release hearing, said in his analysis of the case that prosecutors did not provide any direct evidence, only circumstantial evidence of Lyons’ guilt.

He granted Lyons’ release, but did not vacate the charges altogether.
Bitemark analysis discredited

The bite mark analysis that prosecutors relied on to get a conviction of Lyons would not be allowed into court as scientific evidence today.

In 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued a major report that compiled many long-simmering concerns about bitemark analysis, ultimately finding the practice “lacks a sufficient scientific foundation.”

Across the country, many cases relying on bitemark analysis have been tossed out or overturned.

In Lyons’ case, the forensic work was done by a dentist who only got involved because he was the dentist for one of the detectives on the case. The forensic odontologist the police typically worked with was not available, according to court records.

Lyons’ attorneys wrote in the filing as part of the post-conviction case that it was the “first and only time” the dentist had gone to a murder scene and examined bite marks on a dead body, and that he “was not a forensic odontologist and was not trained in forensic odontology or crime scene evidence procedures.”

It appears that was a problem.

When the dentist went to the jail, he put a substance on Lyons’ teeth to create a mold he then used to create models of his teeth. He took the models to the crime scene and proceeded to place them directly on the bite marks on Stabenow’s body.

“This model had very recently been in contact with Mr. Lyons’ saliva, thus very likely transferring Mr. Lyons’ saliva to the bitemarks,” Lyons post conviction lawyers noted in court filings. “Further, placing a model of Mr. Lyons’ teeth on the bitemarks may have altered the marks to make them appear to more closely resemble Mr. Lyons’ dental pattern.”

The dentist did his work at the direction of police who were in control of the crime scene, Lyons’ attorneys note. At the time of Lyons’ 1990 trial, the defense knew the dentist had made models of Lyons’ teeth and went to the crime scene.

However, Lyons’ post-conviction lawyers later argued in June 2025, “it was not previously revealed in any document or testimony” that the dentist placed the models directly on the victim’s body “thus contaminating and altering the physical evidence.” The attorneys argued this was a violation of prosecutors’ duties to turn over any exculpatory evidence. When proven, that alone is often enough for courts to vacate a conviction and order a new trial.

Earlier this year, Oregon lawmakers also created a legal pathway to challenge convictions that relied on three now-debunked forensic science techniques. Along with bite mark comparison and analysis, Senate Bill 1515 also targets the use of comparing hairs under a microscope and the comparison of crime scene bullets with bullets found in a suspect’s possession.

All three are now considered junk science."

The entire story can be read at: 

https://www.opb.org/article/2026/07/18/a-1989-eugene-murder-conviction-relied-on-junk-science-now-the-man-wrongfully-convicted-has-been-released/

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;