July 18: Brian Kendall; Brooklyn; New York: From our 'How to convict the innocent' department: Senior Reporter Reuven Blau's story is headed, " Brooklyn Man Exonerated After 38 Years Says NYPD Framed Him for Murderm" and sub-headed, A new lawsuit alleges detectives manipulated witnesses, concealed evidence and built a 1988 murder case against Brian Kendall despite eyewitnesses identifying a different gunman."

QUOTE OF THE DAY: " Thirty-eight years later — after his murder conviction was overturned when prosecutors concluded he was “likely innocent” — Kendall is suing New York City, alleging detectives fabricated evidence, manipulated witnesses and hid exculpatory information that sent him to prison before he was deported to Guyana. “The suit is for the NYPD and district attorney to be held accountable,” Kendall, 55, told The City Reporter. “Back in the ‘80s there was a lot of misconduct. This was a practice happening all over.” 

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

QUOTE TWO OF THE DAY: "The case was before a judge, Francis Egitto, who had a reputation of doling out maximum sentences. Dusenberry, in turn, told the family that it would be “suicide” for Kendall to proceed to trial where he would almost surely be convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life, according to the CRU report.  “I had no choice,” Kendall remembered, adding that he was never told he’d be deported at the end of his sentence. Brian Kendall was 17 when, facing a possible life sentence, he pleaded guilty to a fatal 1988 shooting. He was freed in 2004 after more than 16 years in prison, and exonerated in 2025."

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

QUOTE THREE OF THE DAY: "Brian Kendall lost decades of his life because law enforcement built a case against him instead of following the evidence,” said Julia P. Kuan, a partner at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP. “He spent years in prison, was deported from the country he called home and separated from his family. This lawsuit is about holding those responsible accountable.”

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Kendall and his legal team argued that he was never given a fair chance by detectives and the prosecutor handling the case.  Inside the police precinct, officers put him in a lineup and refused to let him call a lawyer, according to his account.   His family hired a private attorney, Harry Dusenberry, who interviewed at least five people inside the game room at the time. They all said Kendall had nothing to do with the murder, according to the 35-page CRU report.  Many of the same people spoke to prosecutors at the time, the report said."

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

STORY: "Brooklyn Man Exonerated After 38 Years Says NYPD Framed Him for Murder" by Reuven Blau, published by The City Reporter, on July 8, 2026. (Reuven Blau  reports with a special focus on criminal justice, Rikers Island and New York City's jail system.)

SUB-HEADING: "A new lawsuit alleges detectives manipulated witnesses, concealed evidence and built a 1988 murder case against Brian Kendall despite eyewitnesses identifying a different gunman."

GIST: "Brian Kendall was 16 when Brooklyn detectives arrested him for a fatal shooting outside a Flatbush video game parlor, despite eyewitnesses describing an older, heavier gunman and telling police the teenager wasn’t the shooter.

Thirty-eight years later — after his murder conviction was overturned when prosecutors concluded he was “likely innocent” — Kendall is suing New York City, alleging detectives fabricated evidence, manipulated witnesses and hid exculpatory information that sent him to prison before he was deported to Guyana.

“The suit is for the NYPD and district attorney to be held accountable,” Kendall, 55, told The City Reporter. “Back in the ‘80s there was a lot of misconduct. This was a practice happening all over.”

About a week after the Feb. 24, 1988, shooting, police took Kendall from his parents’ Flatbush apartment in handcuffs. They said two eyewitnesses identified him as the gunman and charged him with the murder of 20-year-old Raphael Reyes, who was fatally shot inside the building on Cortelyou Road.

The lawsuit, filed in Brooklyn federal court, says detectives with the NYPD’s Brooklyn South Homicide Squad ignored eyewitness accounts that contradicted their theory of the case. Instead, they built a murder prosecution around manipulated witness statements and unreliable identifications, according to the suit.

“We’ll review the case and respond in the litigation,” said city Law Department spokesperson Nicholas Paolucci.

Kendall is seeking damages from the city, a former detective, and the estates of two case detectives who have since passed away. The lawsuit does not seek a specific dollar amount.

On July 19, 1989, Kendall pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter after his attorney warned he risked a far harsher sentence if he went to trial. He was sentenced on Aug. 7, 1989, to 8⅓ to 25 years in prison. After serving more than 16 years, he was paroled on Dec. 20, 2004, and deported to his native Guyana just over a month later, on Jan. 22, 2005.

According to the lawsuit, witnesses consistently described the shooter as a short, heavyset middle-aged man. Kendall was a skinny 16-year-old. One witness told police the gunman remained inside the Game Room while Kendall had been playing video games.

The lawsuit also alleges detectives used suggestive photo arrays until witnesses identified Kendall, withheld exculpatory witness statements from prosecutors and defense lawyers, relied on testimony that changed repeatedly after police interviews and pressured Kendall into falsely confessing by telling him he could go home if he admitted involvement.

“I thought it was a big mistake that they would correct,” Kendall told The City Reporter.

In 2022, the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Conviction Review Unit reopened the case after reinvestigating the evidence. Prosecutors ultimately concluded Kendall was “likely innocent,” citing eyewitness accounts that had been overlooked, unreliable witness testimony and evidence that had never been disclosed to the defense.

A judge vacated his conviction and dismissed the indictment.

Kendall and his legal team argued that he was never given a fair chance by detectives and the prosecutor handling the case.

Inside the police precinct, officers put him in a lineup and refused to let him call a lawyer, according to his account.

His family hired a private attorney, Harry Dusenberry, who interviewed at least five people inside the game room at the time. They all said Kendall had nothing to do with the murder, according to the 35-page CRU report.

Many of the same people spoke to prosecutors at the time, the report said.

The case was before a judge, Francis Egitto, who had a reputation of doling out maximum sentences.

Dusenberry, in turn, told the family that it would be “suicide” for Kendall to proceed to trial where he would almost surely be convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life, according to the CRU report.

“I had no choice,” Kendall remembered, adding that he was never told he’d be deported at the end of his sentence. Brian Kendall was 17 when, facing a possible life sentence, he pleaded guilty to a fatal 1988 shooting. He was freed in 2004 after more than 16 years in prison, and exonerated in 2025.

Kendall, who had been a legal permanent U.S. resident, served 16 years and eight months in prison before he was released in 2004. He was deported to Guyana, where he was born, the following year.

During his time in prison, Kendall’s mother and older sister both passed away.

The lawsuit says the detectives’ conduct reflected broader NYPD customs and practices that tolerated coercive interrogations, suggestive eyewitness identification procedures and failures to disclose exculpatory evidence.

“Brian Kendall lost decades of his life because law enforcement built a case against him instead of following the evidence,” said Julia P. Kuan, a partner at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP. “He spent years in prison, was deported from the country he called home and separated from his family. This lawsuit is about holding those responsible accountable.""

The entire story can be read at: 

https://www.thecityreporter.nyc/2026/07/08/brian-kendall-nypd-murder-exonerated-lawsuit/

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;

Alan Hall: New Zealand: The on-going trial of two police officers alleged to have withheld a key witness statement in the case from him, continues, As Journalist Matthew Theunissen reports on Radio New Zealand (RNZ)..."A witness's first description of a suspect should always be provided to the defence because it may be more accurate than later recollections. Those were the words from the judge presiding over the trial of Alan Hall for the 1985 murder of Arthur Easton. Why, then, was the ethnicity of a man seen running away from the crime scene not presented to the jury at Hall's trial and subsequent appeals? That's the crux of the case against two former police officers on trial in the High Court at Auckland, accused of perverting the course of justice."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "One of the officers continued giving evidence today and was asked why he failed to meet that basic legal principle. The former officers claim it was the Crown's responsibility - not theirs - to inform Alan Hall's defence team that witness Ronald Turner had said he saw a tall Māori man, who did not resemble Alan Hall, running away from the murder scene."

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

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Even if Hall's team had been told, one of the officers' defence lawyers, David Jones KC, asked in court if it would have made any difference, considering the other evidence they had: the ownership of the bayonet used in the crime; a hat found at the scene connected to Hall; the lies told to police; or the fact both the offender and Hall were left-handed. The former officer replied that it did not. Nor, the court was told, did Turner's evidence affect the evidence of burnt clothing found in Hall's incinerator; that he had no alibi; or that the suspicious man spotted that night was running in the direction of Hall's home."

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

PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "Crown prosecutor John Billington KC questioned the former officer about numerous requests from Hall's legal team for information relating to the case.   The former officer told the court that responsibility lay with his co-defendant. "Matters in terms of response to the solicitors was actioned by my colleague," he said."

 

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

PASSAGE FOUR  THE DAY: "Billington queried how an officer with over a decade's experience did not realise how important Turner's evidence could have been. "You were aware from the day of the homicide that Mr Turner had said he'd seen a Māori in the vicinity of the scene of the crime, is that correct?" The former officer acknowledged this, and also that Turner had given a more detailed statement the day after the murder. "As a result of that statement you publicised, not only were you looking for a Māori as the offender but also you were looking a Māori as a lookout, correct?" Billington asked. "That was certainly recorded in the news article. I can't remember today exactly what I said," the man replied."

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

PASSAGE FIVE OF THE DAY: "The defence called as an expert witness former Detective Inspector Maurice Whitham, who, along with investigating 19 homicides, was one of the lead officers investigating the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior in 1985. He was asked to give his assessment of the reliability of Turner's ethnicity evidence. "The descriptions vary - one minute he's five-foot-six, five-foot-seven on a job sheet. Now he's five-foot-six to six-foot. Why does that change overnight?" Prosecutor) Billington replied that this was a matter for the court. "Yes it is, but the same token, he on two or three occasions said that he could not identify facial features," Whitham said. Regardless, he said it was ultimately for the Crown - not police - to decide whether evidence should be included or not. "The police engage the Crown as their legal officers, if you like, to conduct the prosecution of the accused and the police would finish the inquiries and basically hand the file. "Our job was finished once we had completed the investigation and briefed the file."

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

STORY: " Arthur Easton Murder: Ex-Officer testifies about withheld evidence statement," by Journalist Matthew Theunissen, published by Radio New Zealand (RNZ) on July 16, 2026.

SUB-HEADING: "One of the officers said other evidence, such as the ownership of a hat and bayonet connected with the killing, wouldn't have been affected by the withholding of a witness's statement

GIST: "A witness's first description of a suspect should always be provided to the defence because it may be more accurate than later recollections.

Those were the words from the judge presiding over the trial of Alan Hall for the 1985 murder of Arthur Easton.

Why, then, was the ethnicity of a man seen running away from the crime scene not presented to the jury at Hall's trial and subsequent appeals?

That's the crux of the case against two former police officers on trial in the High Court at Auckland, accused of perverting the course of justice.

One of the officers continued giving evidence today and was asked why he failed to meet that basic legal principle.

The former officers claim it was the Crown's responsibility - not theirs - to inform Alan Hall's defence team that witness Ronald Turner had said he saw a tall Māori man, who did not resemble Alan Hall, running away from the murder scene.

Even if Hall's team had been told, one of the officers' defence lawyers, David Jones KC, asked in court if it would have made any difference, considering the other evidence they had: the ownership of the bayonet used in the crime; a hat found at the scene connected to Hall; the lies told to police; or the fact both the offender and Hall were left-handed.

The former officer replied that it did not.

Nor, the court was told, did Turner's evidence affect the evidence of burnt clothing found in Hall's incinerator; that he had no alibi; or that the suspicious man spotted that night was running in the direction of Hall's home.

Crown prosecutor John Billington KC questioned the former officer about numerous requests from Hall's legal team for information relating to the case.

The former officer told the court that responsibility lay with his co-defendant.

"Matters in terms of response to the solicitors was actioned by my colleague," he said.

Billington queried how an officer with over a decade's experience did not realise how important Turner's evidence could have been.

"You were aware from the day of the homicide that Mr Turner had said he'd seen a Māori in the vicinity of the scene of the crime, is that correct?"

The former officer acknowledged this, and also that Turner had given a more detailed statement the day after the murder.

"As a result of that statement you publicised, not only were you looking for a Māori as the offender but also you were looking a Māori as a lookout, correct?" Billington asked.

"That was certainly recorded in the news article. I can't remember today exactly what I said," the man replied.

Billington read the former officer an extract from the judge's closing statement at Hall's trial about the importance of descriptions first given by witnesses to police.

"That is because, for the obvious reasons, the first description may well be more accurate than the later recollections and it enables the defence to test the evidence relative to the identity which is given by the witness later on," he said.

"The Turner statements had not been provided at that date, had they?"

"I don't believe they had," the man replied.

Former detective called as expert witness

The defence called as an expert witness former Detective Inspector Maurice Whitham, who, along with investigating 19 homicides, was one of the lead officers investigating the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior in 1985.

He was asked to give his assessment of the reliability of Turner's ethnicity evidence.

"The descriptions vary - one minute he's five-foot-six, five-foot-seven on a job sheet. Now he's five-foot-six to six-foot. Why does that change overnight?"

Billington replied that this was a matter for the court.

"Yes it is, but the same token, he on two or three occasions said that he could not identify facial features," Whitham said.

Regardless, he said it was ultimately for the Crown - not police - to decide whether evidence should be included or not.

"The police engage the Crown as their legal officers, if you like, to conduct the prosecution of the accused and the police would finish the inquiries and basically hand the file.

"Our job was finished once we had completed the investigation and briefed the file."

The defence called two old colleagues of one of the former officers to provide character evidence, Stuart Mangnall and Stewart Mills.

"[The defendant] I'll say straight off was scrupulous and honest and was not one to cut corners," Mangnall said.

Mills said it was a pleasure to work with him

"He was fair, scrupulous, tended to be very good with people."

The trial continues."

The entire story can be read at:

https://share.google/HmOiMQHfqfd6D8U01

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;

Japan: The Mainichi: Tokyo (Kyodo); The Japanese government has passed a bill intended to prevent prosecutors from blocking 'retrials' (even in capital cases) and with some exemptions- - but critics say in doesn't go nearly far enough... "Calls to change the retrial system have gained traction following an acquittal in 2024 in the retrial of 90-year-old Iwao Hakamata over a 1966 quadruple murder case in Shizuoka Prefecture, which brought an end to his family's struggle against an unjust conviction that kept him on death row for nearly half a century."

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "After it comes into into force, the government will review the law every five years. "I am disappointed," Hideko Hakamata, the 93-year-old sister of Iwao Hakamata, said as she joined a press conference in Tokyo via online. "I had expected slightly better revisions at least." "I guess we just have to wait for what comes five years later," she also said."

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

QUOTE TWO OF THE DAY: " Junichi Matsuda, president of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, expressed doubt on whether the reform will help bring justice to the falsely accused swiftly, saying that "many areas are left at prosecutors' discretion." He said in a statement that evidence disclosure should be broad so that those seeking retrials can prepare to make their case. On the other hand, a ban on the unintended use of evidence may discourage retrial seekers and their lawyers from pursuing new information as well as sharing the information with media to publicize their case."

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The issue of prosecutorial appeals was also a major sticking point when the LDP ( Liberal Democratic Party) examined the Justice Ministry's initial proposal, which allowed for such moves. The ministry modified the bill three times before submitting it to the Diet. In Hakamata's case, about 43 years passed between the first retrial request and his final acquittal. In 2010, prosecutors disclosed evidence at the court's insistence that fueled doubt about the death sentence finalized by the Supreme Court in 1980. Although Hakamata was released from prison in 2014, his long incarceration had deteriorated his mental state, making communication difficult."

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

STORY: "Japan Diet passes law to revise controversial retrial system for 1st time," published by Mainichi Japan, on July 17, 2026.

GIST: TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The Japanese parliament on Friday enacted a revised law that prohibits, in principle, prosecutors from appealing court decisions granting retrials, marking the first reform to the post-World War II criminal retrial system, which has been criticized for delaying justice to the wrongly convicted.

The amendment to the 1948 Code of Criminal Procedure has been hailed as a step to address prolonged retrial proceedings, which in some cases have lasted for decades, but still leaves room for prosecutorial appeals in a disappointment to the families of the unjustly convicted.

Although major opposition parties such as the Centrist Reform Alliance demanded an outright ban on such appeals, the bill passed the House of Representatives on June 16 and the House of Councillors on Friday.

In the upper house where the ruling camp is a minority, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and its coalition ally, the Japan Innovation Party, were joined by smaller opposition forces including right-leaning populist, Sanseito, in voting in favor of the bill.

Following the enactment, the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office said it will strive to properly operate the new system so that it functions as an "extraordinary remedy procedure," while "taking seriously" the criticism prosecutors have faced in the past.

Calls to change the retrial system have gained traction following an acquittal in 2024 in the retrial of 90-year-old Iwao Hakamata over a 1966 quadruple murder case in Shizuoka Prefecture, which brought an end to his family's struggle against an unjust conviction that kept him on death row for nearly half a century.

Under the revised law, which will be implemented in phases within a year of its promulgation, prosecutors will only be permitted to challenge a court decision to reopen a case if there are "sufficient" grounds. If an appeal is filed, the government must disclose the reason.

The revision also allows courts to require prosecutors to submit new evidence, when necessary, though this is limited to "only evidence relevant to the reason" for seeking a retrial.

Critics say the criminal procedure law, prior to the change, lacked provisions for disclosing information in the possession of prosecutors and investigators for retrials, which prevented easy access to evidence that could favor the wrongfully convicted.

Using disclosed evidence for purposes other than retrial proceedings will be prohibited to protect the privacy of victims involved in a case, and violators could face imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to 500,000 yen ($3,100).

Meanwhile, a court screening process will be introduced to allow for the early dismissal of cases that fail to meet the formal requirements for retrial petitions.

After it comes into into force, the government will review the law every five years.

"I am disappointed," Hideko Hakamata, the 93-year-old sister of Iwao Hakamata, said as she joined a press conference in Tokyo via online. "I had expected slightly better revisions at least."

"I guess we just have to wait for what comes five years later," she also said.

Junichi Matsuda, president of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, expressed doubt on whether the reform will help bring justice to the falsely accused swiftly, saying that "many areas are left at prosecutors' discretion."

He said in a statement that evidence disclosure should be broad so that those seeking retrials can prepare to make their case. On the other hand, a ban on the unintended use of evidence may discourage retrial seekers and their lawyers from pursuing new information as well as sharing the information with media to publicize their case.

The issue of prosecutorial appeals was also a major sticking point when the LDP examined the Justice Ministry's initial proposal, which allowed for such moves. The ministry modified the bill three times before submitting it to the Diet.

In Hakamata's case, about 43 years passed between the first retrial request and his final acquittal.

In 2010, prosecutors disclosed evidence at the court's insistence that fueled doubt about the death sentence finalized by the Supreme Court in 1980. Although Hakamata was released from prison in 2014, his long incarceration had deteriorated his mental state, making communication difficult."

The entire story can be read at: 

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20260717/p2g/00m/0na/022000c

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;

17 July: Unregulated experts in British family courts; The Bureau of investigative Journalism (Reporter Hannah Summers) reports on "new family court rules' which raise hope that 'days of bogus experts' are over, in a story. sub-headed, "Changes coming into effect this month will keep unregulated experts out of courts in all but exceptional cases."... "Psychological experts are used by the family courts to assess families and children – including in cases involving claims of domestic abuse, coercive control or child sexual abuse – and their evidence can have a huge influence over the proceedings. They might recommend which parent a child should live with, or whether they should be placed in state care. This advice can be a key factor in the judge’s final decision. Over the last three years we have reported extensively about the use of unregulated experts in family cases. In particular, the debate has focused on the psychologists who specialise in diagnosing parental alienation – a concept discredited as a “harmful pseudoscience”. The advice of one unregulated expert, Melanie Gill, has led to removal of at least a dozen children from their mothers, including in cases where fathers had been found to be abusive."

BACKGROUND: WIKIPEDIA: (Link Below): "Parental alienation is a theorized process through which a child becomes estranged from one parent as the result of the psychological manipulation of another parent.^[1][2] The child's estrangement may manifest itself as fear, disrespect or hostility toward the distant parent, and may extend to additional relatives or parties.^[3][4] The child's estrangement is disproportionate to any acts or conduct attributable to the alienated parent.^[5] Parental alienation can occur in any family unit, but is claimed to occur most often within the context of family separation, particularly when legal proceedings are involved,^[6] although the participation of professionals such as lawyers, judges and psychologists may also contribute to conflict.^{[7]..............................}Parental alienation remains controversial both within the psychological community and the legal system. The psychological community has not accepted parental alienation as a diagnosable mental condition.^[16] Critics note that alienating behaviors are common in high-conflict family situations such as child custody proceedings,^[17] but that the estrangement of a child from a parent remains rare.^[18] They assert that the research performed to date does not support the theory that parental alienation results in the harm described by proponents of the concept.^[19] They also express concern that a parent who has caused a child to become estranged, for example through acts of domestic violence or child abuse, may claim to be the victim of parental alienation to convince a court that the child's justified response to the abuse is the result of the other parent's misconduct and to potentially gain custody of the child.^[20] No diagnostic criteria have been established for parental alienation, and proposals made to date have not been established as reliable.^[19][21] No program of treatment has been demonstrated to be safe or valid,^[22] and proponents of parental alienation theory agree that more research into treatment is necessary.^[23]

Parental_alienation

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

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "One mother, known as Erin*, whose two children were removed from her care following Gill’s advice, told the Bureau: “Six years ago my determined goal was that no other family would ever have to endure the loss and devastation I experienced at the hands of an unregulated person posing as an expert in the family court.  “This rule-change should now protect children from unregulated individuals ruining lives. But the families already destroyed will carry the scars forever.” 

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

STORY: "New family court rules spark hope that the ‘days of bogus experts are over,’ by Hannah Summers, published by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, on July 10, 2026.  Hannah Summers reports on the family courts for Bureau Local under the Family Court Files project. ts on the family courts for Bureau Local under the Family Court Files project. She has a background in covering social affairs, women’s rights and the law. As a freelance journalist her stories have been published in newspapers including the Observer, the Guardian, the Times, the Telegraph, the Daily Mirror, the Mail on Sunday and the Independent. Prior to that she was a staff reporter for the Sunday Times. She won the news and investigations category in the Freelance Writing Awards 2021 for her coverage of violence against women and girls, and was shortlisted for freelance journalist of the year in the 2022 Media Freedom Awards for coverage including the treatment of pregnant women in prison and the NHS charging migrant women for maternity care. In 2023 she was named best specialist journalist in the Freelance Journalism Awards for her reporting on the family courts and was shortlisted for the Paul Foot Award for her investigation into mothers having their children removed following the evidence of unregulated experts appointed in child custody cases.)

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

SUB-HEADING: "Changes coming into effect this month will keep unregulated experts out of courts in all but exceptional cases."

GIST" New rules barring unregulated psychologists from family court cases in England and Wales will come into force this month, sparking hope that the “days of bogus experts are over”.

The long-awaited change marks a victory for campaigners who have highlighted the dangers of using expert witnesses who are not registered with a regulator. Judges will, however, still be able to appoint them in exceptional circumstances, so the new rule-change stops short of an outright ban.

Psychological experts are used by the family courts to assess families and children – including in cases involving claims of domestic abuse, coercive control or child sexual abuse – and their evidence can have a huge influence over the proceedings.

They might recommend which parent a child should live with, or whether they should be placed in state care. This advice can be a key factor in the judge’s final decision.

Over the last three years we have reported extensively about the use of unregulated experts in family cases. In particular, the debate has focused on the psychologists who specialise in diagnosing parental alienation – a concept discredited as a “harmful pseudoscience”.

The advice of one unregulated expert, Melanie Gill, has led to removal of at least a dozen children from their mothers, including in cases where fathers had been found to be abusive.

One mother, known as Erin*, whose two children were removed from her carefollowing Gill’s advice, told the Bureau: “Six years ago my determined goal was that no other family would ever have to endure the loss and devastation I experienced at the hands of an unregulated person posing as an expert in the family court.

“This rule-change should now protect children from unregulated individuals ruining lives. But the families already destroyed will carry the scars forever.” 

A new era?

Part of the problem is that anyone can call themselves a “psychologist” – it’s not a protected title. According to Family Justice Council guidance, psychologists appointed by the courts should be regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), but under the current rules it is ultimately up to the judge which experts are appointed.

The new changes to the Family Procedure Rules, which take effect on 20 July, will tighten this loophole but not close it completely. 

Unregulated experts can still be appointed when an issue can only be resolved with their particular expertise, or to avoid a delay that could harm a child’s welfare. In these cases, the judge will also have to explain what efforts were made to find a regulated expert.

Jaime Craig, chair of the Association of Clinical Psychologists UK, told us that the new rules were “not perfect” but represented a huge step forward. “They give me real hope that the days of bogus experts are over,” he said.

The ACP-UK first issued a statement in 2021 raising concerns that “psychological experts” without the necessary qualifications were recommending the removal of children from their mothers.

Craig says the family courts should act in the spirit of the new rules. “We have for several years had guidance that says you shouldn’t use unregulated experts, and we have case law, but now there will be rules that must be followed. Hopefully no judge in the land would want to appoint an unregulated expert or exploit the exception to the rule.”

He added: “It’s hard to conceive why it would feel necessary to maintain a loophole for psychological experts. Poor-quality evidence from someone who is not sufficiently qualified to assess children and be properly regulated will never be in a child’s best interests.”

Family barrister Lucy Reed KC agreed that “even if there is a delay caused by finding or instructing a regulated expert, the answer is not going to be to instruct someone who is simply not suitable”.

Reed believes the new rules – which apply to all experts, not just psychologists – make it “practically impossible” to instruct the types of unregulated psychologists that have given cause for concern including in alleged alienation cases.

If someone wanted to instruct such an expert, she said, they will now have to “jump through a number of hoops and satisfy a judge who must give written reasons for permitting it”.

“Even in the past, unregulated experts should have been identified as unsuitable by lawyers and judges but proper scrutiny of CVs and credentials was not happening consistently. These rules demand the due diligence which should have been there but was sometimes lacking.”

The avoidance of an outright ban, she explained, will enable the court to use specialists in niche disciplines in the rare cases where there may be nobody else appropriate to advise.""

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2026-07-10/new-family-court-rules-spark-hope-that-the-days-of-bogus-experts-are-over

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 16: Michael Stone: UK: Question of the day: Was he wrongly convicted of two murders? Major Development, as reported by Guardian Police and Crime Correspondent Vikram Dodd; The CRCC (Criminal Cases Review Commission) will test serial killer Levi Bellfield's DNA as part of its inquiry into whether Michael Stone was wrongly convicted of the 1996 murders."... "The tests follow advances in DNA science which may allow previously unidentified male genetic material left at the scene where the Russell murders took place to be linked to an individual. The CCRC said in a statement: “We intend to obtain a sample from Mr Bellfield. No date has been set for this.”

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Bellfield is serving whole-life tariffs in HMP Frankland for the murders of 13-year-old Milly Dowler in March 2002; 19-year-old Marsha McDonnell in February 2003; and 22-year-old Amélie Delagrange in August 2004. He was also convicted of the attempted murder of Kate Sheedy in May 2004. Bellfield’s solicitor, Theresa Clark, said: “I’m sure he’d agree to the DNA test. He’s going to cooperate.” As part of Stone’s application to the CCRC, his DNA was taken by investigators on Thursday. Karen Todner, a solicitor for Stone, said: “There’s a whole range of things that can be done now.”

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

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Exhibits from the original crime scene that are still available include part of what is believed to be a shoe lace the attacker used to bind his victims, as well as sticks. Todner said a lunchbox in which a bloody finger print was found at the scene has now been lost.  (Karen) Todner (a solicitor for stone) said DNA testing previously available had shown two categories of male DNA at the murder scene. Some could be identified as belonging to Lin’s husband, Shaun, but other male DNA remained unidentified. “There is male DNA on some of the items,” she said. “New techniques possibly allows this to be matched to a person.”

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

PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "Lin Russell and her daughters were attacked with a claw hammer before being bound and blindfolded in Chillenden in Kent in 1996. Josie was left seriously injured. There is doubt about the credibility of Bellfield and his confessions to further crimes. He has also admitted to at least six other attacks on women in London and Surrey where the victims survived in a document given to the governor at HMP Frankland, and which was sent to police. The serial killer also said he had abducted and murdered Elizabeth Chau, who disappeared from a west London street in 1999, and who has never been found. The Met disbelieved Bellfield’s confession in that case and refused to dig up a spot in west London where he said he had buried the body. Bellfield has confessed to the Russell murders, retracted his admission, and then confessed again."

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

PASSAGE FOUR OF THE DAY: "Stone’s original convictions were overturned, only for another jury to convict him again. The CCRC has been heavily criticised for failings, including in the Andrew Malkinson case, wrongly imprisoned for 17 years for a rape for which someone else has now been convicted."

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

STORY: Levi Bellfield to have DNA test in connection with Lin and Megan Russell murders," by Police and Crime Correspondent Vikram Dodd, published by The Guardian, on July 11, 2026.

SUB-HEADING: "Exclusive: CCRC will test serial killer as part of inquiry into whether Michael Stone was wrongly convicted of 1996 murders."

GIST: "The serial killer Levi Bellfield will have his DNA taken in an attempt to establish if he murdered Lin and Megan Russell in 1996.

Michael Stone has protested his innocence since his conviction in 1998 for the killing of Lin, 45, and her daughter, six-year-old Megan, as well as a vicious attack on Megan’s sister Josie, nine, who survived.

The DNA samples will be taken by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which is investigating if Stone was wrongly convicted after Bellfield claimed he was the real killer.

The tests follow advances in DNA science which may allow previously unidentified male genetic material left at the scene where the Russell murders took place to be linked to an individual.

The CCRC said in a statement: “We intend to obtain a sample from Mr Bellfield. No date has been set for this.”

Bellfield is serving whole-life tariffs in HMP Frankland for the murders of 13-year-old Milly Dowler in March 2002; 19-year-old Marsha McDonnell in February 2003; and 22-year-old Amélie Delagrange in August 2004. He was also convicted of the attempted murder of Kate Sheedy in May 2004.

Bellfield’s solicitor, Theresa Clark, said: “I’m sure he’d agree to the DNA test. He’s going to cooperate.”

As part of Stone’s application to the CCRC, his DNA was taken by investigators on Thursday. Karen Todner, a solicitor for Stone, said: “There’s a whole range of things that can be done now.”

Exhibits from the original crime scene that are still available include part of what is believed to be a shoe lace the attacker used to bind his victims, as well as sticks. Todner said a lunchbox in which a bloody finger print was found at the scene has now been lost.

Todner said DNA testing previously available had shown two categories of male DNA at the murder scene. Some could be identified as belonging to Lin’s husband, Shaun, but other male DNA remained unidentified.

“There is male DNA on some of the items,” she said. “New techniques possibly allows this to be matched to a person.”

Stone’s application to the CCRC names another suspect for the murder other than Bellfield. A key witness against Stone, and his supporters say the only evidence, came from Damien Daly, who claimed Stone had confessed to him in prison.

Daly was later convicted of a separate murder. Todner said: “The only evidence against him is from a person serving life for murder and whom the jury in that case disbelieved. There is nothing else against Michael Stone.”

Lin Russell and her daughters were attacked with a claw hammer before being bound and blindfolded in Chillenden in Kent in 1996. Josie was left seriously injured.

There is doubt about the credibility of Bellfield and his confessions to further crimes. He has also admitted to at least six other attacks on women in London and Surrey where the victims survived in a document given to the governor at HMP Frankland, and which was sent to police.

The serial killer also said he had abducted and murdered Elizabeth Chau, who disappeared from a west London street in 1999, and who has never been found. The Met disbelieved Bellfield’s confession in that case and refused to dig up a spot in west London where he said he had buried the body.

Bellfield has confessed to the Russell murders, retracted his admission, and then confessed again.

Stone’s original convictions were overturned, only for another jury to convict him again. The CCRC has been heavily criticised for failings, including in the Andrew Malkinson case, wrongly imprisoned for 17 years for a rape for which someone else has now been convicted."

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026/jul/11/levi-bellfield-to-have-dna-test-in-connection-with-lin-and-megan-russell-murders

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 15: Alan Hall: New Zealand: (From our pass the buck department); On-going trial of two former police officers alleged to have withheld key witnesss evidence in the case, has taken the witness stand for the first time, Radio New Zealand (ReporterMatthew Theunissen,) reports: "Alan Hall spent 17 years in jail after being found guilty of Easton's murder in his Papakura home in 1985. His conviction was quashed in 2022 after the Supreme Court found a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Two former police officers, who have name suppression, are on trial in the High Court at Auckland where it's alleged they withheld key witness evidence that could have helped with Hall's defence. Key to the Crown case is the evidence of witness Ronald Turner, who said he saw a tall Māori man running across the road near to where Easton was murdered. That evidence was never presented to the jury at the trial of Hall, who is a 5 foot 7 Pākehā."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I will be 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.

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY:  "One of the former police officers entered the witness box on Wednesday and was asked by his lawyer, David Jones KC, about his understanding of the police's disclosure obligations at the time of the investigation. "Well if issues were serious crime and we had the Crown advising and going to prosecute, the responsibility for any disclosure rested with the Crown," the man said. Disclosure is where relevant documents about a case are handed to the defence. Likewise, the former officer felt those responsibilities lay with the Crown when Hall appealed his sentence, which he ultimately did five times. "Our role was basically to extract from the file the documents that they were seeking to place before the Court of Appeal."

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

STORY: "Arthur Easton case: Former police officer on trial takes stand for first time," by Radio New Zealand (RNZ) Journalist Matthew Theunissen, on July 15, 2026.

GIST: A contradictory, unreliable, fleeting glimpse.

That's how a former police detective described evidence of a key Crown witness who says he saw a tall Māori man running across the road near to where Arthur Easton was murdered by a bayonet-wielding intruder.

Alan Hall spent 17 years in jail after being found guilty of Easton's murder in his Papakura home in 1985. His conviction was quashed in 2022 after the Supreme Court found a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Two former police officers, who have name suppression, are on trial in the High Court at Auckland where it's alleged they withheld key witness evidence that could have helped with Hall's defence.

Key to the Crown case is the evidence of witness Ronald Turner, who said he saw a tall Māori man running across the road near to where Easton was murdered.

That evidence was never presented to the jury at the trial of Hall, who is a 5 foot 7 Pākehā.

One of the former police officers entered the witness box on Wednesday and was asked by his lawyer, David Jones KC, about his understanding of the police's disclosure obligations at the time of the investigation.

"Well if issues were serious crime and we had the Crown advising and going to prosecute, the responsibility for any disclosure rested with the Crown," the man said.

Disclosure is where relevant documents about a case are handed to the defence.

Likewise, the former officer felt those responsibilities lay with the Crown when Hall appealed his sentence, which he ultimately did five times.

"Our role was basically to extract from the file the documents that they were seeking to place before the Court of Appeal."

Turner was driving through Papakura on the night of Easton's murder when he saw a person he described as a tall Māori man acting suspiciously and running across Clevedon Road.

The former officer explained to the court how police tested this evidence by carrying out a so-called "sighting experiment", in which officers recreated Turner's account of that night. It concluded that Turner could not have determined the man's ethnicity.

The former officer was asked directly about the allegations he is facing.

"Did you ever do anything, as far as you are concerned, which would have interfered with the proper course of justice?" Jones asked.

"No I did not," the man replied.

"Did you ever have an intent to interfere with the proper course of justice?"

"No I did not," he said.

Questioned by Crown prosecutor John Billington KC, the former officer was asked why Turner's statement to police was different to the version presented at Hall's trial.

"We have some detail around his age, his height, his clothing and his mannerisms. They seem to be the same, don't they?" Billington asked. "Can you identify a difference between the two statements?"

"Well they're obviously couched in a slightly different manner," the man replied.

"The omission of the word Māori would be a difference, wouldn't it?" Billington added.

The defendant reiterated it was for the Crown to decide what evidence to include.

Billington said that as an experienced police officer, the man should have known how important Turner's evidence was.


"If Mr Turner had told the jury that the person he saw was a Māori, the prosecution case failed, didn't it?"

"Not necessarily," the man replied.

The trial before Justice Gault is expected to continue into next week."


The entire story can be read at:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/crime-and-justice/723631/arthur-easton-case-former-police-officer-on-trial-takes-stand-for-first-time

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: UK: Question of the day: When will this victim of a miscarriage of justice finally be freed? Jon Robins, Editor of The Justice Gap, takes on this question (and many others) in his story on the launch of Christopher Morris's book, 'Reasonable Doubt: Examining the case of Lucy Letby (Cinto, 2026).'.."When asked what would have to happen for Lucy Letby to be released in two years, the author took an optimistic view of the likely speed of the criminal appeals system. ‘The first thing is that the Criminal Cases Review Commission needs to refer the case to Court of Appeal as quickly as possible. There is no conceivable reason why they shouldn’t do that, and I can see no reason why they shouldn’t do it quickly.’ ‘Once it has reached the Court of Appeal, this case should be expedited rapidly due to the unbelievable trauma that this woman has been through over the last 10 years,’ he continued. ‘Her life has been absolutely destroyed by a failing system, and it is absolutely incumbent on the system to now put that right as quickly as possible.’

QUOTE OF THE DAY: ‘This is not purely about justice. It is not merely about a young woman inexorably becoming a middle-aged woman, life dripping steadily away in the harshest conditions imaginable, while having done nothing wrong. It is fundamentally about patient safety. It is about whether NHS institutions will be held to account. It is about whether the police are considered too big to fail, and whether their most serious mistakes could be properly scrutinise. And it is about the ability of the criminal justice system to reflect on its own failings when it would be more convenient to blame a scapegoat. There is one unequivocal truth at the heart of this book and it is one that cannot and must not be ignored, if even the merest scrap of public faith in the criminal justice system is to be retained. The conviction of Lucy Letby is chronically unsafe. It cannot be allowed to stand.’

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

SECOND QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Cleuci de Oliveira, the journalist who first approached the New Yorker about the story which ultimately led to Rachel Aviv’s 13,000 word investigation, asked what surprised him most about his own research.  ‘I used to think if you could put someone away for murder you would need actual evidence to do that,’ he said. ‘It was very surprising to me that such a flimsy case could put someone away forever not even just a life sentence, but no prospect of parole officially.’"

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

STORY: "Letby book: ‘I used to think to put someone away for murder, you need actual evidence,’ by Jon Robins, published by The Justice Gap, on July 14, 2026. "Jon  Robins is editor of the Justice Gap. He is a criminology lecturer at Brighton University, joint secretary of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Miscarriages of Justice and vice chair of the Legal Action Group. Books include Justice in a Time of Austerity (Bristol University Press, 2021), Guilty Until Proven Innocent (Biteback, 2018), The First Miscarriage of Justice (Waterside Press, 2014), and The Justice Gap (LAG, 2009). Jon is twice winner of the Bar Council's journalism award and the Halsbury Legal journalism award."

GIST: "The author of a new book arguing that Lucy Letby is a victim of a miscarriage of justice believes that her wrongful conviction could be overturned in two years.

 Speaking at the launch of Reasonable Doubt: Examining the case of Lucy Letby (Cinto, 2026), the writer Christopher Morris was asked by the Daily Mail journalist and fellow supporter of former neonatal nurse, Peter Hitchens ‘how long would it take’ for justice to be done.

‘This conviction doesn’t have a leg to stand,’ he replied. ‘There are people of the highest calibre in very large numbers saying that – and there is no one of any credibility coming from the other side.’ Morris said he hoped the case could be ‘resolved within two years’.

Over the last three years, Christopher Morris claims to have interviewed more than 60 experts from the worlds of neonatology, 

paediatrics, nursing and statistics about the controversial conviction of the former nurse on his own YouTube channel and for his podcast. 

His book has been publicly supported by high profile champions of Letby including Sir David Davies, professor John Ashton CBE, and the Private Eye journalist Dr Phil Hammond. 

The investigative journalist John Sweeney interviewed Morris at the launch event last week. Sweeney told the audience that the case was ‘a monstrous injustice’.

Morris argues that at the heart of the conviction of Lucy Letby is ‘a story that… makes absolutely no sense’. ‘There is no plausible motive or feasible psychological explanation for Letby’s supposed acts,’ he writes. ‘No one has ever seen her doing anything wrong.’ He argues that anecdotal evidence used in court was ‘phenomenally weak’; and the statistical case on which the prosecution built was ‘fundamentally flawed’.

‘The court case was brimful of eyewitness accounts that was specious and bereft of material or evidential value. 

The prosecution has erected, not merely one hypothesis, but an array of hypothetical events that are completely improbable and then spun them into an overarching narrative intended to explain the way their lack of evidential support.

 Often the prosecution even used evidence that is known to be incorrect.’ 

Morris contends that medical underpinning prosecution arguments have now been so undermined that any of the cases on which the former nurse was convicted would now fail to reach a court on their own merit.

A ‘rational’ Court of Appeal?

When asked what would have to happen for Lucy Letby to be released in two years, the author took an optimistic view of the likely speed of the criminal appeals system.

 ‘The first thing is that the Criminal Cases Review Commission needs to refer the case to Court of Appeal as quickly as possible. 

There is no conceivable reason why they shouldn’t do that, and I can see no reason why they shouldn’t do it quickly.’

‘Once it has reached the Court of Appeal, this case should be expedited rapidly due to the unbelievable trauma that this woman has been through over the last 10 years,’ he continued. ‘Her life has been absolutely destroyed by a failing system, and it is absolutely incumbent on the system to now put that right as quickly as possible.’

Morris argued that momentum had been building through journalistic and public pressure. ‘I’ve written this book because I think that what has happened is abysmal, appalling, and embarrassing. And it’s up to the criminal justice system to put that right.’

Fourteen of the world’s leading neonatologists and medical experts were involved in a report highly critical of the NHS and which found no evidence of murder in the babies deaths, as reported on the Justice Gap (here). 

That initiative was chaired by Dr Shoo Lee, whose 1989 paper was incorrectly relied upon by the prosecution expert Dewi Evans. 

According to Morris, there were now 33 experts who had spoken out about their concerns. ‘It’s staggering. I truly believe this is the greatest concentration of expertise that ever appeared in an appeal.’

Cleuci de Oliveira, the journalist who first approached the New Yorker about the story which ultimately led to Rachel Aviv’s 13,000 word investigation, asked what surprised him most about his own research.

 ‘I used to think if you could put someone away for murder you would need actual evidence to do that,’ he said. ‘It was very surprising to me that such a flimsy case could put someone away forever not even just a life sentence, but no prospect of parole officially.’

The second most surprising discovery was, as he tentatively put it, the ‘conduct of someone’. 

John Sweeney, chairing the session, interpreted that as a reference to the prosecution expert, Dr Dewi Evans who the journalist had interviewed for his own podcast.

 ‘It’s fair to say he turned up and faced the bowling,’ Sweeney reported. ‘It’s also fair to say that some of the things he said struck me as being extremely arrogant, and some of it was just plain wrong.’

The journalist continued ‘If Lucy’s conviction is based upon the evidence of this man when there is now a whole series of the world’s best neonatologists saying it’s nonsense, I would have thought any rational Court of Appeal would look at this and say we cannot rely upon the evidence.’

The audience that the launch was well attended by experts from numerous disciplines concerned about the safety of the conviction. 

One retired obstetrician and chief executive of a women and infants hospital said he had been ‘appalled’ to discover that the babies at the Countess of Chester were delivered in ‘a smallish hospital’. 

 ‘High-risk babies delivered in the wrong environment looked after by paediatricians who didn’t, in the main, have specialist training in the neonatology,’ he said.

‘I’m also old enough to remember the Birmingham Six and the Guilford Four and the photographs that appeared in the newspapers afterwards – they all looked like IRA bombers and Lucy Letby looked like Myra Hindley when I saw her on the front of the tabloids in Dublin.’

A retired obstetrician

He was concerned about the recent review led by senior midwife Donna Ockenden which found leaders at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust knew there were serious issues in its maternity department going back to ‘at least 2010’ but failed to take action. 

‘Do you think that the dysfunction that we see reported in the Ockenden report somehow increases the momentum to say that Lucy Letby is actually a victim of a dysfunctional system in the maternity and neonatal services in the NHS?’ he asked.

‘Everything we’ve heard about Nottingham, everything we’ve heard about all the previous maternity crises is mirrored in this case,’ agreed Morris. 

A retired obstetrician noted ‘incredible similarities’ between the deficiencies found by Ockenden and ‘what you have uncovered were going on at the Countess of Chester’. ‘The terrifying concern that I’m left with is that this could very easily happen again,’ he said.

‘Undoubtedly yes,’ Morris agreed. ‘These are systemic problems. It’s clear there were systemic problems with the Countess of Chester. You only need to look at them… . They weren’t doing the most basic things that they needed to do, and the fear, obviously, is that this hospital isn’t as bad as we think it is, and that actually it’s more broadly representative of other hospitals. Given that there is this incredible, chilling overlap between Nottingham and Chester, where it’s almost spooky, isn’t it?’

A retired surgeon said that he ‘always felt’ that the statistical evidence (for example, the now infamous shift rota seemingly highlighting Letby’s presence when a baby died) advanced by the prosecution was ‘non-existent’. 

He asked the statistician Professor Jane Hutton for her views as to whether the Criminal Cases Review Commission would be provided with an analysis of a sensible statistical view of the problem. 

Prof Hutton had warned Cheshire Police that its approach on the stats was wrong in relation to Letby. 

But according to the MP David Davis, speaking in Parliament, the CPS instructed the police to drop Hutton.

Prof Hutton flagged a publication by the Department of Health and the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership on how to deal with statistical outliers published in 2011.

 ‘There is no doubt there are more deaths than you might have expected,’ th academic said. ‘How do you investigate that? And it’s absolutely clear that they should have engaged a statistician.’
In defence of ‘the noise’

In September 2024, Lady Justice Thirlwall opened the inquiry into the deaths at the Countess of Chester Hospital with criticism of the ‘huge outpouring of comment from a variety of quarters on the validity of the convictions’. 

‘So far as I’m aware, it has come entirely from people who were not at a trial,’ she said. ‘All of this noise has caused enormous additional distress to the parents who have already suffered far too much.’

Christopher Morris defends himself, and others, who have spoken out on behalf of Letby in the face of criticism from the legal establishment.

 He quotes Thomas Bingham, widely recognised as the greatest English judge since the second world war, from his book The Rule of Law saying that judges ‘are not, of course, the only guardians of the rule of law, perhaps not even the most important.

 Parliamentary and public opinion, informed by the media, should be alert to detect and scrutinise any infringement’. Morris adds: ‘[No] one should apologise for highlighting the plight of Lucy Letby nor the debacle that has led to it.’

He finishes the book by talking about the psychological devastation of the wrongly convicted, including an interview with Michael O’Brien who spent 11 years in prison for the murder of a Cardiff newsagent.

‘This is not purely about justice. It is not merely about a young woman inexorably becoming a middle-aged woman, life dripping steadily away in the harshest conditions imaginable, while having done nothing wrong. It is fundamentally about patient safety. It is about whether NHS institutions will be held to account. It is about whether the police are considered too big to fail, and whether their most serious mistakes could be properly scrutinise. And it is about the ability of the criminal justice system to reflect on its own failings when it would be more convenient to blame a scapegoat. There is one unequivocal truth at the heart of this book and it is one that cannot and must not be ignored, if even the merest scrap of public faith in the criminal justice system is to be retained. The conviction of Lucy Letby is chronically unsafe. It cannot be allowed to stand.’

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.thejusticegap.com/letby-book-i-used-to-think-to-put-someone-away-for-murder-you-need-actual-evidence/
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;