Saturday, March 14, 2026

March 14: James Duckett: Florida: Unanswered Questions: A discredited FBI hair analyst Michael Malone case, and much more: After spending more than four years on death row, James Duckett is to be executed on March 31, having maintained his innocence from the day he was arrested: However the FADP (Floridians for Alternatives to the death penalty) says his attorneys argue that the case against him, built entirely on circumstantial evidence, has been undermined by recanted testimony, discredited forensic science, and the possibility of DNA testing that was never presented to the jury who sentenced him to death. noting that: "The prosecution also relied heavily on forensic testimony from FBI analyst Michael Malone, who testified that a pubic hair found on Teresa’s clothing was microscopically consistent with Mr. Duckett’s hair. At trial, prosecutors emphasized this evidence as the most damaging proof against him. But years later, the U.S. Department of Justice reviewed Malone’s work and found serious problems. The review concluded that Malone repeatedly overstated the reliability of hair comparison analysis and gave scientifically unsupported testimony in many cases. Investigators found that Malone’s work contained serious flaws and that his courtroom statements often exceeded what the science could support."



PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In 2026 — over a week after his execution warrant had already been signed and only after a judge ordered the State to hand over the documents — Mr. Duckett’s attorneys received a previously undisclosed letter showing that the Department of Justice had asked Florida prosecutors in 2012 for information about Malone’s testimony in the case. The letter indicated that federal officials were concerned that the examiner may have “exceeded the limits of science” when presenting his conclusions. For decades, Mr. Duckett’s lawyers had repeatedly asked the state whether any such correspondence existed. Each time, prosecutors either denied having such information or failed to respond. The letter only surfaced during the final stages of litigation and was buried in roughly 10,000 pages of new materials.:\


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

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The Perhaps the most significant unanswered question in the case involves untested biological evidence that still exists today. The circuit court recently granted permission for advanced DNA testing known as Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) testing, a powerful technology capable of identifying contributors to biological evidence with far greater precision than earlier methods. Results are currently pending.   Modern DNA testing could: 
  • Identify previously unknown contributors to the evidence
  • Exclude Mr. Duckett as the source
  • Potentially identify the actual perpetrator through genetic genealogy.
----------------------------------------------------

STORY: "James Duckett: A Case Marked by Unanswered Questions," published by The FADP, on March 9, 2026.


Today, his attorneys argue that the case against him, built entirely on circumstantial evidence, has been undermined by recanted testimony, discredited forensic science, and the possibility of DNA testing that was never presented to the jury who sentenced him to death.

His attorneys argue that modern forensic technology — capable of producing answers that were unattainable in the 1980s — now exists, yet the state is pressing forward with an irreversible punishment while key evidence remains untested and unresolved. 

A Case Built on Circumstantial Evidence

The prosecution’s case relied on four main pieces of evidence:

  • The testimony of a single witness who claimed she saw the victim leave in Mr. Duckett’s car
  • A single pubic hair found on the victim’s clothing that an FBI analyst said was consistent with Mr. Duckett’s
  • Tire tracks that allegedly matched his patrol car
  • Teresa’s fingerprints found on the hood of his vehicle

 

No physical evidence conclusively proved that Mr. Duckett committed the crime. The state’s case depended on the jury believing that these pieces of circumstantial evidence pointed to only one possible explanation. Over time, however, each pillar of the prosecution’s case has come under serious challenge.

The State’s Key Witness Later Recanted

The only witness who claimed to see Teresa leave with Mr. Duckett was a woman named Grace Gwendolyn Gurley. Gurley did not come forward until five months after the crime, when she was in jail awaiting sentencing on unrelated charges.

After learning about Mr. Duckett’s arrest from television news coverage, she told a jail officer that she knew him. Investigators soon began visiting her in jail. Records later showed that officers and prosecutors met with her repeatedly and even removed her from the jail on several occasions to take her to meals or visit family members. At trial, Gurley testified that she saw Teresa get into Mr. Duckett’s patrol car. That testimony became the crucial link in the prosecution’s case.

But after the trial, Gurley recanted.

In six separate statements, including sworn testimony, Gurley said the story she told the jury was not true. She stated that investigators had instructed her what to say and told her she would face less jail time if she cooperated. She also said prosecutors took her to the Circle K and showed her where to stand and what to claim she had seen.

According to Gurley, investigators knew the story was false because she told them it was. Her recantation has been corroborated by other witnesses who said Gurley had asked them to lie in order to support her story. Without Gurley’s testimony, the prosecution’s theory that Teresa left with Mr. Duckett collapses.

Discredited Forensic Science

The prosecution also relied heavily on forensic testimony from FBI analyst Michael Malone, who testified that a pubic hair found on Teresa’s clothing was microscopically consistent with Mr. Duckett’s hair.

At trial, prosecutors emphasized this evidence as the most damaging proof against him. But years later, the U.S. Department of Justice reviewed Malone’s work and found serious problems.

The review concluded that Malone repeatedly overstated the reliability of hair comparison analysis and gave scientifically unsupported testimony in many cases. Investigators found that Malone’s work contained serious flaws and that his courtroom statements often exceeded what the science could support.

In Mr. Duckett’s case, the Department of Justice determined that Malone’s testimony included erroneous statements and exaggerated conclusions about the likelihood that the hair came from Mr. Duckett. Subsequent government reports described Malone as one of the most problematic analysts in the FBI laboratory, concluding that he had repeatedly provided scientifically unsupported conclusions in criminal trials.

Even prosecutors have acknowledged that Malone overstated the significance of the hair evidence.

Suppressed Information About the Forensic Evidence

In 2026 — over a week after his execution warrant had already been signed and only after a judge ordered the State to hand over the documents — Mr. Duckett’s attorneys received a previously undisclosed letter showing that the Department of Justice had asked Florida prosecutors in 2012 for information about Malone’s testimony in the case.

The letter indicated that federal officials were concerned that the examiner may have “exceeded the limits of science” when presenting his conclusions. For decades, Mr. Duckett’s lawyers had repeatedly asked the state whether any such correspondence existed. Each time, prosecutors either denied having such information or failed to respond.

The letter only surfaced during the final stages of litigation and was buried in roughly 10,000 pages of new materials.

The Possibility of DNA Evidence

Perhaps the most significant unanswered question in the case involves untested biological evidence that still exists today.

The circuit court recently granted permission for advanced DNA testing known as Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) testing, a powerful technology capable of identifying contributors to biological evidence with far greater precision than earlier methods. Results are currently pending. 

Modern DNA testing could:

  • Identify previously unknown contributors to the evidence
  • Exclude Mr. Duckett as the source
  • Potentially identify the actual perpetrator through genetic genealogy

 Identity has always been the central issue in the case. If testing shows that the biological material belongs to someone else, it would directly contradict the prosecution’s theory of the crime. Mr. Duckett’s attorneys believe the results could provide conclusive proof of his innocence.

The Risk of an Irreversible Mistake

Across the United States, DNA testing has exonerated hundreds of people who were once convicted based on faulty forensic science, unreliable witnesses, or investigative errors. Here in Florida, 30 people have already been exonerated from death row. 

Those cases have revealed how easily wrongful convictions can occur.

In Mr. Duckett’s case, the prosecution’s key witness recanted. The government has acknowledged that the forensic testimony used at trial was flawed. And biological evidence that could reveal the truth still exists.

Once an execution takes place, the possibility of discovering that truth disappears forever.

For James Duckett, the question is whether the justice system will allow the evidence to be fully examined before carrying out the ultimate punishment."

The entire story can be read at: 


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!

Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;


Friday, March 13, 2026

March 13: Barry Morphew: Colorado (Junk Science): Carol McKinley reports special to The Colorado Sun that Barry Morphew's October murder trial promises to center around a highly restricted concoction of potent chemicals the autopsy revealed were discovered in his dead wife’s remains, noting that: "The premixed chemical compound, marketed as a patented product under the acronym BAM, is a regulated blend of butorphanol, azaperone and medetomidine used almost exclusively by biologists and veterinarians to sedate large animals. According to the grand jury indictment, the El Paso County coroner’s chief toxicologist found that “all three of the individual chemicals that comprise BAM were present” in Suzanne Morphew’s bone marrow. Suzanne Morphew died as a result of homicide “by unspecified means in the setting of butorphanol, azaperone, and medetomidine intoxication,” an autopsy found. In other words, it remains unclear how Suzanne Morphew was killed, but the BAM found in her bones contributed to her death."


QUOTE OF THE DAY: “The claim that Suzanne Morphew had BAM in her system is not true,” said David Beller, who has been representing Barry Morphew since he took over from Denver attorney Iris Eytan last summer.   Beller and his cocounsel, Jane Fisher-Byrialsen, contend that of three labs consulted, only the El Paso County Coroner’s Office, a lab they say is certified only for DUI testing, found the three substances that make up BAM in Suzanne Morphew’s femur bone. The attorneys plan to attack the credibility of the El Paso County lab. “The scientific ‘evidence’ does not hold up,” Beller said in a text."

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


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Despite its specialized use, investigators found that in 2020, when they believe Suzanne Morphew was injected, only one private citizen in the Salida area had BAM in his possession: Barry Morphew.  In one of his many interviews with investigators, Barry Morphew acknowledged that he used BAM a month before his wife disappeared to sedate a deer in the breezeway of the family’s Colorado home. However, he was adamant that he did not use BAM to debilitate his wife.  His attorneys are preparing for a forensic courtroom showdown."

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


PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Morphew’s attorneys call the BAM theory “junk science” and during trial, will question the lab work.  In an interview with The Sun, Morphew’s attorney, Beller, referred to a “prosecution-sided narrative of what law enforcement wants the public to believe.”  He described the science developed by detectives and toxicologists as “incomplete” adding that they ignored evidence that points to Morphew’s innocence."

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


STORY: "Battle over a little-known wildlife sedative at center of murder case against Barry Morphew," by Carol McKinley,  special to The Colorado Sun,  on March 6, 2026.


SUB-HEADING: "Prosecutors say Morphew injected his wife, Suzanne, with a restricted chemical compound only used by zoos and large wildlife vets. Morphew’s attorneys contend the case is based on junk science.'


PHOTO CAPTION: "Investigators found a plastic needle cap in the family dryer after clothes were removed. Among those clothes was a pair of shorts authorities say Barry Morphew was wearing May 9, 2020, the day before his wife was reported missing." 


GIST: "Barry Morphew’s October murder trial promises to center around a highly restricted concoction of potent chemicals the autopsy revealed were discovered in his dead wife’s remains.

The premixed chemical compound, marketed as a patented product under the acronym BAM, is a regulated blend of butorphanol, azaperone and medetomidine used almost exclusively by biologists and veterinarians to sedate large animals. 

According to the grand jury indictment, the El Paso County coroner’s chief toxicologist found that “all three of the individual chemicals that comprise BAM were present” in Suzanne Morphew’s bone marrow. 

Suzanne Morphew died as a result of homicide “by unspecified means in the setting of butorphanol, azaperone, and medetomidine intoxication,” an autopsy found.  

In other words, it remains unclear how Suzanne Morphew was killed, but the BAM found in her bones contributed to her death.

One BAM kit features 11 milliliters of the combined substance, and can be acquired only with a prescription from a professional. It is not intended to be used on humans. 

Despite its specialized use, investigators found that in 2020, when they believe Suzanne Morphew was injected, only one private citizen in the Salida area had BAM in his possession: Barry Morphew. 

In one of his many interviews with investigators, Barry Morphew acknowledged that he used BAM a month before his wife disappeared to sedate a deer in the breezeway of the family’s Colorado home.

However, he was adamant that he did not use BAM to debilitate his wife. 

His attorneys are preparing for a forensic courtroom showdown. 

“The claim that Suzanne Morphew had BAM in her system is not true,” said David Beller, who has been representing Barry Morphew since he took over from Denver attorney Iris Eytan last summer.  

Beller and his cocounsel, Jane Fisher-Byrialsen, contend that of three labs consulted, only the El Paso County Coroner’s Office, a lab they say is certified only for DUI testing, found the three substances that make up BAM in Suzanne Morphew’s femur bone. The attorneys plan to attack the credibility of the El Paso County lab. “The scientific ‘evidence’ does not hold up,” Beller said in a text.

Neither the El Paso County Coroner’s Office nor NMS Labs, a private nationally accredited Pennsylvania lab which was consulted on the case, would comment on their involvement with it. 

The third lab that consulted on the case, the Center for Forensic Science Research and Education, also declined comment for this article. 

Mother’s Day weekend 2020

Suzanne Morphew was 49 years old when she was reported missing on Mother’s Day, May 10, 2020. Her husband told investigators that he last saw her asleep in their bed “with labored breathing” at around 5 a.m. when he left to drive from their family home outside of Salida to Broomfield. Morphew said he had to get up north to finish a landscaping job, but an employee told police the original plan was not to drive to Broomfield  “until the evening hours,” according to the indictment. 

Investigators interviewed Morphew multiple times in the year following Suzanne’s disappearance. To this day, he maintains he had nothing to do with her death. 

He has been arrested and charged with her murder twice. 

Barry Morphew was first arrested May 5, 2021, nearly a year to the day of Suzanne’s disappearance. 

However, just nine days before he was to stand trial in April 2023, a judge agreed to dismiss charges against him. 

Eleventh Judicial District Judge Ramsey Lama chided prosecutors for missing court deadlines and there was still no sign of Suzanne Morphew. 

Rama dismissed the charges without prejudice, which means the prosecution could refile them if more evidence came to light.

In September 2023, investigators got the major development that they had been waiting for. Suzanne Morphew’s “significantly bleached” remains were found in an open field in Moffat, about 45 minutes south of the family home, according to the grand jury indictment. The indictment also stated that Suzanne Morphew’s cancer port and some of her bike clothing were found with her remains. Oddly, some of the bones of her feet were missing as well as her bicycle shoes, according to her attorneys. 

Further, there were no signs of animal predation on the bones and no signs of insect activity, leading a forensic anthropologist to conclude that her remains decomposed somewhere other than where they were found. 

In June 2025, a 12th Judicial District grand jury indicted Barry Morphew for his wife’s murder, and hours later, he was arrested a second time in Arizona. He was released from jail after posting a $3 million bond. 

The courts monitor Morphew’s movements through a GPS device, but he walks into court on his own, often accompanied by his two adult daughters, who have stood by him since the beginning. 

At his January arraignment in Alamosa where the case is being tried, the three of them showed up with their attorneys, had a private conference, and Barry Morphew officially pleaded not guilty to his wife’s murder for the second time. 

What is BAM?

The three chemicals in BAM are used mostly by biologists and veterinarians to sedate large wild animals such as deer, bear and elk. 

Butorphanol is a pain reliever which is used before surgeries and also in a nasal spray to help relieve migraines. Azaperone is a tranquilizer often used by veterinarians on pigs. 

Medetomidine, an emerging illicit non-opioid known on the street as “rhino tranq,” is another type of animal sedative which can be deadly to humans and is often mixed with fentanyl. Because it is not an opioid, it does not respond to an overdose reversal like naloxone, according to a May 2025 Centers for Disease Control report. 

The BAM compound is so highly regulated that only two entities in the southwestern region of the state, Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the National Park Service, received  prescriptions for it from 2017 through 2020, according to the grand jury indictment.

However, Barry Morphew “obtained and filled several prescriptions” in 2018 in Indiana, according to court records. As a deer breeder there, he used BAM in part to sedate the animals in order to either remove their antlers for sale or to transport the deer to game reserves for controlled hunting, according to family members who were familiar with his business. 

The original arrest affidavit argued Morphew injected his wife of 26 years with a BAM-loaded dart to subdue her before he killed her. Investigators say he was angry that Suzanne was planning to leave him, according to the original arrest affidavit. 

The case has been moved three times in the six years since Suzanne Morphew was first reported missing. The initial hearings started in the 11th Judicial District in Chaffee County, where she lived, and was moved to nearby Fremont County in a change of venue due to intense publicity and a small jury pool.

It moved a third time to the 12th Judicial District after Mrs. Morphew’s remains were discovered in Saguache County.  Twelfth Judicial District Attorney Anne Kelly, who is prosecuting the case, declined to comment for this article. 

Defense argument: Junk science 

Morphew’s attorneys call the BAM theory “junk science” and during trial, will question the lab work. 

In an interview with The Sun, Morphew’s attorney, Beller, referred to a “prosecution-sided narrative of what law enforcement wants the public to believe.” 

He described the science developed by detectives and toxicologists as “incomplete” adding that they ignored evidence that points to Morphew’s innocence. 

Morphew’s original attorney, Iris Eytan, says she left criminal defense practice due to witnessing prosecutorial misconduct by the first team of prosecutors in the 11th Judicial District. “I knew that I could do the most good by working to prevent similar egregious misconduct,” she said. Eytan founded Protect Ethical Prosecutors, a nonprofit founded to change the laws regarding prosecutorial misconduct which she believes is still a problem in Colorado and the US. 

She continues to support Morphew’s innocence. 

Beller and Fisher-Byrialsen plan to file formal motions challenging the forensic work in the case in the next couple of months. 


Questioning the validity of forensic science is not a new legal tactic for defense attorneys.

“It’s part of our job,” said criminal defense attorney Mary Claire Mulligan, who is not involved in the case. She questioned whether the prosecutors influenced findings from the El Paso County Coroner’s Office. “Any time you say to a scientist, ‘We think this happened and we want you to tell us if it did,’ you’re making an assumption and asking a scientist to prove it,” Mulligan said. 

On the other hand, Eric Faddis, a former Arapahoe County felony prosecutor who is also not involved with the case, says the day Suzanne Morphew’s remains were found provided the lynchpin the prosecution had been waiting for in order to rearrest her husband for her murder. “The forensic analysis that these chemicals were reportedly found in the victim’s body is the smoking gun. It’s really what ties Barry Morphew and no other reported person to her death.”

Faddis says the presence of BAM eliminated other potential suspects. 

Controls on BAM

BAM is a relatively new compound, developed by a Wyoming veterinarian named Bill Lance. The Department of Colorado Parks and Wildlife patented the compound and prescribed it for research in 2008 and used it that way until 2013, according to CPW spokesperson Travis Duncan. “At that time, CPW veterinarians started prescribing BAM to authorized biologists and wildlife officers for statewide use.”

BAM is a controlled substance strictly regulated by the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Food and Drug Administration. 

According to Sam Pearce, a pharmacy technician with Wedgewood Pharmacy, the  company that distributes BAM, the kits are delivered in a vial and then can be poured into a dart which is then shot into the animal to put it to sleep.

Pearce said that the weight of the animal being sedated is critical in measuring how much to insert into the animal. An adult deer can weigh as much as 300 pounds. Suzanne Morphew weighed 110 pounds when she went missing. 

A pharmacology expert testified before the grand jury that BAM would render a human  “wholly immobile, vulnerable and unable to resist any constrictions to the recipient’s ability to breathe.”

Two Colorado Parks and Wildlife veterinarians who were familiar with BAM told investigators that a full dose of the compound could be fatal if used on a human. Lisa Wolfe, a retired vet with CPW who was interviewed in April 2021, determined that a dose of BAM would take 8 to 12 minutes for “a female of Suzanne’s size” to be fully sedated and that that she would remain immobile for two to eight hours depending on her position, according to the arrest affidavit.  

Investigators who spoke on condition of anonymity said that too much time has passed to know the exact dose of BAM that was injected into Suzanne Morphew’s body, but the indictment contended that she did not die right away because “her body had begun to metabolize the drug” and that it would have “taken several minutes to take effect.” 

Dr. Jeff

Besides CPW, The Colorado Sun was able to identify one other source who had a prescription for BAM around the time that Suzanne Morphew disappeared. Conifer veterinarian Dr. Jeff Young remembered ordering it for an Animal Planet program called “Dr. Jeff: Rocky Mountain Vet.” On the show, he performed surgeries on exotic wildlife like alligators, yaks and camels. He said that early on, an investigator on the Morphew case paid him a short visit and indicated that he was not a suspect. He never heard from the investigator again and forgot about it. 

In a phone interview with The Sun, Young said that the opioid BAM is so highly regulated that he was required to account for every drop. “Once it was delivered to the clinic, it went under lock and key. We logged every bottle, put a number on it and the bottles had to match. You just don’t go out to CVS or Walgreens and buy this stuff.”

Young said that he rarely used BAM on his show. 

Morphew’s BAM usage

Investigators interviewed Barry Morphew at length about his BAM kits, which he told them disappeared from his workbench after his wife went missing. 

During several interviews he admitted that he used tranquilizers to put deer to sleep so that he could take their antlers, according to the first arrest affidavit. 


“The first thing I thought of when I came and saw deer in my yard with big horns, I’m like ‘I’m gettin’ them horns,” he told FBI and Colorado Bureau of Investigation agents, according to the affidavit. 

“You’re gonna find tranq darts around my property because I’ve done that,” he told an FBI special agent in March 2021, 10 months after his wife disappeared. When asked when was the last time he used a dart gun to sedate a deer, he answered that it was around the end of April 2020, according to the affidavit, weeks before Mother’s Day weekend of the same year when Suzanne Morphew was last seen alive.  

However, when investigators searched the family home in the days after Suzanne Morphew vanished, they did not find a drop of BAM. 

They did discover a tranquilizer rifle in the Morphews’ gun safe and packages of tranquilizer darts which included capped hypodermic needles. In the family dryer, they found one of those caps along with the pair of shorts Morphew was seen wearing on May 9, 2020. 

That day records show Mrs. Morphew and her lover shared 59 messages between them, leading up to the moment investigators believe Barry Morphew murdered her. Just after 2 p.m., she messaged her lover with a selfie, which would be the last piece of evidence that showed Suzanne Morphew alive.

The jury

Rural Alamosa County will be under an intense spotlight when Morphew’s trial begins Oct. 13. The jury will be chosen from a pool of at least 10,000 Alamosa County residents.

The San Luis Valley’s 12th Judicial District is under pressure after the original prosecution team failed to prosecute Morphew.  

Linda Stanley, the 11th Judicial District district attorney who led the first attempt, was disbarred in September 2024 after Colorado state regulators found that her management of the case resulted in the prosecution “running aground.” She is appealing that ruling. 

On the other side, Morphew’s attorneys are tasked with saving Morphew from a lifetime in prison for a crime they insist that he did not do. 

“An intelligent jury will be of utmost importance,” said Mary Claire Mulligan, the defense attorney. “You want jurors who are not going to swallow the state’s evidence hook, line and sinker.”

However, Eric Faddis, the former Arapahoe County prosecutor, pointed out that though juries may not be familiar with BAM, they should be familiar with poisoning as a murder weapon. 

“It’s not an untested theory in science, like DNA or AI, which are less established,” he said.

The forensics of toxicology was first used in 18th-century England when a woman was found guilty of fatally poisoning her father with arsenic. 

Morphew’s next hearing is Monday in Alamosa."

The entire story can be read at:

https://coloradosun.com/2026/03/06/barry-suzanne-morphew-murder-trial-chemical-compound-injection/


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!

Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;