Prof. Karen Read: Massachusetts: Reporter Jessica Trufant asks the question of the day: " Will the judge allow a second 'dog bite' expert to testify in the Read case?, noting that her defence attorneys are seeking to prevent a canine behavior consultant hired by the state to testify in the second trial, which is scheduled to begin April 1…"Read is accused of killing John O'Keefe, her Boston police officer boyfriend and a Braintree native. Judge Beverly Cannone declared a mistrial in the case in July. Last month Cannone ruled that Dr. Marie Russell, an emergency room physician, can testify in Read's second trial that marks on O'Keefe's arm were dog bites, not caused by being hit by an SUV. Now Read's lawyers are trying to block the state from bringing in its own witness to contradict Russell's testimony."

STORY: "Will judge allow second 'dog bite' expert to testify in the Read case?, by Reporter Jessica Trufant, published by The Patriot Ledger. (Jessica is a general assignment reporter The Patriot Ledger. She started out as an intern at the Ledger, left for a short stint at another paper and returned to Ledgerland in 2013.)

SUB-HEADING: "Who is a 'dog bite expert'? This time Karen Read's lawyers say not prosecution's witness."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Read's lawyers filed a motion this week in Norfolk Superior Court, seeking to have Dr. James W. Crosby, a retired sheriff’s lieutenant and canine behavior consultant, barred from testifying.  The defense wrote that Crosby is not a medical doctor and therefore is not qualified "to render the opinions he proffers." "The Defense's legal research did not discover any relevant Massachusetts state cases on the admissibility of bite analysis by a non-medical doctor, specifically regarding dog bite wounds inflicted on humans," the motion reads. They also said Crosby used a flaw methodology in determining the marks on O'Keefe's arm were from a sharp object, not a dog. "Dr. Crosby does not even allege, let alone establish, that his purported methodology is generally accepted in the relevant medical community," the motion reads."

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

(KEY POINTS):

• Karen Read's defense team is attempting to prevent a canine behavior consultant from testifying at her second trial.
• Read is accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, but her defense claims she was framed.
• The defense argues that the consultant, not being a medical doctor, is unqualified to determine the source of marks on O'Keefe's arm.
• They also claim the consultant's methodology for analyzing the marks is flawed and not accepted in the medical community.

———————————————————————————————————

GIST: "Defense attorneys for Karen Read are seeking to prevent a canine behavior consultant hired by the state to testify in the second trial, which is scheduled to begin April 1.

Read is accused of killing John O'Keefe, her Boston police officer boyfriend and a Braintree native. Judge Beverly Cannone declared a mistrial in the case in July.

Last month Cannone ruled that Dr. Marie Russell, an emergency room physician, can testify in Read's second trial that marks on O'Keefe's arm were dog bites, not caused by being hit by an SUV.

Now Read's lawyers are trying to block the state from bringing in its own witness to contradict Russell's testimony.

What is Karen Read charged with?

Read was charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene of personal injury and death after O'Keefe's body was found outside the Canton home of a fellow Boston police officer Jan. 29, 2022, during a snowstorm.

Prosecutors say Read was drunk and angry when she purposely hit him, but Read's defense attorneys say she was framed.

The defense alleges O'Keefe was beaten inside the home and attacked by the family’s German shepherd before his body was planted on the front lawn.

Defense looks to prevent canine behavioral expert from testifying

Read's lawyers filed a motion this week in Norfolk Superior Court, seeking to have Dr. James W. Crosby, a retired sheriff’s lieutenant and canine behavior consultant, barred from testifying.

The defense wrote that Crosby is not a medical doctor and therefore is not qualified "to render the opinions he proffers."

"The Defense's legal research did not discover any relevant Massachusetts state cases on the admissibility of bite analysis by a non-medical doctor, specifically regarding dog bite wounds inflicted on humans," the motion reads.

They also said Crosby used a flaw methodology in determining the marks on O'Keefe's arm were from a sharp object, not a dog.

"Dr. Crosby does not even allege, let alone establish, that his purported methodology is generally accepted in the relevant medical community," the motion reads.

The defense is seeking a Daubert hearing, or a hearing to determine if an expert's testimony is admissible. In such a hearing, Cannone would weigh whether expert testimony from Crosby is relevant and reliable."

The entire story can be read at: 

https://www.patriotledger.com/story/news/courts/2025/02/13/karen-read-trial-dog-bite-expert-testimony/78528773007/

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. The Star has a "topic"  section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.

SEE BREAKDOWN OF  SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG,  AT THE LINK BELOW:  HL:

https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985

———————————————————————————————

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;

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

Dr. Margaret Carpenter: New York: Madiba K. Dennie author of a book explaining how extremists stole the U.S. Constitution, explains why the abortion pills indictment by Louisiana against Dr. Carpenter is about enforcing a modern Fugitive Slave Act, noting that: "The charges against Carpenter were spurred by a state’s refusal to recognize bodily autonomy, and the indictment has put the doctor in the middle of an interstate legal battle, with one state demanding delivery of a person for conduct that is lawful in the other state. This is awfully familiar, and emphasis on the awful: Pre-Civil War disputes over the Fugitive Slave Act, when northern states that enacted “personal liberty laws” refused to return Black people to the slave states from which they escaped, provide the clearest precedent for the conflict over laws that aim to shield abortion patients and providers from other states’ legal clutches. Then and now, people opposed to using their state’s resources to assist in another state’s injustice passed laws that made it harder, costlier, and slower for a less free state to get a person out of a freer one. This is a particularly dark chapter of the country’s history. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs is making the country go through it again."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: " A few of the justices in Dobbs saw this coming. Justice Brett Kavanaugh tried to put to rest some of these concerns in his concurrence, explaining that a state could not bar residents from traveling to another state to get an abortion—a question, he said, that was “not especially difficult as a constitutional matter.” But that hasn’t stopped anti-abortion activists from drafting model legislation to do exactly that.

——————————————————————————————

COMMENTARY: "Anti-Abortion States Are Trying to Enforce a Modern Fugitive Slave Act, by Madiba K. Dennie, published by 'Balls and Strikes' on February 7, 2025. (Madiba K. Dennie is the Deputy Editor and Senior Contributor at Balls & Strikes, and author of The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take it Back. Her writing has been featured in outlets including The Atlantic and The Washington Post. Balls & Strikes publishes original commentary and reporting about courts, the judges who preside over them, and the legal system they uphold.)

 

SUB-HEADING: "A Louisiana prosecutor’s decision to indict a New York doctor for mailing abortion pills calls to mind one of the ugliest chapters in this country’s history."

GIST: "Around April 2024, a mom in Port Allen, Louisiana learned that her teenage daughter was pregnant. Because Louisiana bans virtually all abortions, the mom went online and contacted Margaret Carpenter, a family medicine doctor in New Paltz, New York. Carpenter prescribed and mailed medication for the mother to give to her child, who then ended her pregnancy. 

Under Louisiana law, knowingly providing a pregnant person with abortion medication is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and $50,000 in fines. On January 31, a grand jury in the Parish of West Baton Rouge indicted the minor’s mother, whose name is redacted on the publicly accessible copy of the indictment, as well as Carpenter and her company, Nightingale Medical, for the offense of seeking and providing reproductive healthcare—or, as the statute calls it, “criminal abortion by means of abortion-inducing drugs.” 

The girl’s mom turned herself in to the police on Friday, the same day the indictment was issued, and the local prosecutor, Tony Clayton, told the Associated Press that he is waiting for Carpenter to do the same so that she can stand trial. “We expect Dr. Carpenter to come to Louisiana and answer to these charges, and if 12 people think she’s innocent then, let it go,” he said.

Clayton isn’t the first anti-abortion government official to try to use their state’s laws against Carpenter from afar. In December, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a civil suit trying to block Carpenter from providing abortion medication to patients in Texas, seeking to collect at least $100,000 in civil penalties. But the Louisiana case may be the first time since the Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which rescinded the constitutional right to abortion in 2022, that a state has brought criminal charges against a doctor accused of sending abortion pills to another state.

It is also the first direct test of New York’s shield law, which state lawmakers enacted in 2023 to protect doctors like Carpenter. After Dobbs, Carpenter cofounded Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine so that patients in need can access abortion care regardless of their ZIP code, and ACT has worked with states like New York to strengthen legal protections for providers of these telehealth services. So far, New York politicians are standing by Carpenter: “I will never under any circumstances turn this doctor over to the state of Louisiana under any extradition request,” Governor Kathy Hochul said in a video posted on social media. Attorney General Letitia James also released a statement on Friday, saying, “This cowardly attempt out of Louisiana to weaponize the law against out-of-state providers is unjust and un-American.” There are currently interstate shield laws in 18 states and the District of Columbia, and following the issuance of the warrant for Carpenter’s arrest, New York began further tightening its protections.

The charges against Carpenter were spurred by a state’s refusal to recognize bodily autonomy, and the indictment has put the doctor in the middle of an interstate legal battle, with one state demanding delivery of a person for conduct that is lawful in the other state. This is awfully familiar, and emphasis on the awful: Pre-Civil War disputes over the Fugitive Slave Act, when northern states that enacted “personal liberty laws” refused to return Black people to the slave states from which they escaped, provide the clearest precedent for the conflict over laws that aim to shield abortion patients and providers from other states’ legal clutches. Then and now, people opposed to using their state’s resources to assist in another state’s injustice passed laws that made it harder, costlier, and slower for a less free state to get a person out of a freer one. This is a particularly dark chapter of the country’s history. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs is making the country go through it again.

The federal government attempted to settle the dispute in 1850 by strengthening the terms of the Fugitive Slave Act, requiring the return of formerly enslaved people who escaped and penalizing interference with the law’s enforcement. But this backfired, as free states only became bolder: Vermont, for example, passed legislation that effectively nullified the federal law within the state’s borders. When South Carolina seceded in 1860, one of its stated grievances was that free states had interfered with South Carolina’s right of self-government by encouraging enslaved people who sought to escape, and by refusing to deliver Black people back into slavery.

Today’s forced birth extremists discuss telehealth in much the same way. Texas Right to Life President John Seago, for example, recently complained to The Hill that laws that protect telemedicine providers are efforts “to sabotage the governance of their neighboring states.” Erin Hawley, a conservative activist and wife of Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, argued that “one state cannot intrude on another state’s efforts to protect the lives and health of its citizens.” (She is referring to fetuses, not pregnant people.)

Anti-abortion officials in Louisiana resent that medication-by-mail allowed more Louisianans to have abortions in 2023 than in 2020, even though the state had enacted a stricter law after the fall of Roe v. Wade. “If it’s legal in New York, keep it up there. Don’t do it down here,” said Clayton in an interview last week. Clayton also suggested that Carpenter would have an “issue” if she “were to travel to a state that has reciprocity with Louisiana.”

A few of the justices in Dobbs saw this coming. Justice Brett Kavanaugh tried to put to rest some of these concerns in his concurrence, explaining that a state could not bar residents from traveling to another state to get an abortion—a question, he said, that was “not especially difficult as a constitutional matter.” But that hasn’t stopped anti-abortion activists from drafting model legislation to do exactly that.

And it doesn’t address the question, raised explicitly by the liberal justices in their joint dissent in Dobbs, of whether a state can interfere with the mailing of drugs used for medication abortions. “The Constitution protects travel and speech and interstate commerce, so today’s ruling will give rise to a host of new constitutional questions,” they wrote. The conservative supermajority, they concluded, had “put the Court at the center of the coming interjurisdictional abortion wars.”

The Supreme Court hasn’t had to answer questions like these in over 150 years. Now it has to answer these questions again. And it only has itself to blame."

The entire commentary can be read at: 

https://ballsandstrikes.org/law-politics/abortion-pills-indictment-louisiana/

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. The Star has a "topic"  section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.

SEE BREAKDOWN OF  SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG,  AT THE LINK BELOW:  HL:

https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985

———————————————————————————————

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;

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

Colin Norris: UK: (Scotland): The Mirror (Chief Reporter Mark McGivern and Senior News Reporter Liam Buckler) reports that the 'Angel of Death' nurse who killed OAPs (old-age pensioners) could be freed thanks to 'strong parallels' with Neonatal Nurse Lucy Letby, noting that: "Scottish nurse Colin Norris, 48, has served 17 years of a 30-year sentence handed out in 2008 for the murders of four OAPs and the attempted murder of another at Leeds General Infirmary and St James's Hospital. He was found guilty of giving them massive doses of insulin while working at the hospitals. But now experts believe he could a victim of one of the UK's worse miscarriages of justice with his case coming under increasing scrutiny. A top scientist believe it bears close parallels with child killer nurse Lucy Letby, who is serving 15 whole life sentences for ­murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others between 2015 and 2016. She has already lost two bids to appeal but a panel of medical experts has come forward to challenge evidence against her.'"

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Norris, from Milton, Glasgow, could be freed in May when the Court of Appeal in London considers claims that evidence against him was largely circumstantial and deeply flawed, Daily Record reported. Professor Alan Wayne Jones, a retired expert in forensic toxicology, said the ­similarities in the cases are glaring and he believes both convictions may prove to be unsafe. He said: “I see close parallels between the two cases, absolutely. It’s absolutely possible Colin Norris and Lucy Letby could be cleared of these crimes on appeal, given the weight of evidence that might be ­gathered to undermine the methodology applied in the trials.” He also agrees with many experts that unexplained low blood sugar, hypoglycaemia, that linked deaths of victims in the Norris case, can occur more often than was thought at the time of his trial, creating a clear reasonable doubt for the conviction."

—————————————————————————

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: " Professor Richard Marks, who died last year, originally cast doubt on Norris’s guilt 14 years ago in a BBC documentary. Prof Jones said: “Marks ­discovered the only real evidence in Norris’s case that insulin was used in the death of one of the elderly ladies’ deaths – Ethel Hall. “For the other four cases there was no chemical or forensic evidence against him, simply that he happened to be on duty when these elderly ladies died. And when they died, they were ­diagnosed to have hypoglycemia and because Norris was already suspected in the Ethel Hall case they searched the hospital rota and found that he was on duty when his other elder ladies died and they had hypoglycemia. “The prosecution put two and two together and accused Norris of killing these other ladies as well. There is ample evidence to suggest he got a raw deal.” Jones said Ethel Hall’s critical blood sample was analysed by a method called immunoassays. But that is not sufficient for ­reliable forensic evidence.

—————————————————————————————————

PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "Norris's case will be heard in May by Court of Appeal judges and will take up to four weeks. The case was referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which stated in 2021: “The CCRC has concluded there is a real possibility the Court of Appeal will decide Mr Norris’s conviction for the murder/attempted murder of one or more of the four patients is unsafe.”

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

"Angel of Death' nurse who killed OAPs (old-age pensioners)  could be freed thanks to 'strong parallels' with Lucy Letby," by Chief Reporter  Mark McGivern and  Senior News Reporter Liam Buckler, published by The Mirror, on February 17, 2025. (Liam  Buckler is a Senior News Reporter for the Mirror, covering the biggest stories of the day. He has covered US news and has a particular interest in social affairs and health issues. He was previously a journalist for Bristol Live reporting on news and current affairs.)

SUB-HEADING: "Colin Norris has served 17 years of a 30-year sentence handed out in 2008 following the murders at hospitals in Leeds, as experts believe his case bears close parallels with child killer Lucy Letby."

PHOTO CAPTION: "Colin Norris was jailed for killing four elderly women."

GIST: "An "Angel of Death" nurse jailed for killing a string of pensioners could be freed due to "flawed evidence", according to a top forensic scientist.

Scottish nurse Colin Norris, 48, has served 17 years of a 30-year sentence handed out in 2008 for the murders of four OAPs and the attempted murder of another at Leeds General Infirmary and St James's Hospital. He was found guilty of giving them massive doses of insulin while working at the hospitals. But now experts believe he could a victim of one of the UK's worse miscarriages of justice with his case coming under increasing scrutiny.

A top scientist believe it bears close parallels with child killer nurse Lucy Letby, who is serving 15 whole life sentences for ­murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others between 2015 and 2016. She has already lost two bids to appeal but a panel of medical experts has come forward to challenge evidence against her.

He was found guilty of the murders of four OAPs and the attempted murder of another at Leeds General Infirmary and St James's Hospital ( Image: PA)

Norris, from Milton, Glasgow, could be freed in May when the Court of Appeal in London considers claims that evidence against him was largely circumstantial and deeply flawed, Daily Record reported.

Professor Alan Wayne Jones, a retired expert in forensic toxicology, said the ­similarities in the cases are glaring and he believes both convictions may prove to be unsafe. He said: “I see close parallels between the two cases, absolutely. It’s absolutely possible Colin Norris and Lucy Letby could be cleared of these crimes on appeal, given the weight of evidence that might be ­gathered to undermine the methodology applied in the trials.”

He also agrees with many experts that unexplained low blood sugar, hypoglycaemia, that linked deaths of victims in the Norris case, can occur more often than was thought at the time of his trial, creating a clear reasonable doubt for the conviction.

Professor Richard Marks, who died last year, originally cast doubt on Norris’s guilt 14 years ago in a BBC documentary. Prof Jones said: “Marks ­discovered the only real evidence in Norris’s case that insulin was used in the death of one of the elderly ladies’ deaths – Ethel Hall.

“For the other four cases there was no chemical or forensic evidence against him, simply that he happened to be on duty when these elderly ladies died. And when they died, they were ­diagnosed to have hypoglycemia and because Norris was already suspected in the Ethel Hall case they searched the hospital rota and found that he was on duty when his other elder ladies died and they had hypoglycemia.

“The prosecution put two and two together and accused Norris of killing these other ladies as well. There is ample evidence to suggest he got a raw deal.” Jones said Ethel Hall’s critical blood sample was analysed by a method called immunoassays. But that is not sufficient for ­reliable forensic evidence.

He said: “That raised a red flag for me, as in forensic toxicology, we consider positive immuno­assay results presumptive ­positive. We would then be required to verify the results by a more specific method – liquid chromatography mass spectro­metry is the gold standard and would make certain that a certain poison had been used. But they didn’t do that for Norris’s case. They used a immunoassay and my research found they didn’t even do a repeat analysis.”

Jones said another red flag arose after Ethel’s blood sample was tested for insulin and a compound called C peptide. He said: “They’d already normalised Mrs Hall’s blood sugar by giving her intravenous glucose – and that interfered with the results.

“The lab in Surrey was a clinical and not a forensic lab, and there are more stringent routines in forensic science compared with clinical science, so you have to have quite different standards of things like chain of custody, storage of the specimen, stability of the drug. So there are problems with the evidence that make me conclude the conviction is unsafe.”

In his appeal, Norris is expected to claim there are logical explanations for the pensioners’ low blood sugar – being elderly, malnourished and suffering from conditions that could deplete blood sugar. It is understood the chief evidence in the appeal will not focus on the Ethel Hall case, instead looking to the cases of Doris Ludlam, 80, Bridget Bourke, 88, Irene Crookes, 79, and Vera Wilby, 90.

Jones said Norris’s demeanour at the trial did him no favours, an observation also levelled at Letby. He said: “He came across as rather cold and unfeeling and was described as that in the evidence. And it would not play well for him if a jury was perceiving him in that way.” Jones said he was “astonished” that Letby had been found guilty of injecting air into the veins of ­pre-term infants.

He said: “At the big press ­conference on Letby, where a very strong panel questioned the medical evidence, I was highly impressed by Dr Shoo Lee, who was very clear in his findings.

“He really is an expert in his field, and compared with the prosecution expert in the Lucy Letby case, it’s like night and day, in my opinion. Dr Lee recruited experts worldwide to look at the notes from these babies, and they found no evidence of foul play. They found that these babies died because of their premature state and congenital problems that these babies develop or bad hospital care during resuscitation attempts and things like that.

“So there was no real evidence they found to implicate Lucy Letby in murder or to implicate anyone else in murder. Most of the deaths that Lucy Letby was accused of that was from air embolism administration, injecting air into the vein, and the evidence for that was really pulled apart in that press ­conference.”

Norris’s case will be heard in May by Court of Appeal judges and will take up to four weeks. The case was referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which stated in 2021: “The CCRC has concluded there is a real possibility the Court of Appeal will decide Mr Norris’s conviction for the murder/attempted murder of one or more of the four patients is unsafe.”

Norris first appealed against his conviction but was turned down by the Court of Appeal in December 2009. He applied to the CCRC in October 2011."

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/angel-death-nurse-who-killed-34690816

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. The Star has a "topic"  section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.

SEE BREAKDOWN OF  SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG,  AT THE LINK BELOW:  HL:

https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985

———————————————————————————————

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;

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