James Duckett: Florida): The clock is ticking (Execution set for March 31): As Justice Reporter Dan Sullivan reports in the Tampa Bay Times: "All of what James Duckett hopes will spare him from being executed next week exists inside a test tube and at the ends of two cotton swabs. The tube holds the only remaining genetic material left by the person who raped and murdered 11-year-old Teresa McAbee in 1987. DNA from one of her family members sits on the end of one of the swabs. The other holds DNA that was scraped from Duckett’s mouth earlier this month inside a death watch cell at Florida State Prison. All three items are, at this moment, being scrutinized through advanced forensic testing at a private laboratory in Deerfield Beach. The results could be Duckett’s last shot to prove his innocence."

WORDS TO HEED: FROM OUR POST ON KEVIN COOPER'S  APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING; CALIFORNIA: (Applicable wherever a state resists DNA testing): "Blogger/extraordinaire Jeff Gamso's blunt, unequivocal, unforgettable message to the powers that be in California: "JUST TEST THE FUCKING DNA." (Oh yes, Gamso raises, as he does in many of his posts, an important philosophical question: This post is headed: "What is truth, said jesting Pilate."...Says Gamso: "So what's the harm? What, exactly, are they scared of? Don't we want the truth?" 

 https://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2018/06/kevin-cooper-2-california-application.html

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "A lengthy discussion between prosecutors, Duckett’s defense attorneys and the judge concluded with a decision to send the items to DNA Labs International. The family-owned private company frequently works with law enforcement in cold case investigations and efforts to put a name to unidentified human remains. It recently drew public attention after reports that Arizona sheriff’s officials sought the lab’s assistance in the kidnapping investigation of Nancy Guthrie, the mother of NBC news anchor Savannah Guthrie. The company has lab facilities in Utah and South Florida. The DNA evidence in Duckett’s case was delivered at the latter location March 13. The rushed effort has so far not been enough to secure Duckett a stay of execution. The testing isn’t expected to be complete until Friday, when he will be four days away from receiving a lethal injection."

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

STORY: "Clock is ticking for DNA results as ex-Florida cop faces execution," Justice Reporter Dan Sullivan, published by The Tampa Bay Times, on March 24, 2026. Dan Sullivan: "I got into this business because I like telling stories. The best stories, I think, are ones that touch on themes of justice and injustice, compassion and forgiveness, choices and consequences. You can find a lot of that in the local court and criminal justice system, which I write about for the Times.")

SUB-HEADING: "James Duckett hopes a long-sought forensic exam might halt his scheduled lethal injection next week."

PHOTO CAPTION: "James Duckett appears in a photo taken on death row at Union Correctional Institution. Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a death warrant ordering Duckett's execution for March 31. Duckett has for years maintained his innocence in the 1987 murder of 11-year-old Teresa McAbee. Last week, a judge granted a request to conduct DNA testing that his lawyers say will exonerate him."

GIST: All of what James Duckett hopes will spare him from being executed next week exists inside a test tube and at the ends of two cotton swabs.

The tube holds the only remaining genetic material left by the person who raped and murdered 11-year-old Teresa McAbee in 1987. DNA from one of her family members sits on the end of one of the swabs. The other holds DNA that was scraped from Duckett’s mouth earlier this month inside a death watch cell at Florida State Prison.

All three items are, at this moment, being scrutinized through advanced forensic testing at a private laboratory in Deerfield Beach.

The results could be Duckett’s last shot to prove his innocence. State prosecutors are confident the results will confirm what a jury almost 40 years ago decided: that Duckett, a former police officer, is the girl’s killer.

Duckett, 68, was one of two cops in the small town of Mascotte, west of Orlando, when he was accused in McAbee’s murder.

The girl left her home late the night of May 11, 1987, to buy a pencil to do her math homework. She walked the short distance to a nearby Circle K, where Duckett spotted her talking to a teen boy. He questioned the pair about being out after a curfew. The boy left with his uncle before Duckett placed the girl in his patrol car.

He later said he told her she shouldn’t be out late before letting her go. McAbee’s mother reported her missing later that night. A fisherman found her body the next morning in a lake less than a mile from the Circle K. She’d been raped, strangled and drowned.

Tire tracks near the scene were said to match Duckett’s patrol car. The girl’s fingerprints were found on the car’s hood.

Duckett has long maintained that he did not kill McAbee.  He first sought DNA testing more than two decades ago. Some items were tested and yielded no results. There remained a single slide that held biological material from McAbee's underwear.

But no testing of that slide was conducted due to concerns that  such efforts would destroy the evidence. The years since have seen vast improvements in DNA testing. As the Florida Supreme Court conducts a routine review of Duckett's case, it seems increasingly likely that his fate hinges on that science. 

Leigh Clark, the deputy director of forensic services for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, detailed the testing procedures in testimony during a series of court hearings this month.

The testing, she said, would produce four possible results: the DNA matches Duckett, the results are inconclusive, there are no results or the DNA matches someone else.

In the first three scenarios, Duckett likely would not live past March 31. The fourth could upend his death sentence and likely lead to further litigation.

At the direction of Lake County Circuit Judge Brian Welke, the department conducted initial testing on the slide. But the sample is so small that it is insufficient to obtain a full DNA profile, Clark said.

Clark cautioned any further testing would completely consume the remaining sample. However, the results would be available for comparison to another person in the event that they do not yield a match to Duckett.

Clark recommended a testing method that relies on SNPs — or single-nucleotide polymorphisms — which are small genetic variations in a DNA sequence. It’s a more advanced form of DNA testing that is commonly used in genealogical research. It can provide a more comprehensive look at a person’s genetic makeup than traditional testing.

It’s what Duckett’s defense preferred.

“The most reliable method is SNP,” his lead attorney, Mary Elizabeth Wells, said in a March 12 hearing. “And we have a man’s life on the line.”

The trouble is the state’s lab was unable to conduct SNP testing. It needed to work with a private lab to make it happen.

A series of court hearings two weeks ago saw disagreement and discussion over which of a handful of private forensic labs was best to conduct the testing.

Clark provided the names of four private labs. But she said she was unable to say which one might be best.

“To provide an analogy, you’re kind of asking me to recommend a restaurant in another state were I’ve never been and never intend to go,” Clark said. She added that the department was happy to preserve the sample, communicate with a lab designated by the court and ship it there.

A lengthy discussion between prosecutors, Duckett’s defense attorneys and the judge concluded with a decision to send the items to DNA Labs International.

The family-owned private company frequently works with law enforcement in cold case investigations and efforts to put a name to unidentified human remains. It recently drew public attention after reports that Arizona sheriff’s officials sought the lab’s assistance in the kidnapping investigation of Nancy Guthrie, the mother of NBC news anchor Savannah Guthrie.

The company has lab facilities in Utah and South Florida. The DNA evidence in Duckett’s case was delivered at the latter location March 13.

The rushed effort has so far not been enough to secure Duckett a stay of execution. The testing isn’t expected to be complete until Friday, when he will be four days away from receiving a lethal injection."

The entire story can be read at: 

https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2026/03/23/james-duckett-execution-dna-teresa-mcabee-murder-mascotte/

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;

March 25: Beleaguered 'rogue' Illinois crime lab: (UIC): Reporter Maya Dukmasova reports on 'Injustice Watch' the aftermath to an 'Injustice Watch' investigation which found last year that between 2016 and 2024, the lab’s analysts tested people’s body fluid samples for cannabinoids in more than 2,200 cases using discredited scientific approaches and faulty machinery, and the lab’s lead toxicologist had testified about test results in misleading ways - and that the lab mostly tested samples for DUI investigations by law enforcement agencies in 17 Illinois counties...The story is headed, "State forensic science commission blasts UIC over rogue crime lab," and sub-headed, "The Illinois Forensic Science Commission called on the university to conduct a proper audit of its lab, which has been responsible for nearly two dozen wrongful DUI convictions."

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Defense attorneys who have tried to bring attention to the lab’s malfeasance also welcomed the commission’s statement as a vindication. “It was nice that the commission called out UIC about what they were really trying to do: discourage litigation against them as opposed to provide an honest and independent evaluation,” said Donald Ramsell, who specializes in DUI defense and has been vocal about the problems with the UIC lab for years.

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Members of the commission’s quality systems subcommittee, which includes scientists from the state’s publicly funded crime labs and a retired Cook County judge, met five times over the course of six months to pore over UIC’s report line by line. They found it contained “insufficient factual or scientific support” for two key conclusions: That the lab’s methods conformed with scientific standards prior to 2019 and that analysts appropriately processed urine samples to test for the presence of delta-9 THC. Because UIC’s report was not authored by independent subject-matter experts, the commission “does not consider the UIC Report to be an authoritative document for criminal justice stakeholders to evaluate the competency or accuracy of forensic testing, reporting, and testifying performed by” the UIC lab."

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

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Fallout from the lab’s testing continues to play out in court. In January 2025, DuPage County State’s Attorney Robert Berlin exonerated 18 people and dropped one person’s pending DUI charges that stemmed from testing done by the lab. “With the validity of the test results called into question, I could not, legally, ethically and in good conscience, continue the prosecution of these select cases,” Berlin said in a statement at the time. The  number of people who may have been wrongfully convicted based on the UIC lab’s faulty work remains unknown. Neither the university nor prosecutors’ offices that relied on the lab’s evidence have notified potentially impacted individuals that questions have been raised about the validity of the lab’s testing results. Injustice Watch is aware of two active cases in which defendants in Lake and Will counties have been charged with the help of evidence provided by the lab." The revelations about the lab have also brought renewed attention to the case of William Bishop, who is serving a 31-year prison sentence for murder and aggravated DUI. The DUI charges stemmed from the lab’s analysis of his blood after he caused a fatal car crash in rural McHenry County in 2020. Prosecutors argued for murder charges on the theory that Bishop was over the legal limit for THC and that his use of marijuana brought on the psychotic delusions that caused him to collide with another vehicle. Multiple psychiatrists disagreed at trial, presenting evidence of Bishop’s bipolar disorder in support of his insanity defense. Still, a judge found Bishop guilty."

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

STORY: "State forensic science commission blasts UIC over rogue crime lab," by Maya Dukmasova, published by Injustice Watch, on March 19,  2026. 

SUB-HEADING: "The Illinois Forensic Science Commission called on the university to conduct a proper audit of its lab, which has been responsible for nearly two dozen wrongful DUI convictions.

GIST: "An investigation published by Injustice Watch last year found that between 2016 and 2024, the lab’s analysts tested people’s body fluid samples for cannabinoids in more than 2,200 cases using discredited scientific approaches and faulty machinery, and the lab’s lead toxicologist had testified about test results in misleading ways. The lab mostly tested samples for DUI investigations by law enforcement agencies in 17 Illinois counties.

More than a year after UIC shut down human testing at the lab, lawyers hired by the university issued a report in May 2025 downplaying the scale and implications of the crisis at the lab. The university’s report concluded that the lab’s methods were “at all times appropriate and met accepted scientific standards” and none of its analysts “knowingly provided false testimony in criminal proceedings.”

However, the commission said it found the university’s report “insufficient to address the allegations” about improper testing at the lab. 

“The content of the attorney-authored UIC Report suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of forensic toxicology principles, forensic laboratory quality systems, and the duties and responsibilities of an accredited forensic testing laboratory to its end users,” the commission’s report concluded.

Members of the commission’s quality systems subcommittee, which includes scientists from the state’s publicly funded crime labs and a retired Cook County judge, met five times over the course of six months to pore over UIC’s report line by line. They found it contained “insufficient factual or scientific support” for two key conclusions: That the lab’s methods conformed with scientific standards prior to 2019 and that analysts appropriately processed urine samples to test for the presence of delta-9 THC.

Because UIC’s report was not authored by independent subject-matter experts, the commission “does not consider the UIC Report to be an authoritative document for criminal justice stakeholders to evaluate the competency or accuracy of forensic testing, reporting, and testifying performed by” the UIC lab.

UIC’s lab was the only one in the country that quantified THC in urine for Illinois law enforcement — something that isn’t scientifically possible because THC itself does not show up in urine, and the THC metabolites that do are useless for establishing whether someone was high while driving. In 2021, the lab also discovered it could not distinguish between delta-9 and another, legal form of THC, but did nothing to fix its testing methods.

The commissioners called on the university to immediately conduct a “comprehensive audit” led by an independent organization staffed with scientific experts qualified to evaluate lab operations.

UIC declined to make anyone in a position of administrative authority over the laboratory available for an interview about the commission’s statement. In a written statement, UIC’s senior associate director of university communications, Brian Flood, told Injustice Watch the university “remains committed to upholding the highest standards of laboratory research integrity and compliance. The Illinois Forensic Science Commission’s statement and recommendations reflect its views and analysis. We are carefully reviewing its assessment.”

Fallout from the lab’s testing continues to play out in court

In January 2025, DuPage County State’s Attorney Robert Berlin exonerated 18 people and dropped one person’s pending DUI charges that stemmed from testing done by the lab. “With the validity of the test results called into question, I could not, legally, ethically and in good conscience, continue the prosecution of these select cases,” Berlin said in a statement at the time.

The number of people who may have been wrongfully convicted based on the UIC lab’s faulty work remains unknown. Neither the university nor prosecutors’ offices that relied on the lab’s evidence have notified potentially impacted individuals that questions have been raised about the validity of the lab’s testing results. Injustice Watch is aware of two active cases in which defendants in Lake and Will counties have been charged with the help of evidence provided by the lab.

The revelations about the lab have also brought renewed attention to the case of William Bishop, who is serving a 31-year prison sentence for murder and aggravated DUI. The DUI charges stemmed from the lab’s analysis of his blood after he caused a fatal car crash in rural McHenry County in 2020. Prosecutors argued for murder charges on the theory that Bishop was over the legal limit for THC and that his use of marijuana brought on the psychotic delusions that caused him to collide with another vehicle. Multiple psychiatrists disagreed at trial, presenting evidence of Bishop’s bipolar disorder in support of his insanity defense. Still, a judge found Bishop guilty.

Defense attorneys who have tried to bring attention to the lab’s malfeasance also welcomed the commission’s statement as a vindication. “It was nice that the commission called out UIC about what they were really trying to do: discourage litigation against them as opposed to provide an honest and independent evaluation,” said Donald Ramsell, who specializes in DUI defense and has been vocal about the problems with the UIC lab for years.

However, the commission’s recommendations carry no legal weight. The body was designed by statute to be merely advisory. Unlike similar commissions in other states, most notably Texas, the Illinois Forensic Science Commission has no authority to investigate labs, receive public complaints, or suspend analysts’ credentials.

Though the commission did not name anyone responsible for the problems at the UIC lab, its statement did indirectly reference Jennifer Bash, the lead toxicologist and quality manager at the lab, who was found by an accreditation agency to have given “inaccurate and unqualified testimony” about the meaning of lab results in at least one case.

The commission noted that other cases in which Bash may have testified in problematic ways remain unaccounted for because UIC reported it could not compile such information. An Injustice Watch public records request to UIC, however, revealed that Bash kept a log of cases in which she testified, which listed 41 cases between 2017 and 2024.

Bash, who now works as an independent scientific consultant, did not respond to a request for comment. The American Board of Forensic Toxicology confirmed its audit of her certification is ongoing. The lab’s former director, A. Karl Larsen, who is now an adjunct instructor in forensic science at Loyola University Chicago, declined to comment through his attorney.:

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.injusticewatch.org/project/forensic-failures/2026/forensic-science-commission-criticizes-uic-lab/

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;

March 24: Rodney Reed: Death Row; Texas: Terrible news: As Ann E. Marimow reports in The New York Times, the Supreme Court on Monday turned aside the long-running appeal from this a death row inmate in Texas who has been seeking to obtain DNA testing that he said could help prove his innocence. noting that: "The three liberal justices dissented, saying the court’s refusal to hear Mr. Reed’s request means Texas is likely to execute him without ever knowing whether his DNA is on the murder weapon, “even though a simple DNA test could reveal that information.”

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  "WORDS TO HEED: FROM OUR POST ON KEVIN COOPER'S  APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING; CALIFORNIA: (Applicable wherever a state resists DNA testing): "Blogger/extraordinaire Jeff Gamso's blunt, unequivocal, unforgettable message to the powers that be in California: "JUST TEST THE FUCKING DNA." (Oh yes, Gamso raises, as he does in many of his posts, an important philosophical question: This post is headed: "What is truth, said jesting Pilate."...Says Gamso: "So what's the harm? What, exactly, are they scared of? Don't we want the truth?") 

https://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2018/06/kevin-cooper-2-california-application.html

—————————————--

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Jane Pucher, a lawyer for Mr. Reed, called the outcome at the Supreme Court “disheartening.” “Given everything we now know,” Ms. Pucher said in a statement, “it is inexplicable why Texas would not want to test the murder weapon and confirm the truth.” Mr. Reed’s legal team said it will “continue to pursue avenues to obtain relief.”

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In their six-page dissent on Monday, the liberal justices called it “inexplicable” that the Bastrop County District Attorney’s Office had refused to allow DNA testing of the belt that was used to kill Ms. Stites “despite the very substantial possibility that such testing could exculpate Reed and identify the real killer.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, also criticized the Fifth Circuit for not more carefully considering Mr. Reed’s claim that the state’s DNA-testing law is unconstitutional because it does not provide defendants like Mr. Reed with a fair or due process. Mr. Reed had argued that it was unfair to penalize prisoners for any contamination of evidence when the state controls its storage."

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

STORY: "Supreme Court rejects appeal from death row inmate seeking DNA testing, by Reporter Ann E, Marimow, published by The New York Times, on March 23, 2026. (Ann E.  Marimow cover the Supreme Court from Washington,  for The New York Times..."In writing about the court, I try to make complex cases accessible to readers and to illuminate the work of the justices on and off the bench. The Supreme Court operates primarily behind closed doors, and I aim to give readers a deeper understanding of how and why certain cases reach the court and to bring them inside the insular world of such a powerful government institution."

SUB-HEADING: "Rodney Reed's quest over the last decade to obtain DNA testing to try to prove his innocence has attracted wide attention.:

The Supreme Court on Monday turned aside a long-running appeal from Rodney Reed, a death row inmate in Texas who has been seeking to obtain DNA testing that he said could help prove his innocence.

The three liberal justices dissented, saying the court’s refusal to hear Mr. Reed’s request means Texas is likely to execute him without ever knowing whether his DNA is on the murder weapon, “even though a simple DNA test could reveal that information.”

The majority did not explain its reasons for rejecting Mr. Reed’s appeal, as is typical when the court issues routine orders in pending cases.

Mr. Reed was convicted of the 1996 rape and murder of Stacey Stites, who was strangled with her own belt in Bastrop County, Texas. DNA collected from Ms. Stites’s body matched that of Mr. Reed.

Mr. Reed, who is Black, initially denied knowing Ms. Stites, who was white, but later said they had been romantically involved. He said another man, perhaps Ms. Stites’s fiancé, had committed the murder.

The jury rejected Mr. Reed’s defense, and he was sentenced to death.

His case, which was previously before the Supreme Court in 2023, has drawn intense interest from lawmakers and celebrities, including Kim Kardashian and Rihanna. A Texas appeals court halted his execution in 2019, returning the case to a state trial court.

Mr. Reed sought to test some 40 items of evidence, including the belt, but a state judge denied the request, saying that the chain of custody had not been reliable and that Mr. Reed could not show that he would have been acquitted even if the DNA results turned out to be favorable. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state’s highest court for criminal matters, affirmed the ruling and later denied rehearing.

Mr. Reed then sued in federal court, but a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that his request was barred by a two-year statute of limitations. The panel said that Mr. Reed should have sued within two years after the state trial judge ruled against his request for testing.

But in 2023, the Supreme Court sided with Mr. Reed, clearing the way for him to bring a claim seeking DNA testing in the lower courts. That decision was merely about the timing of his request.

In their six-page dissent on Monday, the liberal justices called it “inexplicable” that the Bastrop County District Attorney’s Office had refused to allow DNA testing of the belt that was used to kill Ms. Stites “despite the very substantial possibility that such testing could exculpate Reed and identify the real killer.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, also criticized the Fifth Circuit for not more carefully considering Mr. Reed’s claim that the state’s DNA-testing law is unconstitutional because it does not provide defendants like Mr. Reed with a fair or due process. Mr. Reed had argued that it was unfair to penalize prisoners for any contamination of evidence when the state controls its storage.

Jane Pucher, a lawyer for Mr. Reed, called the outcome at the Supreme Court “disheartening.”

“Given everything we now know,” Ms. Pucher said in a statement, “it is inexplicable why Texas would not want to test the murder weapon and confirm the truth.” Mr. Reed’s legal team said it will “continue to pursue avenues to obtain relief.”

The Texas attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment."

The entire story can be read at: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/23/us/politics/supreme-court-death-row-appeal.html

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;

March 24: Parental Alienation: Melanie Gill UK: "Expert witness under fire in the UK's family courts, Family Court Reporter Hannah Summers reports for The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, in a story headed, 'A scandal far bigger that one woman,' and sub-headed, "what the landmark ruling on unregulated experts means for family courts, noting that: "Gill, a former music promoter turned expert witness, claims to have given evidence in up to 200 family court cases. There is no way of verifying that figure because the courts don’t keep the right records. One thing is certain though – Gill’s days of advising family judges are over."

PASSAGE ONE  OF THE DAY: "Meanwhile, Gill maintains she is the target of a witch hunt orchestrated by aggrieved mothers, feminist campaigners, journalists and psychologists. But this is a scandal far bigger than one woman. The real issue is about the influence of those who advise our judges in a system without proper checks and balances. Gill just happens to be one of the more egregious examples. How could our family justice system allow someone like Gill unfettered access to and power over the lives of hundreds of vulnerable children? Gill once said under oath that she had been challenged and questioned about her qualifications in every single private law case she’d undertaken – but that she had never been criticised.If that’s true, then it is a damning reflection of our family justice system."

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

GIST: "It is vanishingly rare for children to attend the family court hearings where life-changing decisions are made about their futures. So it was striking to see 15-year-old Dylan* appear at the Royal Courts of Justice in January, where his legal team described the devastating impact an “expert” witness had on his life.

It had been six years since Dylan and his older sister were separated from their mother, Erin*, after a ruling based on the evidence of Melanie Gill, an unregulated psychologist. In a landmark judgment handed down last month, the most senior family court judge in England and Wales ruled that decision had been “fundamentally flawed”.

Years earlier Erin had alleged that the children’s father had abused and raped her – allegations the court declined to investigate. Instead, her ex was granted sole custody of the kids.

Dylan was nine when he was taken along with his sister, just days before Christmas 2019 and without the chance to say goodbye; their gifts left unopened under the tree.

He says his childhood was stolen by Gill. And he is not the only one.

Gill, a former music promoter turned expert witness, claims to have given evidence in up to 200 family court cases. There is no way of verifying that figure because the courts don’t keep the right records. One thing is certain though – Gill’s days of advising family judges are over.

Sir Andrew McFarlane’s judgment (Re Y: Experts and Alienating behaviour: The Modern Approach) delivers on two important fronts. First, the president of the family division issues “firm guidance” saying the family courts should not use unregulated psychologists.

Second, he throws his support behind the creation of a faster, more affordable legal route for other parents, like Erin, who believe they have suffered a miscarriage of justice.

It followed proposals put forward by Dylan’s own legal team at the hearing. After years of having his wishes and feelings dismissed – his voice silenced by the very professionals tasked with protecting him – this was Dylan’s moment; his chance to be heard.

He is “very clear that he is not the only child caught in this situation”, his barrister said. Other children could well have had their lives ruined by so-called experts like Gill.

McFarlane’s commitment to finding a more efficient way of bringing those cases back to court will provide much needed hope for parents who have lost their children following flawed expert evidence.

But there is one conspicuous omission in McFarlane’s judgment. There’s no explicit acknowledgment of the human cost and suffering endured by Erin and her children – suffering that came about not only because of Gill but, as we now know, due to every agency involved in the original case.

Not only did Erin lose her children, she was effectively stripped of all parental responsibility. During their years of separation, not even one photo of her kids was shared with her.

You’d be forgiven for presuming she must have done something truly terrible to her children.

But the first court’s findings were not about what Erin had done. The evidence Gill gave, and which the court adopted as its own findings, was based on psychological profiling.

Gill refused to accept that Erin could have experienced any trauma from the alleged abuse. Instead, she found, Erin was traumatised from her childhood and as a result was alienating her children from their father.

There’s a stark irony in how the court decided to “fix” that alienation. The children were instead denied any contact with their mother, alienated in every sense from the woman who’d been their primary carer up to that point.

McFarlane’s judgment points out that Erin did the right thing at every stage to challenge Gill’s evidence. Yet at each step she was thwarted. Not everyone would have the fortitude to keep fighting.

Indeed, McFarlane makes reference to Erin’s “tenacious quest” to get her children back. But there is no acknowledgment of the impact of the brutal separation, or the toll of that broken bond that left two children without a mother for five years.

Erin did the right thing at every stage to challenge Gill’s evidence. Yet at each step she was thwarted.

The children were also forced into therapy with an associate of Gill’s. During those sessions they were fed Gill’s narrative: your mother is the abuser.

In his 40-page ruling McFarlane said Gill should never have been instructed by the courts. For the president, who retires at the end of this month, this was a matter of unfinished business. Three years ago he had overseen the appeal of another mother who had had her children removed after Gill’s evidence.

In that judgment, Re C, McFarlane described Gill’s CV as “diffuse” and “confusing”, but he said it was not fair to determine her fitness to practice in the context of the appeal. It wasn’t possible to say Gill should never have been appointed, he said, because anyone can call themselves a psychologist and regulation isn’t compulsory.

Now, three years on, he’s “sufficiently concerned” to go further, issuing firm guidance on unregulated experts – even though Gill’s qualifications have not changed.

However, the crux of Erin’s successful legal bid, and a similar case involving another mother last year, didn’t rest on the fact Gill wasn’t registered with a regulator. Instead, it was the lower court’s error in effectively allowing Gill – rather than the judge – to decide that there had been parental alienation. Crucially, courts have relied on many regulated experts in exactly the same way, in cases that have also led to children being removed from their parents.

We still don’t know how this ruling could affect other parents who lost their children to the courts in similar circumstances. For Erin at least there is vindication. But it is a hollow victory.

She will never get back the lost time with her children. It’s not surprising she’s still demanding accountability.

Meanwhile, Gill maintains she is the target of a witch hunt orchestrated by aggrieved mothers, feminist campaigners, journalists and psychologists.

But this is a scandal far bigger than one woman. The real issue is about the influence of those who advise our judges in a system without proper checks and balances. Gill just happens to be one of the more egregious examples.

How could our family justice system allow someone like Gill unfettered access to and power over the lives of hundreds of vulnerable children?

Gill once said under oath that she had been challenged and questioned about her qualifications in every single private law case she’d undertaken – but that she had never been criticised.

If that’s true, then it is a damning reflection of our family justice system.""

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2026-03-13/a-scandal-far-bigger-than-one-woman

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;