Thursday, June 13, 2024

Allan Woodhouse; Brian Anderson: Manitoba: A dark moment in Canadian Justice: The City of Winnipeg and Canada's federal government are both denying liability in lawsuits filed by these First Nation's men who were wrongly convicted of a slaying five decades ago, The Winnipeg Free Press (Reporter EriK Pandora) reports…"Allan Woodhouse (left) and Brian Anderson were exonerated by Court of King’s Bench Chief Justice Glenn Joyal, almost 50 years to the day after being charged with the 1973 killing of Ting Fong Chan. The federal justice minister at the time, David Lametti, had ordered a new trial one month earlier. The judge said the Winnipeg police investigation, provincial Crown prosecution and verdict were dominated by individual and systemic racism."


BACKGROUND: (From a previous post: Columnist Dan Lett, in The Winnipeg Free Press): "Advocates for Anderson and Woodhouse had worked for nearly eight years to get to this point. Their convictions were only overturned by federal Justice Minister David Lametti on June 22. And the decision by Court of King’s Bench Chief Justice Glenn Joyal to schedule a hearing less than a month later on whether to hold a new trial was nothing short of miraculous. But there they were, standing in a court of law, a half-century after Winnipeg police arrested Anderson, Woodhouse and two other Indigenous men for the 1973 murder of Ting Fong Chan, a chef at a downtown restaurant. The charges were read out, the Crown prosecutor in attendance declined to call evidence and Joyal punctuated the day by acquitting both men and declaring them completely innocent. Joyal’s decision was both just and justified. The case against Anderson and Woodhouse was solely based on clearly false and coerced confessions elicited by police detectives with a reputation for using violence and intimidation. The accused spoke very little English and yet had somehow provided Winnipeg police with fulsome, grammatically correct admissions of their guilt. The acquittals and declaration of innocence were very nearly a perfect ending to this story. Except for one glaring fact: this should have happened 15 years earlier."

https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/8652969675222087635

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Anderson and Woodhouse claim Winnipeg police officers and George Dangerfield, the provincial Crown attorney who prosecuted the case, colluded to give false evidence during the trial. Four murder cases prosecuted by Dangerfield were later struck down as wrongful convictions."

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

STORY; 'City, Ottawa deny liability in lawsuits filed by wrongfully convicted First Nations men in 1973 slaying,' by Reporter Erik Pindera, published by the Winnipeg Free Press, on May 31, 2024. (Erik Pindera is a reporter for the Free Press, mostly focusing on crime and justice.)

GIST: "The City of Winnipeg and the federal attorney general are asking a Manitoba court to turf lawsuits filed by two First Nations men who were wrongfully convicted of a slaying five decades ago.

The two defendants deny legal liability for the miscarriages of justice.

Allan Woodhouse, 68, and Brian Anderson, 69, members of Pinaymootang First Nation in the Interlake, were formally acquitted in Court of King’s Bench last July on murder charges in the fatal 1973 stabbing of Ting Fong Chan, after Crown prosecutors presented no evidence.

Allan Woodhouse (left) and Brian Anderson were exonerated by Court of King’s Bench Chief Justice Glenn Joyal, almost 50 years to the day after being charged with the 1973 killing of Ting Fong Chan.


The federal justice minister at the time, David Lametti, had ordered a new trial one month earlier.

The judge said the Winnipeg police investigation, provincial Crown prosecution and verdict were dominated by individual and systemic racism.

Woodhouse and Anderson, who have the same lawyers, including James Lockyer of Innocence Canada, filed separate lawsuits in Court of King’s Bench against Ottawa, the province and the city in April.

In separate statements of defence filed last month, the city and the federal attorney general argue the claims against them should be dismissed, denying that they can be held legally responsible.

The city’s court filings argue the allegations of wrongdoing against Winnipeg police officers were from a time when the legislation governing police did not allow a municipality to be held liable in a civil court for an officer’s wrongful or rights-infringing acts.

The current provincial Police Services Act, enacted in 2009, does allow a municipality to be held liable.

“The City of Winnipeg pleads and relies on such defences and limitations as may have operated at law to the benefit and protection of the police officers at the relevant time,” read the May 9 city statements of defence.

The city also argues the arrest and questioning of Woodhouse and Anderson were reasonable steps in the context of the investigation.

Anderson and Woodhouse claim Winnipeg police officers and George Dangerfield, the provincial Crown attorney who prosecuted the case, colluded to give false evidence during the trial.

Four murder cases prosecuted by Dangerfield were later struck down as wrongful convictions.

The city denied any allegations of a conspiracy and misfeasance of public office in its court papers, among other denials.

It also says the men could take legal action only on any alleged violations of their rights under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which it denies and says would fall on the province, if violations occurred after the charter was entrenched in 1982.

Broadly, the City of Winnipeg says the legal actions against it are barred by the applicable legal limitations from the time of the investigation and should be dismissed with costs.

The city also filed cross-claims against the Manitoba government, seeking indemnity, or an exemption from liability for damages, for any cash the court awards to Woodhouse and Anderson.

“To the extent that the plaintiff has suffered actionable losses… such losses arise wholly and directly, or in the alternative primarily, from the conduct of the prosecution of the plaintiff,” read the city’s claims.

The federal attorney general’s court filings say the Canadian government played no role in the city police investigation of Chan’s slaying or in the provincial prosecutions of the two wrongfully convicted men.

“There was not any action or inaction, breach of duty or breach of a Charter right of the plaintiff, by a servant of Canada for which Canada is vicariously liable,” reads the Department of Justice’s May 23 statements of defence.

Anderson and Woodhouse alleged the federal government failed to ensure they were treated fairly as First Nations men in the justice system and to protect their charter rights.

The federal government says none of its agents breached the men’s charter rights, nor did it have any duty to ensure their rights weren’t breached by others.

The attorney general says it “did not breach any statutory, common law or constitutional duties” to the men and therefore does not owe them damages.

The federal government asked for the court to dismiss the claims against it."

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/2024/05/31/city-ottawa-deny-liability-in-lawsuits-filed-by-wrongfully-convicted-first-nations-men-in-1973-slaying


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;

————————————————————————————


YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:


David Hammond, one of Broadwater's attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, "Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it's the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.


https://deadline.com/2021/11/alice-sebold-lucky-rape-conviction-overturned-anthony-broadwater-12348801


———————---------------------

Wednesday, June 12, 2024

Scott Watson: New Zealand: False identification? Appeal of murder convictions relating to Ben Smart and Olivia Hope in 1998 who haven’t been seen since getting out of the water taxi and on to a yacht moored in Endeavour Inlet in the early hours of New Year’s Day, 1998. (Their bodies and possessions have never been found.) The story is headed, "Scott Watson: Lawyers ask for appeal to be allowed but no retrial ordered," and focuses on the police tactics used to identify Scott Watson as the killer…"Chisnall said despite the critical nature of Wallace’s identification, some 25 years ago, this was the first time the court has been asked to “square up to the manifold defects in the procedures adopted by police to secure the evidence.' Police showing Wallace a photo of Watson in early January - which neither Watson’s trial lawyers or the jury were allegedly told about - only reinforced why Wallace’s identification was inadmissible, he said. “Police concertedly and repeatedly used suggestive practices ... to secure Mr Wallace’s identification of Watson” he told the court today. “The evidence unequivocally proves that police showed a single photo of Mr Watson to Mr Wallace in the investigation in January 1998. And given that a single photo was shown to other key witnesses, this was plainly an investigative strategy, rather than a misstep by an overzealous officer failing to follow instructions,” he said."


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: This Blog is interested in  false eye-witness identification issues because  wrongful identifications are at the heart of so many DNA-related exonerations in the USA and elsewhere - and because so much scientific research is being conducted with a goal to making the identification process more   transparent and reliable- and less subject to deliberate manipulation.  I have also reported far too many cases over the years - mainly cases lacking DNA evidence (or other forensic evidence pointing to the suspect - where the identification is erroneous - in spite of witness’s certainty that it is true - or where  the police pressure the witness, or rig the identification process in order to make a desired  identification inevitable. 

Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.

—————————————————————————————————

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Then, three-and-a-half months later the police showed Watson in a photo montage, known as montage B. Chisnall said the photo police used of Watson half-blinking made him stand out and was shown to Wallace after there had been “media saturation” of Watson’s image. Yet he suggested that without Wallace identifying Watson in montage B, there was no identification at all and Wallace’s evidence would have lost its “vigour”."

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

STORY: "Scott Watson: Lawyers ask for appeal to be allowed but no retrial ordered," by Open Justice Reporter Catherine Hutton, published by The New Zealand Herald, on June 12, 2024. (Catherine Hutton is an Open Justice reporter, based in Wellington. She has worked as a journalist for 20 years, including at the Waikato Times and RNZ. Most recently she was working as a media advisor at the Ministry of Justice.)

GIST: Double murderer Scott Watson’s lawyer has slammed the police tactics used to identify his client as the killer of Blenheim friends, Ben Smart and Olivia Hope in 1998.

Nick Chisnall, KC told the Court of Appeal it was clear that police exerted significant “interrogative and moral pressure” to get the key witness - water taxi driver Guy Wallace - to change his story.

Smart, 21, and Hope 17, haven’t been seen since getting out of the water taxi and on to a yacht moored in Endeavour Inlet in the early hours of New Year’s Day, 1998. Their bodies and possessions have never been found.

Chisnall said despite the critical nature of Wallace’s identification, some 25 years ago, this was the first time the court has been asked to “square up to the manifold defects in the procedures adopted by police to secure the evidence”.

Police showing Wallace a photo of Watson in early January - which neither Watson’s trial lawyers or the jury were allegedly told about - only reinforced why Wallace’s identification was inadmissible, he said.

“Police concertedly and repeatedly used suggestive practices ... to secure Mr Wallace’s identification of Watson” he told the court today.

“The evidence unequivocally proves that police showed a single photo of Mr Watson to Mr Wallace in the investigation in January 1998. And given that a single photo was shown to other key witnesses, this was plainly an investigative strategy, rather than a misstep by an overzealous officer failing to follow instructions”, he said.Fuel growth by delivering value

Then, three-and-a-half months later the police showed Watson in a photo montage, known as montage B.

Chisnall said the photo police used of Watson half-blinking made him stand out and was shown to Wallace after there had been “media saturation” of Watson’s image.

Yet he suggested that without Wallace identifying Watson in montage B, there was no identification at all and Wallace’s evidence would have lost its “vigour”.

Chisnall told the court Watson’s team were asking the court to allow the appeal, but in doing so not to order a retrial.

‘Overstated evidence’

Earlier in the day Watson’s other lawyer Kerry Cook questioned DNA expert Professor Mitchell Holland from the University of Pennsylvania, who gave evidence by audiovisual link.

The defence says the DNA evidence used to convict Wallace was overstated at trial. They argue the absence of a New Zealand DNA database means the methods used at trial to compare Hope’s DNA, taken from hairs on a blanket found on Watson’s boat Blade, with one from an overseas database, means that it can’t be relied upon.

Cook asked Mitchell if the fact the DNA database didn’t represent the New Zealand population and the limitations of that should have been put to the jury.

“To be confident of the match probability and the match numbers that you’ve given, would the fact-finder (jury) be required to assume that mitochondrial DNA (which is inherited from the mother) are equally distributed in New Zealand ... and other geographic locations that have been used in the databases.”

“I think the term equal distribution is a term that’s somewhat absolute,” Mitchell said, adding it could end up inflating the rarity of the DNA. But he said he would be more concerned if the DNA sample came from someone in an isolated population group, rather than from someone in the general population.

Asked later what he meant by isolated population group, Mitchell said he was referring to a group that didn’t move or mate outside its group - citing the example of the Armish people in the United States.


Mitchell also told the court that mitochondrial DNA - which was used to link one of Olivia’s hairs on the blanket - provided strong circumstantial evidence, but it wasn’t a positive form of identification.

And he agreed with Cook that a suggestion by the Crown prosecutor at the trial that the scientific process led to the conclusion that the hairs were Hope’s was an “embellishment”.


Watson was convicted of double murder in September 1999 and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum period of 17 years in jail. He has now spent 26 years behind bars, protesting his innocence.

The latest appeal is the result of a royal prerogative of mercy, applied for in 2017 and granted in 2020. The grounds for the appeal are two-fold:

  • The reliability of DNA evidence, specifically hairs that were thought to belong to Hope and were recovered from Watson’s boat.
  • Mistakes by the police in using a photo montage as a means of identifying Watson. The montage contained a new photo that showed Watson caught halfway through a blink. This gave the appearance of hooded eyes, a characteristic of the mystery man’s description.

Watson is not attending the Court of Appeal hearing, which is before Justices Christine French, Patricia Courtney and Susan Thomas.

Tomorrow Watson’s team will continue making their submissions to the court, before the Crown makes its case."

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/scott-watson-appeal-defence-says-hair-evidence-wasnt-reliable-for-conviction/V7M35TXS5BFGZBK6NKPYYRZLXU/

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;

————————————————————————————


YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:


David Hammond, one of Broadwater's attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, "Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it's the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.


https://deadline.com/2021/11/alice-sebold-lucky-rape-conviction-overturned-anthony-broadwater-12348801


———————---------------------

Inspector Joyce Schertzer: Toronto Police: Discipline hearing: No breathalyzer test? Did she interfere with a police investigation following a single-car collision involving her nephew? the Toronto Star story by Crime Reporter Wendy Gillis is headed: "I was there as Aunt Joyce."…As Reporter Gillis puts the question: "A senior officer acting as a caring aunt under “upsetting” circumstances, or a cop who “drove headlong” into an obvious conflict of interest?"…"It’s undisputed that Schertzer, who was then in charge of the west-end 11 division, asked a subordinate at her division to send a police car to her nephew Calvin’s collision — which happened outside her detachment’s jurisdiction — then rushed to the collision herself, becoming the first officer on scene. A constable from 11 division then arrived, briefly questioned Calvin, deemed the accident non-criminal and sent him home within 10 minutes, a decision the tribunal heard resulted in Traffic Services officers losing their chance to administer a breathalyzer test."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY:  "Schertzer, who took the stand in her own defence, echoed her earlier claim to internal police investigators that she would have arrested Calvin herself if she suspected he’d been drinking. And she strenuously denied that she’d interfered in the police investigation in her capacity as a senior officer. “I was there as Aunt Joyce. I was there as Calvin’s family member,” she testified, saying she wanted to be an advocate for her nephew in a “wellness capacity” in part because of his communication challenges.   Calling her love for her family commendable, police prosecutor Scott Hutchison nonetheless said it was precisely what drew Schertzer into an obvious conflict of interest — one she “drove headlong into.” “Her affection for her family is why she shouldn’t have been there,” Hutchison said.

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

STORY: "‘I was there as Aunt Joyce’: In closing submissions tribunal hears competing narratives about officer’s involvement in nephew’s collision," by Crime Reporter Wendy Gillis, published by The Toronto Star, on June 11, 2024. (Reporter Wendy Gillis joined the Toronto Star staff in 2010 and has since been nominated multiple times for National Newspaper Awards. She previously worked for the StarPhoenix in Saskatoon, her hometown.)

SUB-HEADING: ".A former homicide investigator who is now an inspector at the Toronto Police Operations Centre, Schertzer has pleaded not guilty to three counts of misconduct under Ontario’s police legislation stemming from a May 1, 2022 single-vehicle collision involving her nephew."

A senior officer acting as a caring aunt under “upsetting” circumstances, or a cop who “drove headlong” into an obvious conflict of interest?

Competing narratives about a high-ranking officer’s involvement in her nephew’s 2022 collision were put forward Tuesday, as prosecution and defence lawyers made final submissions in the high-profile misconduct hearing of Toronto police Insp. Joyce Schertzer.

A former homicide investigator who is now an inspector at the Toronto Police Operations Centre, Schertzer has pleaded not guilty to three counts of misconduct under Ontario’s police legislation stemming from a May 1, 2022 single-vehicle collision involving her nephew. If found guilty, she faces a penalty ranging from a reprimand to a demotion or dismissal.

Schertzer’s nephew was pulling out of licensed recreation facility The Boulevard Club at 11:20 a.m. when he crashed into a light standard on the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard West. Surveillance video shows he’d been waved through to turn left by a private security guard — directing traffic because a marathon was on that day — but had to accelerate to avoid a collision with another car, before losing control of his white pick-up truck.

It’s undisputed that Schertzer, who was then in charge of the west-end 11 division, asked a subordinate at her division to send a police car to her nephew Calvin’s collision — which happened outside her detachment’s jurisdiction — then rushed to the collision herself, becoming the first officer on scene. A constable from 11 division then arrived, briefly questioned Calvin, deemed the accident non-criminal and sent him home within 10 minutes, a decision the tribunal heard resulted in Traffic Services officers losing their chance to administer a breathalyzer test.


The tribunal has heard competing evidence about Calvin’s sobriety. One traffic officer testified that when Calvin later returned to the scene there was a smell of alcohol on his breath. Const. Braden Doherty, the 11 division officer initially on scene, said he did not believe Calvin had been drinking, a view also held by a paramedic who said he did not detect any impairment. 

At issue at the tribunal is Schertzer’s motivation. In her closing arguments, Joanne Mulcahy, Schertzer’s lawyer, characterized her client as an officer who got an “upsetting” call about a vulnerable relative and responded as a caring family member. She sprung into action because both her nephew’s parents and his sister were out of town. 

“Police are humans. They are not robots,” Mulcahy said, stressing that her client had done “the best that she could” to put herself at a remove from the probe, including by standing back and away from the 11 division officer during his investigation, being transparent that the call involved her nephew, and taking memo notes about the incident.

Schertzer was also the one who pointed out the light standard was damaged as a result of the crash, necessitating the involvement of Traffic Services because there was damage to city property, Mulcahy said.

Schertzer, who took the stand in her own defence, echoed her earlier claim to internal police investigators that she would have arrested Calvin herself if she suspected he’d been drinking. And she strenuously denied that she’d interfered in the police investigation in her capacity as a senior officer.

“I was there as Aunt Joyce. I was there as Calvin’s family member,” she testified, saying she wanted to be an advocate for her nephew in a “wellness capacity” in part because of his communication challenges.  

Calling her love for her family commendable, police prosecutor Scott Hutchison nonetheless said it was precisely what drew Schertzer into an obvious conflict of interest — one she “drove headlong into.”

“Her affection for her family is why she shouldn’t have been there,” Hutchison said.

She did nothing to disabuse the other officers involved, who saw the conflict “immediately,” that she was not there in her official capacity, he said. Schertzer’s presence at the scene while her subordinate, Doherty, went on to conduct “the gentlest traffic investigation you’ll ever see” had to have influenced his probe, and the subsequent decision to let Calvin leave the scene, Hutchison said. 

“It’s that decision that turns out to have the various cascading effects that make it impossible” to investigate whether alcohol was or was not a factor, he said.

Earlier Tuesday, Hutchison’s cross-examination of Schertzer occasionally got testy, at one point prompting a brief recess when Schertzer became overcome with emotion. 

“I’m going to suggest to you that what happened here is you got this phone call. You didn’t know what you were going into, and you wanted to control the situation by having it investigated by a friendly 11 division officer. Correct or incorrect?”

“Incorrect,” Schertzer answered. 

Hutchison later pressed Schertzer on whether she believed what she did that day had, in the least, an appearance of a conflict. 

“Your position is that there is no apparent conflict of interest for you attending and to advocate on behalf of Calvin at the scene of this collision?” he asked.

“That’s my position,” she replied.

The tribunal hearing officer, retired OPP Supt. Lisa Taylor, said she would return her decision at an appearance August 7.

“Clearly this is a very serious matter and I will very carefully weigh the evidence,” she said."

The entire story can be read at: 

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/i-was-there-as-aunt-joyce-in-closing-submissions-tribunal-hears-competing-narratives-about-officers/article_0697d2cc-2818-11ef-8dbf-173b14017aff.html?source=newsletter&utm_content=a01&utm_source=ts_sa&utm_medium=email&utm_email=B06CE11218FAE36A81180C431CF6E0DA&utm_campaign=police_215042

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;

————————————————————————————


YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:


David Hammond, one of Broadwater's attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, "Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it's the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.


https://deadline.com/2021/11/alice-sebold-lucky-rape-conviction-overturned-anthony-broadwater-12348801


———————---------------------