The Menendez Brothers: (Erik and Lyle): An interesting perspective provided by KGTV (Max Goldwasser) in his interview with Dr. Ann Burgess, the psychiatric nurse and forensic expert who testified on the brothers' behalf after interviewing them for more than 50 hours inside the LA County Jail in the 90s, and telling ABC 10News that she always believed their story of sexual abuse…"Usually in a case like this, where it's a domestic, it's gotta be issues in the family," Dr. Burgess said. "I said something is really wrong in that family." At the time, she pushed for a manslaughter charge. The jury couldn't reach a verdict, leading to a second trial in which the issue of abuse wasn't allowed. Erik and Lyle Menendez were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the 1989 murder of their parents. All these years, Dr. Burgess never felt that was fair. "I've always felt, in many cases, you know, even in the worst of worst cases, serial killers or whatever, to give them a chance at parole is important," Dr. Burgess said. "They necessarily won't get it, and most of them never do, but it doesn't take away hope. I think when we take away hope that that's, that's unfair." The Menendez brothers' haven't had hope for the last 35 years behind bars. However, that changed Tuesday when Judge Michael Jesic decided to resentence them to 50 years to life, with the possibility of parole."

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Dr. Burgess was pleasantly surprised. "Did you ever think you'd be having a conversation about the brothers being resentenced?" ABC 10News asked. "No, no, I didn't because I thought it would seem so unlikely," she replied. "I certainly never thought that they would ever have a chance. But, as I listened to it, I think it's very fair. Very fair what they have done with this."

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

STORY: "'Very fair': Expert witness in Menendez brothers' first trial reacts to resentencing," by 10 news weekend anchor Max Goldwasser, published by KGTV, on May 14, 2025.

SUB-HEADING: "'Very fair': Expert witness in Menendez brothers' first trial reacts to resentencing."

GIST: "The groundbreaking decision to resentence the Menendez brothers to 50 years to life, with the possibility of parole, was one an expert witness in their first trial never saw coming.

ABC 10News has introduced you to Dr. Ann Burgess several times before. She's the psychiatric nurse and forensic expert who testified on the brothers' behalf.

She interviewed them for more than 50 hours inside the LA County Jail in the 90s, and told ABC 10News she always believed their story of sexual abuse.

"Usually in a case like this, where it's a domestic, it's gotta be issues in the family," Dr. Burgess said. "I said something is really wrong in that family."

At the time, she pushed for a manslaughter charge. The jury couldn't reach a verdict, leading to a second trial in which the issue of abuse wasn't allowed.

Erik and Lyle Menendez were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the 1989 murder of their parents. All these years, Dr. Burgess never felt that was fair.

"I've always felt, in many cases, you know, even in the worst of worst cases, serial killers or whatever, to give them a chance at parole is important," Dr. Burgess said. "They necessarily won't get it, and most of them never do, but it doesn't take away hope. I think when we take away hope that that's, that's unfair."

The Menendez brothers' haven't had hope for the last 35 years behind bars. However, that changed Tuesday when Judge Michael Jesic decided to resentence them to 50 years to life, with the possibility of parole.

Dr. Burgess was pleasantly surprised.

"Did you ever think you'd be having a conversation about the brothers being resentenced?" ABC 10News asked.

"No, no, I didn't because I thought it would seem so unlikely," she replied. "I certainly never thought that they would ever have a chance. But, as I listened to it, I think it's very fair. Very fair what they have done with this."

Still, it's no guarantee the California Parole Board grants the brothers' release, especially after labeling them a "moderate risk" in its recent assessment.

"I hope they consider parole," Dr. Burgess said. "I think that that would be fair. It's been a long time, and I know how they felt. As I said, Erik was — he said seconds went by after this happened and they had felt that it was, he just regretted it. Felt so bad, and they have to live with it."

As for where they'll live with it, the answer should become more clear on June 13, when the parole board is expected to submit its clemency recommendation to the governor."

The entire story cannot be be read at:

https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/san-diego-news/very-fair-expert-witness-in-menendez-brothers-first-trial-reacts-to-resentencing

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;

—————————————————————-----------------------

Peter Sullivan: U.K. Michael Sullivan: U.S.A.: A tale of two Sullivans: Freed after 38 years in prison following a landmark Court of Appeal ruling driven by new DNA evidence, Peter Sullivan's claims of innocence persisted throughout his incarceration, leading him to maintain that he had been coerced into making false confessions under duress from the police, Noah News (Reporter Aileen Caiden) reports, noting that: "Sullivan was convicted largely on circumstantial evidence, which prosecutors argued linked him to the brutal murder. At his trial, the narrative presented painted him as a petty criminal with limited intelligence who had a history of drinking and violence. However, his claims of innocence persisted throughout his incarceration, leading him to maintain that he had been coerced into making false confessions under duress from the police. The case took a significant turn when recent advancements in DNA analysis identified an unknown male profile, not matching Sullivan, suggesting another individual could be responsible for the crime."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: This Blog is interested in false confessions because of the disturbing number of exonerations in the USA, Canada and multiple other jurisdictions throughout the world, where, in the absence of incriminating forensic evidence the conviction is based on self-incrimination – and because of the growing body of  scientific research showing how vulnerable suspects are to widely used interrogation methods  such as  the notorious ‘Reid Technique.’ As  all too many of this Blog's post have shown, I also recognize that pressure for false confessions can take many forms, up to and including physical violence, even physical and mental torture.

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog:

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

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Despite the joy of his release, Sullivan expressed no bitterness regarding his ordeal. In a heartfelt statement conveyed through his solicitor, Sarah Myatt, he remarked, “As God is my witness, it is said the truth shall set you free. It is unfortunate that it does not give a timescale.” This sentiment underscores the emotional complexity of his situation; while he is finally free, the shadow of his wrongful conviction looms large, not just over his life but over the lives of Sindall’s family, who are still grieving their loss."

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

PASSAGE ONE  OF THE DAY: "This new evidence prompted the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal, where the judges confirmed that had this DNA evidence been available during Sullivan’s original trial, it would have raised doubts sufficient to overturn his conviction. Lord Justice Holroyde remarked that “the evidence as a whole would have been regarded as insufficient,” reflecting how the landscape of forensic science changed the understanding of Sullivan’s guilt."

—————————————————————————

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The implications of Sullivan’s exoneration extend far beyond the individual level. They highlight systemic issues within the criminal justice system regarding wrongful convictions, particularly in cases heavily reliant on circumstantial evidence. The Ministry of Justice has acknowledged the gravity of Sullivan’s situation, stating that they would investigate how such a miscarriage of justice could have occurred, seeking accountability and assurance that similar errors are not repeated in future."

————————————————————————————————

PASSAGE THREE  OF THE DAY: "Sullivan’s case is not isolated. The challenges faced by individuals wrongfully convicted can vary significantly, as demonstrated by the experience of another wrongfully accused individual, Michael Sullivan from Massachusetts. After spending nearly three decades in prison, he was awarded $13 million in compensation, ultimately facing the stark reality that his home state’s laws limited the amount he could receive. With the legal framework often inadequate in addressing the suffering caused by wrongful imprisonment, many advocates argue that the compensation offered—like the £1 million Sullivan is set to receive—falls woefully short of what is just."

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

STORY: "Peter Sullivan freed after 38 years as DNA evidence overturns wrongful murder conviction," by Aileen Caiden, published by Noah News, on May 13, 2025. (Communities Editor: Aileen is passionate about giving a voice to underrepresented communities. Through her work at Noah News, she sheds light on the issues that matter most to diverse groups across the UK.)

SUB-HEADING: "After nearly four decades behind bars for a murder he did not commit, Peter Sullivan has been released following a landmark Court of Appeal ruling driven by new DNA evidence. His case highlights critical flaws in the justice system’s reliance on circumstantial proof and renews calls for reform and fairer compensation for the wrongfully convicted.

GIST: "Peter Sullivan, a man wrongfully imprisoned for nearly 38 years, was finally released last night after judges quashed his conviction for the 1986 murder of florist Diane Sindall.

 Now 68 years old, Sullivan is set to receive a compensation package of up to £1 million from the Ministry of Justice, a stark reminder of the toll that miscarriages of justice can take on individuals and their families.

Sullivan was convicted largely on circumstantial evidence, which prosecutors argued linked him to the brutal murder. 

At his trial, the narrative presented painted him as a petty criminal with limited intelligence who had a history of drinking and violence. 

However, his claims of innocence persisted throughout his incarceration, leading him to maintain that he had been coerced into making false confessions under duress from the police.

The case took a significant turn when recent advancements in DNA analysis identified an unknown male profile, not matching Sullivan, suggesting another individual could be responsible for the crime. This new evidence prompted the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal, where the judges confirmed that had this DNA evidence been available during Sullivan’s original trial, it would have raised doubts sufficient to overturn his conviction. Lord Justice Holroyde remarked that “the evidence as a whole would have been regarded as insufficient,” reflecting how the landscape of forensic science changed the understanding of Sullivan’s guilt.

Despite the joy of his release, Sullivan expressed no bitterness regarding his ordeal. In a heartfelt statement conveyed through his solicitor, Sarah Myatt, he remarked, “As God is my witness, it is said the truth shall set you free. It is unfortunate that it does not give a timescale.” This sentiment underscores the emotional complexity of his situation; while he is finally free, the shadow of his wrongful conviction looms large, not just over his life but over the lives of Sindall’s family, who are still grieving their loss.

The implications of Sullivan’s exoneration extend far beyond the individual level. They highlight systemic issues within the criminal justice system regarding wrongful convictions, particularly in cases heavily reliant on circumstantial evidence. The Ministry of Justice has acknowledged the gravity of Sullivan’s situation, stating that they would investigate how such a miscarriage of justice could have occurred, seeking accountability and assurance that similar errors are not repeated in future.

Sullivan’s case is not isolated. The challenges faced by individuals wrongfully convicted can vary significantly, as demonstrated by the experience of another wrongfully accused individual, Michael Sullivan from Massachusetts. After spending nearly three decades in prison, he was awarded $13 million in compensation, ultimately facing the stark reality that his home state’s laws limited the amount he could receive. With the legal framework often inadequate in addressing the suffering caused by wrongful imprisonment, many advocates argue that the compensation offered—like the £1 million Sullivan is set to receive—falls woefully short of what is just.

Upon his release, Sullivan’s family expressed hope and determination to rebuild their lives around him, acknowledging the profound impacts of nearly four decades lost. His sister, Kim Smith, reflected not just on their long-awaited reunion but also extended sympathy to Sindall’s family, reminding reporters that both families have endured enduring pain and loss.

As Sullivan begins to navigate his newfound freedom, the society that detained him for so long is left questioning how such failures in the justice system continue to occur. It remains to be seen how efforts to reform these systemic issues will unfold in the wake of his release, and whether any advancements will be made to support victims of similar injustices in the future.'

https://noah-news.com/peter-sullivan-freed-after-38-years-as-dna-evidence-overturns-wrongful-murder-conviction/

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;

—————————————————————-----------------------

Faulty Firearm Forensics. Scientific American (Prof. Nicholas Scurich) illustrates how firearm forensics are still troubled by forensic failure," noting that: "Each year, forensic firearm examiners play a pivotal role in thousands of criminal investigations, comparing spent bullets and cartridge cases to determine if they came from same gun. Their conclusions often carry immense weight in criminal trials, helping prosecutors secure convictions and send defendants to prison. Yet for decades, the validity of forensic firearm analysis has come under increasing scrutiny from research scientists. Last October a debacle at the Rhode Island crime laboratory showed why. This is not just a story of incompetence—the case exposes deeper, systemic flaws in the discipline and how these flaws can jeopardize justice."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The failures in the Rhode Island case were not just the result of mistakes; they were the predictable outcome of a system that lacks safeguards against bias and subjectivity. By adopting objective, transparent and scientifically validated procedures, forensic firearm identification can start to move beyond its systemic failures, which imperil thousands of individuals each year. Justice demands nothing less."

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

STORY: "Firearm Forensics Is Still Troubled by Systemic Failure," by Prof. Nicholas Scurich, published by Scientific American, on February 11, 2025. (Nicholas Scurich is a professor and the chair of the department of psychological science at the University of California, Irvine. He researches topics in applied decision-making and the assessment of risky and dangerous behavior. He has testified in state and federal courts on topics at the intersection of science and law. The Supreme Court of the United States has cited his research.)

SUB-HEADING: Three forensic examiners at the Rhode Island State Crime Laboratory last year mistakenly concluded that cartridge cases from a crime scene matched a specific firearm. The error exposes systemic flaws that risk wrongful convictions

GIST: "Each year, forensic firearm examiners play a pivotal role in thousands of criminal investigations, comparing spent bullets and cartridge cases to determine if they came from same gun. Their conclusions often carry immense weight in criminal trials, helping prosecutors secure convictions and send defendants to prison. Yet for decades, the validity of forensic firearm analysis has come under increasing scrutiny from research scientists.

Last October a debacle at the Rhode Island crime laboratory showed why. This is not just a story of incompetence—the case exposes deeper, systemic flaws in the discipline and how these flaws can jeopardize justice.

A fundamental principle of firearm examination involves analyzing “class characteristics,” the objective features shared by firearms of the same design, such as caliber or the lands and grooves in a gun barrel. If two cartridge cases don’t share the same class characteristics, they cannot possibly have come from the same firearm. This is a basic task that any competent examiner should perform without error.

Yet in the Rhode Island case, three trained forensic examiners called a match between cartridge cases that had differences in class characteristics. This was not a subtle error; it was the forensic equivalent of declaring that two tires of entirely different sizes match the same vehicle. The fact that not one but three examiners overlooked such a fundamental discrepancy underscores a deeper problem: systemic issues embedded in the discipline’s methods, practices and culture.

One reason for these mistakes lies in visual confirmation bias—a natural tendency for humans to see what they expect to see. For example, when a scrunched image of 13 is quickly flashed to people, they interpret it as B when primed to think about letters, or as 13 when primed to think about numbers. Unconsciously using background information is an inherent feature of how people make sense of ambiguous stimuli.

Likewise, when examiners know the details about a case or have reason to suspect a particular weapon’s involvement—information commonly available to firearm examiners working in crime laboratories—they may unconsciously focus on similarities and ignore dissimilarities or conflicting evidence, such as mismatched class characteristics. This bias is especially dangerous in firearm forensics because there is no guidance for what marks to examine and focus on and no standards for how many similarities are needed to declare a match.

A Providence Journal image shows the marks on the breech face (the flat part at the back of a gun that holds the cartridge in place and stops it from moving backward when the gun is fired) that were noted by the outside expert who discovered the error in the Rhode Island case. Both the breech face marks and the rounded versus square corners apparent on the fired cartridge cases should have led the examiners to immediately conclude that the same gun did not fire these two cartridge cases. However, the examiners overlooked these differences, instead zooming in on the few markings that lined up to conclude that they were a match. They searched for confirmatory evidence so diligently that they failed to notice the difference in class characteristics. They lost the forest for the trees.

The problem was compounded by nonblind verification, a flawed practice where other examiners review evidence knowing the conclusions of the first. Instead of providing an independent check, nonblind verification reinforces errors, creating a feedback loop of confirmation rather than correction. In the Rhode Island case, once the first examiner declared a match, subsequent reviewers approached the evidence with the same expectation, making them overlook key class characteristic discrepancies. Indeed, the power of expectation is so strong that one examiner conducted two examinations of the same items and missed these differences both times.

Addressing these systemic vulnerabilities requires meaningful reform. First, firearm examiners must adopt practices that prioritize objectivity over expectation. For example, examiners should first document the class characteristics of an unknown item before they even begin comparing it to a known sample. This ensures that the most basic and essential criteria are met before subjective judgment comes into play. Only after confirming that the two items are comparable in their class characteristics should the examiner proceed to a comparison of finer details. This process, sometimes called linear sequential unmasking, helps ground conclusions in objective observations rather than expectations. While used in some European forensic labs, this process has yet to gain traction in the U.S.

Another critical step is ensuring that the process of verifying conclusions is genuinely independent. Too often, second examiners review evidence with the first examiner’s conclusions already in mind, creating a feedback loop where errors go unchallenged. Indeed, in 2023 a prominent firearm examiner testified that he had never seen a second examiner disagree with the first examiner in over 50 years of practice. Each examiner should analyze the evidence without any knowledge or inkling of previous findings. This approach breaks the cycle of rubber-stamped errors and ensures that conclusions are more rigorously vetted.

Finally, the discipline must move toward more scientifically grounded methods. Firearm identification relies entirely on subjective judgment, with no universal standards for interpreting marks on bullets or cartridge cases or declaring matches. Emerging statistical models and probability-based methods offer a promising path forward, providing quantitative measurements and thresholds to reduce subjectivity and improve consistency. While not yet ready for courtroom use, these innovations represent an essential step toward making forensic conclusions more scientifically grounded and reliable.

The failures in the Rhode Island case were not just the result of mistakes; they were the predictable outcome of a system that lacks safeguards against bias and subjectivity. By adopting objective, transparent and scientifically validated procedures, forensic firearm identification can start to move beyond its systemic failures, which imperil thousands of individuals each year. Justice demands nothing less.

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American."

The entire story can be read at: 

firearm-forensics-is-still-troubled-by-systemic-failure

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;

—————————————————————-----------------------