Source: Hiromu Sakahara; Japan: Major (Welcome) Development: Prosecutors say they will offer no evidence of guilt in the recently ordered posthumous retrial on his conviction of robbing and murdering a woman in 1984, paving the way for his acquittal, in the first such retrial in postwar Japan involving a finalized death or life sentence, The Mainichi reports..."Sakahara died of illness aged 75 in 2011 while serving a life term for the alleged killing of 69-year-old liquor store manager Hatsu Ikemoto in Hino, a city in the same prefecture, and stealing her cash box. A regular customer at the store, Sakahara was indicted after making a confession during voluntary questioning. He later maintained his innocence at trial, arguing that investigators had pressured him into confessing. Sakahara's family and lawyers had been calling for the retrial to begin promptly. The district court approved reopening the trial in July 2018 after newly disclosed photo negatives showing him leading investigators to the site where the victim's body was found raised doubts about the reliability of his confession."

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "

"Sakahara's 65-year-old son, Koji, who took over the fight for a retrial after his father died 15 years ago, welcomed the development. "I am relieved. I hope we can receive an acquittal soon," he said at a press conference."

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Due to prosecutors twice appealing the district court's approval, it took more than seven years for the retrial decision to be finalized by the Supreme Court in February this year. The retrial comes as Japan's parliament is expected to pass a bill during its current session that would, in principle, prohibit prosecutors from appealing court decisions granting retrials."

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

STORY: " KYODO: Prosecutors to offer no evidence of guilt in 1984 murder retrial," published by The Mainichi, on June 19, 2026.

GIST: "Prosecutors said Friday they will offer no evidence of guilt in the posthumous retrial of a man convicted of robbing and murdering a woman in 1984, paving the way for his acquittal, in the first such retrial in postwar Japan involving a finalized death or life sentence.

The Otsu District Public Prosecutors Office disclosed its stance after the third meeting involving judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers to prepare for the retrial of Hiromu Sakahara at the Otsu District Court in Shiga Prefecture.

The office said in a statement after the meeting that it had decided neither to argue Sakahara was guilty nor present new evidence after closely reviewing the case records. It also said it wants the court to set a trial date promptly and make an appropriate judgment.

Sakahara's 65-year-old son, Koji, who took over the fight for a retrial after his father died 15 years ago, welcomed the development. "I am relieved. I hope we can receive an acquittal soon," he said at a press conference.

Sakahara died of illness aged 75 in 2011 while serving a life term for the alleged killing of 69-year-old liquor store manager Hatsu Ikemoto in Hino, a city in the same prefecture, and stealing her cash box.

A regular customer at the store, Sakahara was indicted after making a confession during voluntary questioning. He later maintained his innocence at trial, arguing that investigators had pressured him into confessing.

Sakahara's family and lawyers had been calling for the retrial to begin promptly. The district court approved reopening the trial in July 2018 after newly disclosed photo negatives showing him leading investigators to the site where the victim's body was found raised doubts about the reliability of his confession.

Due to prosecutors twice appealing the district court's approval, it took more than seven years for the retrial decision to be finalized by the Supreme Court in February this year.

The retrial comes as Japan's parliament is expected to pass a bill during its current session that would, in principle, prohibit prosecutors from appealing court decisions granting retrials.

The entire story can be read at: 

 https://share.google/Rzc6oLC8GOWEzmSB6

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;

June 21: Iwao Hakamada: Japan: Hiroaki Murayama, a judge who ordered his 'retrial' has called for reform of his country's highly restrictive "retrial' system - citing the Iwao Hakamata case, which he says 'changed his view of life as a judge' - as has Iwao Hakamata's sister Hideko Hakamata, 93, who has also called for reform, and never gave up in her long fight to save her younger brother, Iwao Hakamata, and also gave her opinion at the committee. “I do not think only Iwao should be saved. Please ensure there are no loopholes in this bill,” she said."

BACKGROUND:  "The rare post-humous 'retrial' granted recently to Hiromu  Sakahara has once again, focused attention on Japan's  existing 'retrial' system, under which it is almost impossible to remedy a miscarriage of justice,  even for a death sentence as in the Iwao Hakamata case  which is mentioned  in this post under the heading, "Judge who ordered retrial for Hakamata  (commonly referred to as 'The Eastern Rubin Hurricane Carter HL) calls for reform,"  As noted in a previous post of this  Blog (October 8, 2024): "The prosecution has announced that it will not appeal the recent ruling by the Shizuoka District Court, which acquitted Iwao Hakamada, who had been sentenced to death for a 1966 murder case involving a family of four. This decision solidifies Hakamada's acquittal. In the case, which dates back to June 1966, the bodies of four family members from a miso manufacturing company in Shizuoka Prefecture were discovered. Hakamada, now 88, was arrested and indicted, with the death sentence confirmed in 1980. Hakamada, who maintained his innocence, was granted a retrial in 2014 and released after nearly 48 years in prison. During the retrial, which started in October of last year at the Shizuoka District Court, prosecutors once again sought the death penalty, while the defense argued that investigators had fabricated several pieces of evidence to frame Hakamada. The court sided with the defense, ruling on September 26 that some of the evidence used for conviction had indeed been fabricated, resulting in Hakamada’s acquittal."

https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4155299539366241589

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

QUOTE  OF THE DAY: "Attorney Hiroaki Murayama was summoned to the Lower House Judicial Affairs Committee on that day to offer his opinions on the matter. Murayama was the presiding judge at the Shizuoka District Court in 2014 who granted a retrial to Iwao Hakamata, now 90. Hakamata, who had spent decades on death row, was acquitted of the murder charges in the retrial in 2024. “Working on Mr. Hakamata’s case changed my view of life as a judge,” Murayama said at the Diet committee. “Although many judges were involved, they failed to correct the erroneous guilty verdict. Based on that reflection, I have been committed to reforming the retrial law.”

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Drawing on his experience as a judge, Murayama said he most strongly emphasizes the need to change “evidence disclosure” rules. Under the current system, defense lawyers must submit “clear new evidence that should lead to a not guilty verdict” to open the door to a retrial. Lawyers have complained that prosecutors may be in possession of such evidence, but the defense team may not know about such evidence if it is not submitted at trial."

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

STORY: "Judge who ordered retrial for Hakamata calls for reform," published by The Asahi Shinbum, on June 10, 

GIST: "Lawmakers seeking to close loopholes and speed up the legal process to protect victims of wrongful convictions received favorable testimony from two figures at the forefront of correcting an infamous miscarriage of justice.

Representatives of the Centrist Reform Alliance (Chudo) and the Democratic Party for the People (DPP) on June 9 agreed to seek revisions of the government’s proposed bill on the retrial system, including easing the rules on evidence disclosure.

However, the government and ruling parties have opposed the changes pushed by the opposition parties.

Attorney Hiroaki Murayama was summoned to the Lower House Judicial Affairs Committee on that day to offer his opinions on the matter.

Murayama was the presiding judge at the Shizuoka District Court in 2014 who granted a retrial to Iwao Hakamata, now 90.

Hakamata, who had spent decades on death row, was acquitted of the murder charges in the retrial in 2024.

“Working on Mr. Hakamata’s case changed my view of life as a judge,” Murayama said at the Diet committee. “Although many judges were involved, they failed to correct the erroneous guilty verdict. Based on that reflection, I have been committed to reforming the retrial law.”

Hakamata’s ordeal led in part to the government-proposed bill to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure and reform the retrial system.

However, the bill has been criticized, even within the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, as woefully insufficient in reducing prosecutors’ powers, which have been blamed for the delays in starting retrials.

Drawing on his experience as a judge, Murayama said he most strongly emphasizes the need to change “evidence disclosure” rules.

Under the current system, defense lawyers must submit “clear new evidence that should lead to a not guilty verdict” to open the door to a retrial.

Lawyers have complained that prosecutors may be in possession of such evidence, but the defense team may not know about such evidence if it is not submitted at trial.

The government’s bill would introduce a system allowing courts to order prosecutors to submit evidence that was not disclosed in the original trial that led to a guilty verdict.

However, strict requirements exist under the bill, such as proving relevance to the grounds for requesting a retrial.

Murayama said that in cases leading to retrials, the defense side is inevitably best positioned to assess the value of evidence and should be allowed to directly examine a broad range of such materials.

He argued that provisions are needed to allow judges to order evidence disclosure without being constrained by strict relevance requirements.

The Justice Ministry said during the Diet deliberations that courts can “recommend” that prosecutors submit evidence, as they can under the existing law, even for items not covered by the proposed new submission order system.

“The existing practical operation is not being denied,” a ministry official said.

However, Murayama warned that such recommendations lack legal binding and that “prosecutors may resist” submitting even evidence that had previously been disclosed.

After the committee session, lawmakers from Chudo and the DPP compiled three proposed revisions to the evidence disclosure rules.

They are: creating a provision that allows courts to order direct disclosure of important evidence to the defense side; creating a provision to require prosecutors to provide a list of evidence; and deleting a provision in the government’s bill that prohibits the use of disclosed evidence for unrelated purposes.

Regarding the last revision, the lawmakers suggested allowing courts to impose restrictions depending on the content instead of issuing a blanket prohibition.

They plan to seek support from Sanseito, which holds seats on the Judicial Affairs Committee.

SISTER’S TESTIMONY

Hideko Hakamata, 93, who never gave up in her long fight to save her younger brother, Iwao Hakamata, also gave her opinion at the committee.

“I do not think only Iwao should be saved. Please ensure there are no loopholes in this bill,” she said.

Iwao was convicted of multiple murders in Shizuoka Prefecture in the 1960s. It took him 58 years to clear his name in the 2024 retrial.

But during his 48 years behind bars, he developed mental illnesses.

“Why did it take so long?” his sister asked the lawmakers. “I believe it is because there are flaws in the law.”

The evidence that led to Hakamata’s acquittal was disclosed 29 years after his first request for a retrial.

“Thanks to evidence disclosure, Iwao is alive today. Fair trials should be conducted with all evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, fully disclosed,” she said.

GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO BUDGE

The LDP and coalition partner Nippon Ishin (Japan Innovation Party) currently hold more than two-thirds of the seats in the Lower House, but they fall four seats short of a majority in the Upper House.

For this reason, the government and ruling parties have been urging leaders of the DPP to support the government bill.

However, DPP leader Yuichiro Tamaki has withheld his backing of the bill.

“At this point, we are not in a position to approve it,” he said at a news conference on June 9. “We want to seek further action from the government, including amendments to the bill and clearer explanations.”

DPP officials have been negotiating with the government and ruling parties to revise the bill, but there has been no progress so far, sources said.

The government and ruling parties aim to pass the bill in the Lower House by mid-June.""

The entire story can be read at: 

https://share.google/lCfDAdSOCX6enmeT2

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;

June 20: Robert Dillon: Florida: Technology gone terribly wrong: Facial Recognition. ABC News (Reporters Raphael Louis Hipos and Yi-Jin You) report.. Robert Dillon's lawsuit alleges that authorities had been searching for a suspect who allegedly tried to lure a child at a Jacksonville Beach restaurant more than 300 miles away from Dillon's his home. (Guess who was arrested for the crime!)..."Dillon said he knew he had been incorrectly identified, because he had never been to Jacksonville Beach. "I argued with the police officer for 20 minutes, and he insisted that 'I know that I'm looking at your mugshot,'" he said. The state attorney's office dropped Dillon's case weeks after his arrest, but Dillon said it took nearly a year to get the arrest wiped from his record, with help from the American Civil Liberties Union."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Dillon and the ACLU are currently suing several law enforcement authorities and agencies, including the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, which oversees the use of the AI facial recognition technology across Florida. "Despite [a] well-documented history of [facial recognition technology]-driven wrongful arrests, neither Jacksonville Beach PD, [Jacksonville County Sheriff's Office], nor [Pinellas County Sheriff's Office] implemented safeguards sufficient to prevent exactly the type of wrongful arrest that occurred in Mr. Dillon's case," the lawsuit alleges. It further alleges that Dillon's arrest was "the predictable consequence of Jacksonville Beach PD's failure to provide its officers with the training, guidance, and supervision necessary to use [facial recognition technology] in a constitutionally compliant manner."

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

STORY: "Man sues law enforcement alleging AI facial recognition technology led to wrongful arrest," by Raphael Louis Hipos and Yi-Jin You, published by ABC News, on June 12, 2026.

GIST: "A Florida man is suing multiple law enforcement agencies after he alleges he was wrongfully arrested due to flawed AI facial recognition technology.

"I don't wish this on my worst enemy," Robert Dillon, a father of one, told ABC News.

Police body camera video footage, obtained by ABC News affiliate Gulf Coast News, shows Dillon's 2024 arrest outside his San Carlos Park home.

"I was basically telling them this is crazy. I have no idea who did this, but it's not me," Dillon recalled of the arrest.

Robert Dillon is suing multiple law enforcement agencies after he claims he was wrongfully arrested due to flawed AI facial recognition technology.

ABC News

Authorities had been searching for a suspect who allegedly tried to lure a child at a Jacksonville Beach restaurant, more than 300 miles away from Dillon's home."To be accused of a heinous crime of that nature, I'm thinking I may not be coming back home," Dillon said.

During their investigation, authorities allegedly fed "poor quality" surveillance images of the suspect into an AI-powered facial recognition program, which scanned facial features and found photos of the suspect and Dillon were allegedly "a 93% match," according to Dillon's lawsuit.

Dillon said he knew he had been incorrectly identified, because he had never been to Jacksonville Beach.

"I argued with the police officer for 20 minutes, and he insisted that 'I know that I'm looking at your mugshot,'" he said.

The state attorney's office dropped Dillon's case weeks after his arrest, but Dillon said it took nearly a year to get the arrest wiped from his record, with help from the American Civil Liberties Union.

Dillon and the ACLU are currently suing several law enforcement authorities and agencies, including the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, which oversees the use of the AI facial recognition technology across Florida.

"Despite [a] well-documented history of [facial recognition technology]-driven wrongful arrests, neither Jacksonville Beach PD, [Jacksonville County Sheriff's Office], nor [Pinellas County Sheriff's Office] implemented safeguards sufficient to prevent exactly the type of wrongful arrest that occurred in Mr. Dillon's case," the lawsuit alleges.

It further alleges that Dillon's arrest was "the predictable consequence of Jacksonville Beach PD's failure to provide its officers with the training, guidance, and supervision necessary to use [facial recognition technology] in a constitutionally compliant manner."

The Jacksonville Beach Police Department and Jacksonville County Sheriff's Office both said they were unable to comment on Dillon's case and lawsuit when reached by ABC News

The Pinellas County Sheriff's Office said in a statement, "The assertion in the lawsuit that PCSO failed to train [officers in the facial recognition technology] is patently false."

It stated that training for the facial recognition program "is unequivocally clear" that the technology is "an investigative tool only."

"Facial recognition results are never 'matches,'" the sheriff's office said. "Independent investigation is required to determine whether any person in a photo array return in the facial recognition system is the person who committed a crime requires a law enforcement officer to determine probable cause through independent means."

It added, "Proper safeguards were in place to require that the system be properly used. It was wrong for the JBPD officer to determine probable cause existed to arrest someone solely based on their photo appearing in a facial recognition photo array. Liability for doing that rests solely with any officer who did so, and certainly not PCSO."

The entire story can be read at:

https://abcnews.com/GMA/News/man-sues-law-enforcement-alleging-ai-facial-recognition/story?id=133810835

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;

June 19: Research shows that how you sound on a 911 call can determine whether police treat you as a victim or a perpetrator," as The Innocence Project's Alexandria reports, in a post headed, "This Police Method Is Used to Infer Guilt From 911 Calls, But It’s Not Backed by Science," which notes that, " ProPublica investigative journalist Brett Murphy — and guest speaker in the Innocence Project’s latest Just Data conversation: “What’s Your Emergency? When Calling For Help Makes You a Suspect” — spent months documenting the adoption of these programs, which have never been backed by science. Detailing his investigation at the live virtual conversation hosted by the Innocence Project’s Data Science & Research team on May 11, Mr. Murphy was joined by Dr. Jessica Salerno, an Associate Professor of Psychology and Associate Member of the law faculty at Cornell University, who presented her research on how police form suspicion based on the sound of someone’s voice. Their findings followed Huwe Burton’s personal account of being wrongfully convicted after calling for help."

POST : "This Police Method Is Used to Infer Guilt From 911 Calls, But It’s Not Backed by Science," by Alyxaundria Sanford, published by The Innocence Project, on June 15, 2026. Alyxaundria Sanford joined the Innocence Project in 2024 as the digital engagement specialist. Alexandria has a distinguished career in local and national news at organizations like ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Daily News, and City & State Magazine. She most recently held the role of audience engagement producer at The Intercept. Alyxaundria brings an extensive background in digital engagement strategies, storytelling, and advocacy. A graduate of the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University and the Engagement Journalism program at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism, she also holds a master’s degree from John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

SUB-HEADING: "Research shows that how you sound on a 911 call can determine whether police treat you as a victim or a perpetrator.

GIST: "Police departments across the country are paying up to $3,500 — funds that often come out of taxpayer money — to learn how to tell a guilty 911 caller from an innocent one. These programs promise that with just eight hours of the “right” instruction, a dispatcher, detective, or prosecutor could learn to ascertain guilt from listening to a 911 call.

ProPublica investigative journalist Brett Murphy — and guest speaker in the Innocence Project’s latest Just Data conversation: “What’s Your Emergency? When Calling For Help Makes You a Suspect” — spent months documenting the adoption of these programs, which have never been backed by science.

Detailing his investigation at the live virtual conversation hosted by the Innocence Project’s Data Science & Research team on May 11, Mr. Murphy was joined by Dr. Jessica Salerno, an Associate Professor of Psychology and Associate Member of the law faculty at Cornell University, who presented her research on how police form suspicion based on the sound of someone’s voice. Their findings followed Huwe Burton’s personal account of being wrongfully convicted after calling for help.

Mr. Burton was just 16 years old when he came home to find his mother, Keziah Burton, murdered in their Bronx apartment. He immediately called 911 and waited for officers to arrive and help. Just days later, he was charged with her murder.

At his trial, one of the officers who first interviewed the teenager said he did not seem emotional enough during questioning. The officer’s subjective observation and interpretation of grief set Mr. Burton’s wrongful conviction case in motion. He was exonerated in 2019 — three decades after his arrest and after serving more than 20 years in prison — with the help of the Innocence Project, Northwestern University, and Rutgers University.

Mr. Murphy’s investigation found that these “analysis” methods are built on a foundation that repeatedly failed scientific validation tests. Yet they have continued to gain acceptance in courts and police departments across the country.

The original study around which these 911 analysis methods were developed examined just 100 calls and was solely intended to be exploratory research. One of its co-authors even told Mr. Murphy its findings were not ready for real-world application. Since then, other researchers have published at least eight scientific studies attempting to replicate or test the method, repeatedly finding that its supposed indicators of guilt do not hold up under scrutiny. Those findings have directly challenged the reliability and validity of 911 call analysis. Yet 911 call analysis continued to be taught to law enforcement, cited in court proceedings, and credited by its creator with having helped solve more than 1,500 homicides.

Some prosecutors have acknowledged 911 call analysis “will not hold up to scientific scrutiny,” Mr. Murphy said. “So they get creative.”

Rather than introducing the method as expert testimony — where it could be challenged under scientific evidentiary standards — prosecutors often present it indirectly through testimony from detectives or dispatchers who have received the training. Jurors then hear testimony about “guilty” behavior inferred from word choice or tone of voice on 911 calls without learning that those observations were formed using a disputed methodology.

WATCH: Just Data | What’s Your Emergency? When Calling For Help Makes You a Suspect

Rather than guilt or deception, what jurors and investigators are often picking up on is the absence of an expected display of emotion, Dr. Salerno’s research suggests.

In one series of studies, Dr. Salerno and her colleagues asked participants to listen to identical 911 call scripts delivered with varying levels of emotion. Both civilians and police officers became significantly more suspicious when callers expressed low emotion. For police officers, even moderate emotion was not enough to reduce suspicion of a caller’s guilt or deception. Callers had to sound highly emotional before officers’ perceptions changed.

In follow-up studies using real 911 calls with known outcomes, the same pattern of associating low emotion displays with guilt emerged regardless of whether the caller was later convicted or later exonerated.

But this kind of subjective behavioral analysis extends beyond emergency calls.

Robert Roberson, was viewed with suspicion after bringing his critically ill daughter to the hospital. After his daughter died, medical personnel and investigators interpreted his flat affect as evidence of guilt. Mr. Roberson has always maintained his innocence and has spent more than two decades on Texas’ death row, narrowly avoiding execution on three occasions. Years after being convicted, Mr. Roberson was officially diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, helping explain behaviors that authorities had previously characterized as cold or indifferent.

For Dr. Salerno, the lesson is clear: trauma, culture, personality, neurodivergence, and shock all influence how people respond during crises. Yet the criminal legal system continues to rely heavily on subjective assumptions about what grief, fear, and innocence should look like. And she worries about the impact of those unreliable assumptions.

“If the public learns that cops are using their behavior in the worst moments of their life against them, people are going to stop calling 911 to help others,” said Dr. Salerno during the Just Data event.

For Dr. Salerno, the first step to remedying this is straightforward: 911 call analysis training must stop. She added that accreditation organizations should evaluate such programs based on scientific evidence of their accuracy rather than simply whether they fall under the umbrella of policing. Additionally, law enforcement agencies should receive training grounded in trauma science and psychological research to prevent the interpretation of trauma responses as signs of guilt. And defense attorneys should learn to identify and challenge attempts to introduce 911 call analysis through lay testimony.

Most importantly, Dr. Salerno suggests that investigators must abandon the assumption that innocence has a predictable emotional script. When police decide a person is guilty based on how they sound during one of the most desperate and traumatic moments of their lives, confirmation bias does not stay confined to that single interaction. It also shapes the interrogations that follow, influences forensic interpretation, narrows investigative focus, and can determine which leads are pursued and which are ignored.

Mistaken suspicion is rarely corrected by the investigation that follows. More often, it shapes the investigation itself. And the wrong that results can take decades to right.

Researchers interested in contributing to open questions on this topic can visit the Innocence Project’s Call to Action document. Contact the data science and research team at science@innocenceproject.org with your research, ideas, or questions.""

The entire story can be read at: 

https://share.google/iKakNGmzsjjUxhcMK

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;

July 18: Murder on Mount Olive: Awet Asfaha: Christopher Sheriffe: Ontario: Ongoing 'Faint Hope' Hearing: In a bid for early parole - at his ongoing 'faint hope' hearing, the Toronto Star (My former Toronto Star colleague Chief Investigative Reporter Kevin Donovan reports that, Awet Asfaha, the admitted murderer, claims he shot innocent stranger ‘to gain stripes’ with gangsters," noting that: "Asfaha was not asked in court whether his actions ever gained him approval with gangsters. Today, Asfaha said he feels great remorse over what he did. In 2017, shortly after the Supreme Court of Canada denied his appeal, Asfaha confessed to his family that he was the shooter. His sister Sara testified at the hearing, saying her brother “told me he was trying to get in with gang members.” Asfaha told court he has had many years to reflect."

MURDER ON MOUNT OLIVE: BACKGROUND: From a previous post of this Blog: 

(June 5, 2026):  "Chris Sheriffe: Ontario: Major (most unusual) Development; (Murder On Mount Olive hearing): As my former Toronto Star colleague  Toronto Star Chief Investigative Reporter Kevin Donovan reports,  "One of two men convicted of first-degree murder in the death of a Toronto furniture maker 16 years ago has changed his story in a reversal that could have  significant consequences for Christopher Sheriffe — the co-accused man who continues to argue his conviction was a “miscarriage of justice," noting that:  "Awet Asfaha had long maintained his innocence in the shooting of Bishen Golaub outside a neighbourhood barbecue on Mount Olive Drive in Etobicoke on a sweltering afternoon in August 2009. In a profanity-laced police interview and at trial, he claimed he knew nothing about the murder, and a mysterious man on the street was the real shooter.  On Thursday, court heard he has now confessed to the shooting, and both earlier stories were “a lie.”"

https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/preview/120008354894645705/3496432798816836573

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The jury is expected to be sequestered later this week and begin deliberations. They will be asked to determine if Asfaha’s parole eligibility should be lowered. If it is lowered, it will still be up to the National Parole Board to determine if he should be released."

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

STORY: "In bid for early parole, admitted Toronto murderer claims he shot innocent stranger ‘to gain stripes’ with gangsters," by Toronto Star Chief Investigative Reporter Kevin Donovan, published on June 17, 2026.


SUB-HEADING: “I was thinking of approval, if I don’t do this, nobody’s going to take me seriously,” Awet Asfaha told the court at his “faint hope” hearing.

PHOTO CAPTION: "Awet Asfaha testifies at his “faint hope” hearing in Toronto before Justice Breese Davies, top left. Asfaha has admitted to killing Bishen Golaub, a stranger, in 2009 “to gain stripes” with a gang."

Seeking “approval” from gangs, Awet Asfaha walked up to a total stranger on Mount Olive Drive in 2009 and pumped three shots into his back, the convicted murderer has testified in his bid to get early parole from a life sentence.

“To gain stripes,” Awet Asfaha told a jury at his “faint hope” hearing, explaining the shooting was like an initiation into gang membership. “To be taken more serious.”

The victim, Bishen Golaub, was a husband, father of four, stepdad to one, and a much-loved worker at a furniture manufacturing company. He had no gang affiliations, but Asfaha said he gave no thought to the victim that day.

“I was thinking of approval, if I don’t do this, nobody’s going to take me seriously,” he told court, his voice never rising or falling throughout two days of testimony.

Bullied as a child, abused by his father, struggling with body image issues and alcohol, the then 24-year-old Asfaha said he hung around with members of several gangs in his north Etobicoke neighbourhood. He had a criminal record for drug trafficking, had held and fired a gun before; he’d go out in a field and take random shots. That’s the only firearms experience he said he had when, on a hot August day, he pulled a hoodie over his head, carrying a “revolver” and walked down Mount Olive Drive. On the street was a 34-year-old man standing outside a chain-link fence, waiting to see if the food at a barbecue was ready.

“I walked to where Bishen was standing,” said Asfaha. “I shot him three times, and I walked back or I ran back.” As the Star has reported, the driver of the car Asfaha had been in was Christopher Sheriffe, a one-time soccer star who was set to begin a career as a carpenter. Sheriffe, now also serving a life sentence, maintains he is innocent. He claims he had been asked by Asfaha to pull over when he was driving home from an impromptu night of partying.

Sheriffe, who was convicted as the getaway driver, claims a "miscarriage of justice" and is applying for a federal review of his conviction.

Asfaha’s sentence denied him the right to apply for parole before 2034. His bid for early parole began last week in a Toronto courtroom. His defence lawyer, Breana Vandebeek, brought a parade of friendly witnesses to court — prison guards, a life coach, a theatre director — who all said Asfaha deserves a second chance.

Taking accountability for criminal actions is one of the unwritten rules in hearings like these, and Asfaha has long denied involvement in the murder. Now serving his sentence in a minimum-security, cottage-like prison with seven private beaches on Vancouver Island, Asfaha said he is hoping to one day give back to the community, possibly teaching young people to cook and running a food truck. He was transferred last year from a medium-security institution, where he kept a cat, Peanut.

Awet Asfaha’s late confession to the murder of Bishen Golaub

In front of a jury of 11 (one member was excused earlier for a reason that cannot yet be reported), Asfaha testified for two days, beginning with the crime itself. On the day of the shooting, Asfaha said he thought a man wearing red at the gate to the barbecue was a rival gang member (Asfaha associated with the Crips, who wear blue — the Bloods wear red). When police arrested Asfaha hours later, he unleashed a torrent of profanity, yelling at homicide detectives that nobody would care about a gang member being killed. But he said, if they really wanted to close the case, they should stop wasting time with him. He knew nothing and had merely been on his “way to see some b——-s.”

“Go back into your f—-ing car and go drive!” he told the detectives. “Take me to f—-ing court. Don’t f—-ing talk to me. You guys are killing me, bro.”

Asfaha was not asked in court whether his actions ever gained him approval with gangsters.

Today, Asfaha said he feels great remorse over what he did. In 2017, shortly after the Supreme Court of Canada denied his appeal, Asfaha confessed to his family that he was the shooter. His sister Sara testified at the hearing, saying her brother “told me he was trying to get in with gang members.”

Asfaha told court he has had many years to reflect.

A man was shot at a Toronto barbecue. Another is in jail for life. The Star reinvestigated the case and found flaws — was the right person convicted?

“I feel terrible. I feel that an innocent person, a father, a good member of society, a husband, a son … I feel really, really terrible, I’ve pretty much done what happened to me to (Golaub’s sons),” Asfaha said. “I took out a good, strong role model away from them (and) that could potentially cause them to go down the wrong path.”

His comments — equating the loss Golaub’s sons experienced to Asfaha’s own upbringing by a father who was not always supportive — took some in the courtroom by surprise. Asfaha later apologized when crown attorney Katherine Rogozinski drew it to his attention.

“Your father wasn’t murdered, though, when you were a teenager?” Rogozinski asked Asfaha. He agreed.

“No one took your dad away by killing him, right?” Again, Asfaha agreed.

“Did you say that because you were looking for sympathy from the jury?”

Asfaha replied: “I was just pointing out that I was a hypocrite. But the way you are pointing it out now, I had no right. I’m sorry.”

As to his lying about who did the shooting, Asfaha told the jury, “I was trying to get away with it. I was ashamed, thinking of preserving myself.”

Awet Asfaha’s cross-examination — ‘Have you always been a good liar?’

While many previous witnesses, including prison guards, had testified that they believed Asfaha was a changed man, Rogozinski, in a withering cross-examination, asked if Asfaha was lying now, just as he had years before to the 2012 jury that convicted him.


“Have you heard of the term ‘Machiavellian,’” Rogozinski asked. When Asfaha said he didn’t know its meaning, Rogozinski replied: “A personality or behaviour characterized by cunningness, deceit and a calculated disregard for morality in pursuit of self-interest or power.”

Asfaha said he used to be like that. He agreed that at the original trial, he invented a mysterious, braided gunman who did the shooting, then ran to the car he was in, and they took off.

Rogozinski pointed out the rich detail in that testimony, including his own fear of being shot by the braided man, the phantom killer’s clothing, the way his eyes stared and his body odour. “Have you always been a good liar?” Rogozinski asked Asfaha.

“I worked hard at this lie,” Asfaha replied.

Rogozinski put it to Asfaha that, similar to how he recently acted in a play he wrote in prison, he gave a “performance to the (2012) jury” that, she said, “sounds like an action movie.”

Asfaha agreed with Rogozinski. The crown put it to Asfaha that he is doing the same thing now, “trying to leave a certain impression of yourself with the jury.”

Asfaha replied: “Now, no.”

Asked about his behaviour if he was released, Asfaha referred to the people who have spoken up for him during the hearing, saying that they have taught him how to approach the temptation of drugs or “subculture or negative associates.” He said he would reach out to the people who supported him for guidance or “by removing myself from the situation.”

Some of Asfaha’s testimony and portions of trial exhibits are under a publication ban ordered by Justice Breese Davies.

The case was the subject of a Toronto Star podcast and series.

The jury is expected to be sequestered later this week and begin deliberations. They will be asked to determine if Asfaha’s parole eligibility should be lowered. If it is lowered, it will still be up to the National Parole Board to determine if he should be released."

The entire story can be read at: 

https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/in-bid-for-early-parole-admitted-toronto-murderer-claims-he-shot-innocent-stranger-to-gain-stripes-with-gangsters/article_3efc0f40-760b-4910-9bd0-589e8baa1a0a.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;