DR. PAUL SHRODE; MICHAEL PERRY CASE TEXAS; FORMER EXAMINER'S FIRING ONE OF THE GROUNDS FOR SEEKING DELAY OF EXECUTION SET FOR TOMORROW: EL PASO TIMES;

"In his court filings, Perry has asked for a delay because of new developments. One was Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland's decision last month to spare a death-row inmate's life, in part because of flawed testimony Shrode gave at his murder trial. Another was Shrode's firing in El Paso County."

REPORTER DIANA WASHINGTON VALDER: EL PASO TIMES; (Wikipedia informs us that, "The El Paso Times is the English-language newspaper for the U.S. city of El Paso, Texas. The paper was founded in 1881 by Marcellus Washington Carrico. It originally started out as a weekly but within a year's time, it became the daily newspaper for the frontier town.")

PHOTO: DR. PAUL SHRODE;

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

BACKGROUND: The Michael Perry case is one of several cases, have came under scrutiny following developments relating to Richard Nields which center around Dr. Paul Shrode. Richard Nields was on death row having been convicted of killing his girlfriend Patricia Newsome in Springfield Township (just outside Cincinnati). The Supreme Court of Ohio had scheduled his murder for June 10. The Ohio Parole Board hearing was held May 10. The Parole Board issued its report and recommendation on May 18, 2010. By a 4-3 vote, it recommended that Nield's sentence be commuted to life without parole, partly because it found the opinion of medical examiner Paul Shrode was unsupported by the forensic evidence. Ohio Governor Ted Strickland commuted the death sentence to life without parole.

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

"Lawyers for a death row inmate who was convicted partly on testimony by former El Paso Medical Examiner Paul Shrode filed a petition with the Texas Supreme Court for a stay of execution," the El Paso story by reporter Diana Washington Valdez published earlier today begins, under the heading, "Lawyers seek stay of execution after Shrode case."

"Unless the court grants the stay, 28-year-old Michael Perry, the inmate, will be executed as scheduled on Thursday in Huntsville, Texas." the story continues.

"We submitted the petition late yesterday (Tuesday), and we are waiting, said Jessica Mederson, a lawyer with the Vinson and Elkins, LLP, law firm in Austin, which is representing Perry.

Perry's petition for writ of certiorari alleges that Shrode's testimony undermined his defense.

The Houston-area man was sentenced to death for the 2001 murder of Sandra Stotler. A second defendant was convicted and is serving a life sentence for two other murders related to Perry's case.

Last week, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Perry s request for a hearing to review the case.

In his court filings, Perry has asked for a delay because of new developments.

One was Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland's decision last month to spare a death-row inmate's life, in part because of flawed testimony Shrode gave at his murder trial. Another was Shrode's firing in El Paso County."

The story can be found at:

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15412425?source=rss

WARREN BLACKWELL CASE: U.K. INDEPENDENT COMMISSION STRESSES NEED FOR THOROUGH CHALLENGE TO RAPE ACCUSER'S ACCOUNT WHERE NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE;

"The detective wrote in his notes that the alleged victim was 'unreliable' and 'unstable'.

He also knew she had been convicted of dishonesty in the past. But he never passed on the information about her to his senior officers or to the Criminal Prosecution Service.

Had he done so, Warren Blackwell would have had a much stronger defence in court.

Instead DC Bell did not challenge what the woman was telling him, even though there seemed to be serious discrepancies in her story.

The IPCC says, in the absence of any forensic evidence linking Warren Blackwell to his accuser, the failure to challenge her account points to 'a poor quality investigation'."

REPORTER JANE DEITH: CHANNEL 4 NEWS;

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

"Exclusive: As Northamptonshire Police offer an unreserved apology to a man who spent three and a half years in prison after being initially accused of rape by a serial liar, Warren Blackwell tells Channel 4 News's Jane Deith that he is still angry at his treatment," Reporter Jane Deith's Channel 4 News June 18, 2010, story on the Independent Police Complaints Commission's report into the Warren Blackwell case begins, under the heading, "Blackwell: 'serious police failings' in rape case."

"The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said there had been serious failings by three officers at Northamptonshire Police in their investigation that led to Warren Blackwell's conviction," the story continues.

"The 40-year-old spent more than three years in jail as a convicted sex attacker before being cleared by the Court of Appeal.

Asked by Channel 4 News whether he was still angry at his treatment, he said: "I am, but for me it's like ten years on so that anger recedes.

"You can't be the world's angriest man forever – wouldn't do my family any good.

"It's always there. I think about this every single day, it feels like yesterday for me."

The false accusation
Warren Blackwell must wish he'd never gone to the New Year's Eve party in Woodford Halse social club on the eve of 1999. Later that night, a woman who he didn't know and barely spoke to all evening, would be found outside the club, claiming she'd been violently raped.

More from Channel 4 News
- Should rape defendants get anonymity?


She told police she didn't see the face of the man who attacked her, but she gave police the names of five different men in the Northamptonshire village that she thought it could have been. Warren wasn't one of them. But it was him she picked out an identity parade.

There was no forensic evidence. The accusation of rape was changed to indecent assault. Warren Blackwell was charged.

The whole trial rested on the issue of her identification of him. He was found guilty by a majority verdict.

As he was led away to start a three year sentence, Mr Blackwell turned to the jury and said simply, 'You've got it so wrong'.

Now, 11 years later, the IPCC has investigated, and found that Northamptonshire Police got it horrendously wrong.

The woman, a serial false accuser of men, would normally have anonymity under the law. But, she was exposed when the peer Lord Campbell-Savours used his parliamentary privilege to name her in the House of Lords.


The IPCC findings
The IPCC has found that the detective who investigated the original allegation failed to disclose crucial information, which would have undermined the whole case against Warren Blackwell.

Early in the investigation Detective Constable Andy Bell was told by an officer from the neighbouring Leicestershire force, which had come across the woman in another criminal case, that there real doubts about her credibility.

The officer told DC Bell that she appeared to 'enjoy police attention', that there were concerns about her honesty, and any allegation she made would need corroboration.

Read the IPCC's full report here

The detective wrote in his notes that the alleged victim was 'unreliable' and 'unstable'.

He also knew she had been convicted of dishonesty in the past. But he never passed on the information about her to his senior officers or to the Criminal Prosecution Service.

Had he done so, Warren Blackwell would have had a much stronger defence in court.

Instead DC Bell did not challenge what the woman was telling him, even though there seemed to be serious discrepancies in her story.

The IPCC says, in the absence of any forensic evidence linking Warren Blackwell to his accuser, the failure to challenge her account points to 'a poor quality investigation'.

The IPCC also criticised the detective for failing to tell his seniors about further false accusations the woman made while Mr Blackwell was serving his jail sentence.

DC Bell, whom the IPCC believes should have faced a full misconduct hearing, retired three months ago.

When approached for a comment by Channel 4 News, he said he had retired, and didn't want to speak.

Mr Blackwell says, "The IPCC report was a massive investigation. In my view, it was hindered by Northamptonshire Police. To say they dragged their heels is an understatement. They didn't want to have to apologise to me."

Northamptonshire Police's Assistant Chief Constable Derek Talbot told Channel 4 News he was sorry for the mistakes in the investigation, but he still insists, "At the time, (she) was a credible witness. After a period in which perhaps we hadn't treated women's claims very well, we took all claims of sexual assault very seriously".

Warren Blackwell's response? "You should take every allegation seriously, but you should also test the evidence. It's obvious they didn't take it seriously enough."

8 year fight to prove his innocence
The now retired DC Bell won a commendation for the 'tenacious and sensitive' investigation which led to Warren Blackwell's conviction.

Mr Blackwell got nearly four years in prison. He was sentenced to three years, but when he went to the court to seek permission to appeal it was denied. This was two weeks before he was due to be released - but the judge added two more years to his sentence.

Mr Blackwell says this broke him. He collapsed, and spent nights pacing his cell. His cell was on A Wing, where 'vulnerable' prisoners were held at Littlehey Prison.

'Vulnerable' is defined as prisoners who have been sentenced for sexual offences, and could be attacked if they were living among other inmates.

A cruel paperwork error meant Warren Blackwell's supposed victim was put down as aged 13, not 31. So he was immediately labelled as a child abuser.

Warren Blackwell was forced to live cheek by jowl with convicted paedophiles who boasted about their crimes. He hid the photographs of his two children.

Only after Warren Blackwell had served his full sentence, did he win leave to appeal his conviction for a second time. The Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates possible miscarriages of justice, asked an inspector from West Midlands Police to pick over every detail of the case against Mr Blackwell.

Chief Inspector Steve Glover (now Chief Superintendent) of WMP uncovered the trail left by Mr Blackwell’s accuser after his trial, as she became a serial false accuser.

She did it seven times, changing her name each time. But each time her story was the same. She would claim she'd been grabbed from behind, dragged down a dark road or alley, and sexually assaulted, punched and cut.

Steve Glover spoke to officers who without exception had dismissed what the woman had claimed in the past as false. In one instance, she said she had been attacked by a man who had used a knife to score the word 'HATE' across her chest. The police surgeon confirmed it was self-inflicted, noting the word had been written backwards, as she was looking in the mirror.

And officers spoke to her daughter, who said she'd seen her mother self-harming and then claiming she'd been attacked. Officers in forces including Leicestershire and West Midlands Police, realised the women they had all spoken to was the same woman.

Steve Glover spoke to four more members of the woman’s family, including her ex husband and her mother, who all said she was a manipulative liar. Her daughter said she was 'every man's worst nightmare.'

It emerged that on the night Warren Blackwell allegedly assaulted her, she'd never been attacked at all. She had inflicted the extreme injuries on herself.

All this evidence was heard by the court of appeal in September 2006. This time the court quashed Warren Blackwell's conviction. He had finally cleared his name.

The cost of innocence
But innocence came at a cost. The government paid him compensation, but billed him £12,500 for his 'bed and board' while he was in prison. The rules say if someone is wrongly jailed, they must pick up the bill. Of course, if you're guilty, you don't pay for your keep.

Meanwhile, the woman kept several thousand pounds she earned as a 'victim' of crime. She has not been charged with perjury.

Asked what were the consequences for him and his family, Mr Blackwell said "it leaves very a bitter taste."

"You imagine walking around village and people are looking at you and you’re thinking what are they thinking?

"There's always going to be people that will say no smoke without no fire and that is something that sticks no matter what you do – you can't do anything about that.

"All I can ever do is answer questions that are put to me – I always have."

The question of anonymity
Warren Blackwell wants women who are proven to have falsely accused someone of a sexual offence, to lose their automatic legal right to lifetime anonymity.

He believes letting women who lie remain anonymous and potentially able to accuse other men, doesn't help the thousands of women who are genuine victims.

That's more important to him than the idea of anonymity for men accused of rape, until such point as they're convicted.

Not that it would have helped him of course, because he was convicted, albeit mistakenly, and of indecent assault, not rape.

But the issue of proposed anonymity for those accused of rape has been the subject of much debate in parliament since the new government took power.

David Cameron had seemed to propose anonymity till conviction. This drew severe objections from Labour's Harriet Harman, who said naming the accused during sex trials is a means of getting other women who may be victims to come forward for help.

Mr Cameron later seemed to suggest anonymity might only last until a person is charged.

The Ministry of Justice told Channel 4 News: "This is a sensitive issue which needs careful and extensive consideration so we are still in the process of gathering evidence. (...) There is still a great deal of work to be done and to speculate on its outcome would be highly premature."

Warning system
As for the woman, Channel 4 News has learned that since Warren Blackwell's conviction was quashed, police forces have a list of all her past aliases, to try to stop her making any further false accusations.

Knowing that she shouldn't be able to put any more men through the nightmare of being labelled a sex attacker is now perhaps the most important thing for Warren Blackwell. He knows just how devastating that can be."

The story can be found at:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/warren+blackwell+aposserious+police+failingsapos+in+rape+case/3684687

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

JURYGATE; JACK WHITE; ONT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON SEXUAL ASSAULT. HAS FOUGHT TO CLEAR NAME FOR 15 YEARS; JURORS LIKELY SECRETLY VETTED; NATIONAL POST;

"While it was not part of the “fresh evidence” motion before the Court of Appeal, it is likely the Crown engaged in secret background checks of potential jurors to gain an advantage at the trial of Mr. White.

The improper jury vetting in Barrie, first disclosed last year by the National Post, dates back at least 20 years. An internal memo issued by the head Crown in Barrie in 1996, one year after the trial of Mr. White, complained that there was not enough information available about potential jurors, for police to do more thorough background checks."

REPORTER SHANNON KARI: THE NATIONAL POST;

PHOTO: DR. CHARLES SMITH;

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

BACKGROUND: In a previous post I asked: "Why didn't Ontario prosecutors examine Dr. Charles Smith's qualifications a bit more closely over the years, pay more attention to court decisions suggesting he was biased towards the Crown and that that his opinions were seriously flawed - or at least share the existence of these decisions with the defence?" My answer was that some prosecutors cared more about winning the case than the possibility that an innocent person might be convicted; I buttressed my response with the story recently broken by the National Post that prosecutors in several parts of Ontario have been asking police to do secret background checks on jurors. This controversy has lead to numerous requests for mistrials and could result in a bids to open numerous cases where accused persons have been convicted in the shadow of the illegal practice which taints a criminal jury trial from the outset. The Charles Smith Blog is very much concerned with the question as to how far prosecutors will go to win the case and is therefore monitoring developments on a regular basis;

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

"TORONTO — The Ontario Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial for a 65-year-old man who may have been wrongfully convicted of sexually assaulting a mentally disabled woman more than 20 years ago," the National Post story by reporter Shannon Kari, published under the heading, "Possible wrongful conviction in 15-year-old sexual assault case; Ontario Court of Appeal orders new trial," begins.

"“I am back to square one as an innocent man. I like my chances. I still have faith in the justice system,” said Jack White, after Justice Marc Rosenberg stated that fresh evidence suggested a “miscarriage of justice” in the case," the story continues.


"Mr. White was convicted by a jury in Barrie in 1995 of sexually assaulting a resident six years earlier at the Huronia Regional Centre for mentally disabled adults and children, where he was a counselor.

He was accused of fondling the woman’s breasts and making inappropriate comments.

The key Crown witness was a co-worker who did not come forward to speak to the authorities until four years after the alleged incident. The jury never heard that the co-worker had a grudge against Mr. White, because of a report he helped write that was critical of the conduct of some the employees at the facility.

Mr. White received a suspended sentence and has since obtained a pardon. But he lost the job he worked at for more two decades and has fought for 15 years to clear his name.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled last fall that the Court of Appeal should take another look at the case. The Crown conceded on Wednesday that the conviction should be overturned and Mr. White deserved a new trial. One of the grounds of appeal was the incompetence of his lawyer at trial (who has since passed away).

“There was no sexual assault. I did my job professionally. The jury did not hear the whole case,” said Mr. White outside court.

The Orillia resident works as a janitor at a local mall and is a coach for a midget-aged boys baseball team, at the request of parents of the players. Even though is retired from his former profession, he wants to be re-instated to be permitted to work with disabled adults and children, for symbolic reasons.

The Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted took up his case and lawyer James Lockyer said he hopes the Crown moves quickly to decide whether or not to go ahead with a second trial.

“I hope they will make the decision in weeks, rather than months. This case has ruined Jack’s life,” said Mr. Lockyer.

Mr. White began working at the Huronia Regional Centre in 1970, the same facility where he spent several years as a resident after he was apprehended by children’s aid as a boy. He was employed at the facility for 23 years, until the co-worker made the allegation involving the female resident.

While it was not part of the “fresh evidence” motion before the Court of Appeal, it is likely the Crown engaged in secret background checks of potential jurors to gain an advantage at the trial of Mr. White.

The improper jury vetting in Barrie, first disclosed last year by the National Post, dates back at least 20 years. An internal memo issued by the head Crown in Barrie in 1996, one year after the trial of Mr. White, complained that there was not enough information available about potential jurors, for police to do more thorough background checks."

The story can be found at:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Possible+wrongful+conviction+year+sexual+assault+case+Ontario+Court+Appeal+orders+trial/3221247/story.html

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

KERAN HENDERSON: GOOD CAUSE TO BE "DEVASTATED"; APPEAL COURT LEAVES UNTOUCHED CONVICTION BASED ON UNPROVEN MEDICAL OPINIONS;

"A statement from Henderson, from Iver Heath, released shortly after the court had made its decision last month, said: "Mrs Henderson and her family are absolutely devastated by the judgment but in fact not at all surprised. The whole five-year ordeal
has been totally based on unproven medical opinions only. Never at any time have the events that actually happened ever been taken into account and witnesses to this day remain uninterviewed.

"The underlying issue that there was no factual proven evidence against Mrs Henderson remains."

The 44-year-old was convicted in 2007 of shaking to death 11-month-old Maeve Sheppard.

Since then serious doubts have been raised about the conviction and the validity of some of the expert evidence that was instrumental in the original decision.

The case has attracted the support of a number of women who have been wrongly convicted of shaking babies to death, and was even the subject of a Panaroma documentary, which looked into shaken baby syndrome."

REPORTER JACK ABELL; BUCKINGHAMSHIRE ADVERTISER;

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

BACKGROUND: Keran Henderson, of Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire, has always protested her innocence. She was in sole charge of 11-month-old Maeve Sheppard when she was taken to hospital unconscious and critically ill with brain injuries in March 2005. In November 2007 a jury at Reading Crown Court convicted Henderson, a mother of two, of manslaughter by a majority of 10 to two at the end of a five-week trial. She was jailed for three years and has since completed her sentence. During the trial medical experts for the prosecution claimed the injuries Maeve suffered could only have been caused by violent shaking. Her neck ligaments were "over-extended", indicating that her neck had snapped back and forth, the court heard. But Henderson, who had seven years' experience as a childminder and was also a Beaver Scout leader, claimed Maeve had a seizure while she was changing her nappy. Doctors fought to save the child but her condition deteriorated and her life support machine was turned off two days later after a short christening ceremony. Jailing Henderson the trial judge, Mr Justice Keith, told her: "Ruth and Mark Sheppard (Maeve's parents) trusted you to look after Maeve. We do not know what really happened to make you snap in the way the jury found that you did. Your reputation as someone who parents can confidently leave their children with has been shattered. You are going to have to live the rest of your life with the knowledge that Maeve died in your care." Henderson, who ran her childminding business from her home in Iver Heath, was hired in January 2005 to look after Maeve. Prosecutor Joanna Glynn told the jury: "It is our case that Mrs Henderson violently shook Maeve and the medical evidence is that act caused Maeve's death. Ms. Henderson was released pending her appeal from prison after serving more than half of her sentence after new evidence was advanced by her lawyers which suggests that the science behind shaken baby syndrome is flawed.

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

"KERAN Henderson has told of her anger and disappointment at the Court of Appeal turning down the appeal against her conviction for shaking a baby to death," the "Buckinghamshire Advertiser``' story by reporter Jack Abell, published earlier today begins, under the heading, "Devastated by Judgment.`'

"A statement from Henderson, from Iver Heath, released shortly after the court had made its decision last month, said: "Mrs Henderson and her family are absolutely devastated by the judgment but in fact not at all surprised. The whole five-year ordeal
has been totally based on unproven medical opinions only. Never at any time have the events that actually happened ever been taken into account and witnesses to this day remain uninterviewed

"The underlying issue that there was no factual proven evidence against Mrs Henderson remains." the story continues.

"The 44-year-old was convicted in 2007 of shaking to death 11-month-old Maeve Sheppard.

Since then serious doubts have been raised about the conviction and the validity of some of the expert evidence that was instrumental in the original decision.

The case has attracted the support of a number of women who have been wrongly convicted of shaking babies to death, and was even the subject of a Panaroma documentary, which looked into shaken baby syndrome.

Maeve Sheppard died in 2005 while being looked after by Henderson.

Henderson, who has now served her sentence, has always maintained the girl suffered a seizure while having her nappy changed, and that Maeve had shown signs of illness on previous occasions when she was looking after her.

Appeal judge Lord Justice Moses said: "There remains the unsolved mystery of how as admired a childminder as this appellant should have been responsible for the use of excessive force, even momentarily, when handling this baby.

"But that was a problem with which the jury had to grapple.

"There is no basis upon which this court can say that the jury was not entitled, after being properly directed by trial judge Mr Justice Keith, to conclude that the expert evidence proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant had shaken Maeve with excessive force."

Since Henderson's conviction in 2007, her appeal has gained huge support from residents in and around Iver Heath, who set up the Carers 4 Carers group to stand behind her."

The story can be found at:

http://www.buckinghamshireadvertiser.co.uk/south-buckinghamshire-news/local-buckinghamshire-advertiser-news/2010/06/30/devastated-by-judgment-82398-26756190/


Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

JURYGATE: TROY DAVEY CASE: PROSECUTOR DEFENDS INTEGRITY OF JURY SELECTION PROCESS; DEFENCE ATTACKS LACK OF DISCLOSURE; DURHAMREGION.COM;

"The Crown was determined to convict Troy Davey for the first-degree murder of Cobourg Police Constable Chris Garrett, so prosecutors consulted local police on the desirability of potential jurors for the high-profile trial, lawyer Christopher Hicks argued before the Ontario Court of Appeal.

"This was designed to get a jury that was partial to the Crown," Mr. Hicks said. "I hesitate to use the word sinister, but there's more here than meets the eye.""

REPORTER JEFF MITCHELL: DURHAMREGION.COM

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

BACKGROUND: In a previous post I asked: "Why didn't Ontario prosecutors examine Dr. Charles Smith's qualifications a bit more closely over the years, pay more attention to court decisions suggesting he was biased towards the Crown and that that his opinions were seriously flawed - or at least share the existence of these decisions with the defence?" My answer was that some prosecutors cared more about winning the case than the possibility that an innocent person might be convicted; I buttressed my response with the story recently broken by the National Post that prosecutors in several parts of Ontario have been asking police to do secret background checks on jurors. This controversy has lead to numerous requests for mistrials and could result in a bids to open numerous cases where accused persons have been convicted in the shadow of the illegal practice which taints a criminal jury trial from the outset. The Charles Smith Blog is very much concerned with the question as to how far prosecutors will go to win the case and is therefore monitoring developments on a regular basis;

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

"TORONTO -- Prosecutors who sought advice from police on prospective jurors tipped the scales of justice against a Cobourg man who was eventually convicted of murdering a cop, judges considering the man's appeal heard Monday," reporter Jeff Mitchell's durhamregion.com story published on June 28, 2010, begins, under the heading, "Jury vetting tipped scales in Cobourg murder case, court told: Troy Davey appeals conviction in officer's killing."

"The Crown was determined to convict Troy Davey for the first-degree murder of Cobourg Police Constable Chris Garrett, so prosecutors consulted local police on the desirability of potential jurors for the high-profile trial, lawyer Christopher Hicks argued before the Ontario Court of Appeal," the story continued.

"This was designed to get a jury that was partial to the Crown," Mr. Hicks said. "I hesitate to use the word sinister, but there's more here than meets the eye."

Mr. Davey was 21 when a jury convicted him of the first-degree murder of Const. Garrett in February of 2007. He was sentenced to life in prison with no parole eligibility for 25 years. Jurors heard Mr. Davey lured the officer to Cobourg's old hospital site in the early morning hours of May 15, 2004, by falsely reporting a robbery, then attacked him with a knife. Const. Garrett died after his throat was slashed; during the attack he managed to fire his pistol, wounding Mr. Davey.

Prior to Mr. Davey's trial, prosecutors consulted local cops, including Cobourg police and OPP officers, on the background of prospective jurors, the Court of Appeal heard Monday. A list of jurors was "cryptically marked -- yes or no," Mr. Hicks said.

The practice, known as jury vetting, allows the Crown to obtain information defence lawyers aren't privy to and therefore creates an unfair advantage during the process of selecting jurors, Mr. Hicks contended. He argued privacy legislation prohibits the practice.

"It (information on jurors) shouldn't be gathered, but if it is, it should be disclosed" to the defence, Mr. Hicks said.

Crown counsel David Finley argued the Cobourg Crown's office broke no rules in researching the jury pool. He said the information gleaned by polling police amounted to gathering opinions on juror suitability, rather than any indication of a person's tendency to support the Crown during the trial.

"Nothing you have seen in this case should cause you any concern about the integrity of the jury," Mr. Finley argued.

The defence has advanced other grounds of appeal, including the weight given by the jury to psychiatrists' opinions Mr. Davey was not capable of forming the intent to commit murder.

Mr. Davey was not present at Osgoode Hall for the hearing. The Court of Appeal panel -- Justices Marc Rosenberg, Robert Blair and Russel Juriansz -- reserved judgment."

The story can be found at:

http:

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;//www.newsdurhamregion.com/news/article/157183

CLAUDE JONES AND MICHAEL PERRY: TEXAS; TESTING TO SEE IF ONE EXECUTED MAN WAS INNOCENT - WHILE ABOUT TO KILL ANOTHER WHO CLAIMS INNOCENCE: SINCLAIR;

"Bill Delmore, an appellate specialist with the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office, dismisses Perry’s innocence claims based on the medical examiner’s time of death theory. He said the medical examiner did not testify as to how long Stotler had been dead when her body was discovered in the lake. “He started off testifying she had been dead at least 24-36 hours,” Delmore told the Chronicle. “He dropped the ‘at least.’ It was an inadvertent slip of the tongue. They took that and ran with it, but their argument was completely rejected by the courts. There is a ton of evidence corroborating the timeline set out in Perry’s confession......The fact that the courts have heard and rejected Perry’s claims of innocence as pointed out by Delmore means nothing. The Texas appellate court system has rejected claims of innocence by scores of inmates who were later determined to be actually innocent through DNA evidence. So perhaps it is fitting, although quite disturbing, that while the Innocence Project is testing evidence to see if an innocent man was executed in the Texas death chamber, another condemned inmate claiming innocence is about to be executed in the same chamber."

BILLIE SINCLAIR; (This post appeared on the site called: "Crime, Courage and Redemption: The Journey of Billy and Jodie Sinclair." The site informs us that: "The Sinclairs met for the first time in the Death House at the Louisiana State Penitentiary on March 17, 1981. She was a reporter for WAFB-TV, a CBS network affiliate in Baton Rouge, who was covering an impending execution at the prison. He was a national award-winning inmate editor of The Angolite, a prison magazine written for prisoners by prisoners. They were married by proxy on June 9, 1982. She fought for his release from the Louisiana prison system for 25 years. Aided by the efforts of former Louisiana State Senator Charles Jones, a leader of the Black Legislative Caucus who represented Billy before the Louisiana Board of Parole, he was finally released on April 21, 2006. They now reside in Houston Texas where he is the senior paralegal fro the law firm of John T. Flyod, a criminal defense attorney. She is the director of public relations for Jim S. Adler & Associates, a personal injury law firm in Houston.);

PHOTO: DR. PAUL SHRODE;

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

BACKGROUND: Several cases, including Michael Perry's case, have came under scrutiny following developments relating to Richard Nields which center around Dr. Paul Shrode. Richard Nields was on death row having been convicted of killing his girlfriend Patricia Newsome in Springfield Township (just outside Cincinnati). The Supreme Court of Ohio had scheduled his murder for June 10. The Ohio Parole Board hearing was held May 10. The Parole Board issued its report and recommendation on May 18, 2010. By a 4-3 vote, it recommended that Nield's sentence be commuted to life without parole, partly because it found the opinion of medical examiner Paul Shrode was unsupported by the forensic evidence. Ohio Governor Ted Strickland commuted the death sentence to life without parole. Meanwhile, The El Paso times reports that The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has denied the Perry's appeal. Perry is scheduled to die by injection Thursday. But he and his attorneys are arguing that if Dr. Paul Shrode had drawn the correct conclusions from an autopsy, investigators would have known Perry could not have committed the murder he was convicted of. Shrode was fired as El Paso County medical examiner amid questions about his competence and credibility."

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

"The State of Texas has executed 460 people since 1982," the post by Billie Sinclair published earlier today under the heading, "Executing the innocent in Texas," begins.

"I feel certain that one or more of those condemned inmates were innocent," the post continues.

"For example, Claude “Butch” Jones was executed on December 7, 2000, telling family members all the way to his death that he was innocent. The Houston Chronicle, in a report written by Cindy Horswell, reported two weeks ago that State District Court Judge Paul C. Murphy ordered DNA testing on a hair fragment found on the counter of a liquor store in Point Blank, a small community 65 miles north of Houston in San Jacinto County, where Jones allegedly murdered the owner during a robbery. The New York-based Innocence Project and an Austin-based newsmagazine, The Texas Observer, filed a petition some three years ago requesting what the Chronicle called “mitochondrial DNA testing” on the hair fragment.

The hair fragment is important. A Texas Department of Public Safety “expert” testified at Jones trial and could only state that “a cursory microscope examination” indicated that the hair fragment matched Jones’ hair. The Chronicle reported this was the only physical evidence that linked Jones to the murder of the liquor store owner. The new testing proposed by the Innocence Project was not available when Jones was tried, and the project’s co-director, Barry Scheck, said the test could now accomplish one of three things as reported by the Chronicle:

* It could prove Claude Jones guilt if the hair fragment matches his hair.
* It could exonerate Jones if the hair matches his co-defendant, Kerry Dixon, Jr., who was supposed to have been the getaway driver and never entered the liquor store.
* The hair fragment doesn’t match with either Jones or Dixon meaning the State did not have sufficient evidence to prove Jones killed the store owner.

The Chronicle reported that a key witness in the case, Timothy Jordan, has since recanted his testimony that Jones confessed to him that he was the triggerman. Jordan is now claiming that Dixon, who is serving a life sentence for his part in the crime, was actually the one who told him that Jones was the triggerman.

Michael Perry is scheduled to die Thursday, July 1, in the Texas death chamber. The condemned inmate was convicted in the shooting death of a woman in Montgomery County in October 2001. He claims that a confession about the murder was beaten out of him by police while he was in a drug-stupor. “The whole case is a joke, and I’m about to be murdered because of it,” Perry recently told the Chronicle. “I did not cause the death of anyone. I know that I’m innocent. If the people helping me can see, why can’t the DA and courts see it?”

Perry immediately recanted his confession to the murder of 50-year-old Sandra Stotler in her Bentwater subdivision home near Conroe. Perry and his supporters now say that he was in jail on an unrelated traffic violation at the time the state’s medical examiner said the victim was killed—October 26, 2001. Stotler’s body was discovered in a nearby lake on October 27. In his confession, Perry told the police he killed the victim on October 24, but now claims that his co-defendant, Jason Aaron Burkett, actually killed Stotler with a shotgun as well as her son, Adam, and his friend, Jeremy Richardson, a short time later.

Bill Delmore, an appellate specialist with the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office, dismisses Perry’s innocence claims based on the medical examiner’s time of death theory. He said the medical examiner did not testify as to how long Stotler had been dead when her body was discovered in the lake. “He started off testifying she had been dead at least 24-36 hours,” Delmore told the Chronicle. “He dropped the ‘at least.’ It was an inadvertent slip of the tongue. They took that and ran with it, but their argument was completely rejected by the courts. There is a ton of evidence corroborating the timeline set out in Perry’s confession.”

The evidence against Perry is disturbing. He was seen driving Stotler’s car on October 24, he reportedly showed the car to a friend, telling him that he had killed somebody; and the victim did not show up for work the next day. In fact, no one ever heard from her again. Even more disturbing is the fact that Perry bonded out of jail on the traffic violation using Adam Stotler’s identity.

But Perry’s attorneys rebut this evidence by saying Burkett was responsible for the triple slaying and brought Stotler’s car to their client. The lawyers have an affidavit from a jail inmate who claims that Burkett bragged to him that he killed all three of the victims. “There’s no doubt he was making bad decisions at the time,” Jessica Mederson, one of Perry’s attorneys, told the Chronicle. “It does not mean he was guilty of murdering someone.”

The fact that the courts have heard and rejected Perry’s claims of innocence as pointed out by Delmore means nothing. The Texas appellate court system has rejected claims of innocence by scores of inmates who were later determined to be actually innocent through DNA evidence. So perhaps it is fitting, although quite disturbing, that while the Innocence Project is testing evidence to see if an innocent man was executed in the Texas death chamber, another condemned inmate claiming innocence is about to be executed in the same chamber.

The post can be found at:

http://www.capitalpunishmentbook.com/?p=442

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

ELENA KAGAN: RADLEY BALKO; HOW WILL SOLICITOR GENERAL TILT BALANCE BETWEEN RIGHTS OF ACCUSED AND GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO POLICE?

"You'd think one might get a feel for how Kagan will come down on hot-button issues by looking at her time in the Solicitor General's office. Shorty after President Obama announced her nomination, I did just that, noting that during her tenure, her office argued that states should be allowed to deny post-conviction DNA testing even when it could establish innocence; argued that prosecutors should have absolute immunity from lawsuits even when they manufacture evidence that results in the conviction of an innocence person; and argued for an expansive power to censor material the government deems offensive. Salon's Glen Greenwald wrote extensively on how Kagan's office argued for further expansion of executive power on issues like extraordinary rendition, executive privilege, state secrets, and indefinite detainment.

But Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSBlog cautioned that we shouldn't judge Kagan by her tenure at the Office of Solicitor General."

RADLEY BALKO: REASON; (Wikipedia informs us that: "(Radley) Balko is senior editor at Reason magazine. Previously, he was a policy analyst for the Cato Institute, specializing in vice and civil liberties issues. He writes on drug policy, police misconduct, obesity, alcohol and tobacco, and civil liberties. He also writes on trade and globalization issues and more generally on politics and culture. He was also a biweekly columnist for Fox News from 2002 until 2009. His work has been published in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Playboy, TIME magazine, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Slate, Reason, Worth magazine, Canada's National Post, and the Chicago Tribune. He blogs at The Agitator, his personal weblog, and for Reason's Hit & Run blog. He has appeared on CNN, CNBC, Fox News, MSNBC, and National Public Radio. Balko's work on "no-knock" drug raids was profiled in The New York Times, and cited by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in his dissent in the case Hudson v. Michigan. He is also credited with breaking and reporting the Cory Maye case. His work on the Maye case was also cited by the Mississippi Supreme Court. He has also written extensively about the Ryan Frederick case and the raid on Cheye Calvo's home.")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"My task this week is to write a column on how criminal justice issues are likely to play out at the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings, and how her expected confirmation will tilt the balance between the rights of the accused and the government's power to police,"Radley Balko's begins his June 28, 2010 post on Reason, under the heading, "Confirmation Theater: Elena Kagan is set to participate in a confirmation process she once dismissed as a charade."

"The answer to the first question is easy: As with the Sonia Sotomayor hearings, it's unlikely that criminal justice issues will get much attention at all," the post continues.

"There's little difference between the Democrats and Republicans on these issues, which means there aren't any political points to be won by grandstanding. That's bad enough. But the answer to the second question is more disturbing still. The confirmation process has morphed into political theater designed to keep us as much in the dark about prospective Supreme Court nominees as possible. And according to Beltway conventional wisdom, that's exactly the way it ought to be.

You'd think one might get a feel for how Kagan will come down on hot-button issues by looking at her time in the Solicitor General's office. Shorty after President Obama announced her nomination, I did just that, noting that during her tenure, her office argued that states should be allowed to deny post-conviction DNA testing even when it could establish innocence; argued that prosecutors should have absolute immunity from lawsuits even when they manufacture evidence that results in the conviction of an innocence person; and argued for an expansive power to censor material the government deems offensive. Salon's Glen Greenwald wrote extensively on how Kagan's office argued for further expansion of executive power on issues like extraordinary rendition, executive privilege, state secrets, and indefinite detainment.

But Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSBlog cautioned that we shouldn't judge Kagan by her tenure at the Office of Solicitor General. The purpose of that office is to defend the law, and to defend the policies of the current administration. Some of those cases were also holdovers from the Bush administration and by tradition new administrations tend not to change course from prior administrations once a case has worked its way up to the federal appeals courts. Both of those assertions are largely true—and problematic. I've never quite understood why we'd have an office whose purpose was to defend all federal law, even those laws the president personally believes are unconstitutional.

We can say that she probably took the job knowing where her boss generally came down on these issues. It's safe to say that Obama interviewed Kagan for the job. And it seems likely that they discussed his priorities for the position. He obviously was comfortable enough with her positions to hire her, and she obviously was comfortable enough with his to accept. That, or Kagan was willing to take a powerful job that would require her to argue in favor of laws and policies that she believes are unconstitutional. If she did have objections to any of these policies, they weren't strong enough to force her to resign instead of arguing that the highest court in the land should give its imprimatur to laws and policies she found unconstitutional.

But if we're not allowed to ascribe to Kagan the arguments she made before the Supreme Court as Solicitor General, it would at least be helpful to know on which cases she might have disagreed with the Obama administration, and in particular those cases where she may have voiced her disagreement. But we aren't allowed to know that either, thanks to executive privilege. I suppose a senator could ask her this question during her confirmation hearings this week. I'm certain she won't answer it.

But Kagan also served as a legal adviser in the Bill Clinton administration. There, she argued against remedying the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, and took a hard line against medical marijuana. Can we judge her on that advice? Kagan's defenders say no. Her job there was in part to recommend legal positions for the administration with an eye toward the political climate at the time. So, we're told, we shouldn't assume these are positions she actually believes, though if she doesn't believe them we're once again looking at someone who for the sake of politics was willing advance policy positions she didn't personally believe. But if pressed by Republicans on the point, Kagan can merely defer to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. During his confirmation hearings about memos he wrote as an adviser in the Reagan administration, Roberts replied that he'd likely approach those issues differently as a Supreme Court justice than he would as a legal adviser whose client was the federal government.

If we can't use Kagan's time in the Solicitor General's Office or the Clinton administration as possible indicators of how she may rule on the Court, we're left with her tenure as the dean of Harvard Law School and the 14 articles she wrote for law journals. Strangely, this means we're supposed to judge Kagan not by the decisions she made and the positions she took when she actually wielded political power, but by the positions she took and decisions she made that had little to no effect on public policy. And perhaps not even then. As prominent legal blogger and UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh explains, Kagan's law review articles were more analytical (a good thing in a law review article, Volokh explains), didn't stake out clear positions, and probably aren't reliable indicators of how she'd rule as a Supreme Court justice.

Even all of this would be tolerable if Kagan were to clearly articulate her judicial philosophy this week. But that isn't likely to happen. Like her recent predecessors, Kagan is expected to play the cipher, offering only vague platitudes about the rule of law, the Constitution, and equitably applying the law. Kagan is aspiring for a promotion to one of the 10 most powerful positions in the U.S. government, where she'll likely serve for decades, and where she'll make profoundly consequential rulings on the balance between government power and individual rights. Yet we're not permitted even the slightest glimpse into what values and guiding principles might influence those decisions.

There is a school of thought that says elections matter, and with winning a presidential election—particularly winning one as clearly as Obama did—a president can expect to have his nominees confirmed, provided they're qualified and hold positions that fall within the parameters of reasonable public debate. I don't buy that. The Constitution delegates to the president the power to nominate, not the expectation that the Senate will confirm his nominations.

But even if you buy this line of thought, on many of the issues Kagan is likely to hear as a Supreme Court justice—particularly issues related to executive power and the war on terror—President Obama has done a 180 on the positions he advocated back when he was a candidate for the presidency. That is, if "elections matter," these weren't the positions that won the last election. And Elena Kagan is the person Obama the president hand-picked to argue his broken promises before the Supreme Court.

To be fair, this column isn't about Elena Kagan so much as it's about how the evolution of the confirmation process and the federal government's increasing hostility to transparency keeps the public ever more in the dark, even on matters as important as the judicial philosophy of a Supreme Court nominee.

So let's make this more about Kagan. It's been well-reported that Kagan has strong opinions on the confirmation process. She even agrees with me. In a review of Stephen Carter's book A Confirmation Mess, Kagan lamented that the confirmation process has devolved "to a place where comment of any kind on any issue that might bear in any way on any case that might at any time come before the Court is thought inappropriate." She added, "what is worse even than the hearings themselves is a necessary condition of them: the evident belief of many senators that serious substantive inquiry of nominees is usually not only inessential, but illegitimate. . . What has happened is that the Senate has ... let slip . . . the legitimacy and the desirability—of exploring a Supreme Court nominee's set of constitutional views and commitments."

Kagan now plans to decline comment on any issue that might bear in any way on any case that might come before the Court. She'll do her absolute best to prevent any serious substantive inquiry into her beliefs, and she'll make it clear that it's neither legitimate or desirable for the Senate to insist on exploring her set of constitutional views and commitments. If we aren't permitted to look at her record in public office as an indication of how Kagan might balance government power with individual rights, we're left to judge her on this: Kagan recognizes that the confirmation process is a charade designed to keep information away from the public, and to prevent the public from forming an informed opinion about who will sit on the Supreme Court.

And she's chosen to participate in it anyway."

The post can be found at:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/28/confirmation-theater?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FArticles+%28Reason+Online+-+All+Articles+%28except+Hit+%26+Run+blog%29%29

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

FARAH JAMA; (AUS); $550,000 FOR YOUNG MAN WRONGLY CONVICTED OF RAPE AFTER ACCIDENTAL DNA CONTAMINATION: ABC NEWS; (READING KORAN AT HOME);

"In 2008 Farah Jama was found guilty of raping a woman based solely on DNA evidence.

He was jailed for 16 months before the court of appeal ordered his release.

In a review, retired Supreme Court Judge Frank Vincent found that swabs from the alleged victim were accidentally contaminated with Mr Jama's DNA.

Mr Jama has settled his claim for $550,000, but his lawyers are still hoping he will get a personal apology."

REPORTER EMMA O'SULLIVAN: ABC NEWS.
PHOTO; FARAH JAMA. (LEFT);

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

BACKGROUND: According to the Australian, Farah Jama was found guilty of raping a 40-year-old woman at a nightclub in Melbourne's outer-eastern suburbs after the victim was found unconscious. She had no memory of the crime but Mr Jama's DNA was later found on the victim. The then 20-year-old denied ever being near the nightclub on that night, saying he was reading the Koran to his critically ill father at his bedside in their home in the northern suburbs. The only evidence police had was the DNA sample of Mr Jama, which was coincidentally taken 24 hours before the alleged crime after he was investigated over another unrelated matter but not charged. Prosecutors told the Victoria Court of Appeal earlier this week that it had since been discovered that the same forensic medical officer who took the first DNA sample of Mr Jama had coincidently taken the DNA sample from the 40-year-old rape complainant 24 hours later. They said it had emerged that the officer had not adhered to strict procedure when taking the sample and therefore they could not “exclude the possibility” of contamination. Therefore they argued the guilty verdict was unsafe and satisfactory and should be quashed. His lawyer Kimani Adil Boden hailed a “momentous” day for Mr Jama, whose case he described as “tragic”. “He's been in custody for close to one-and-a-half years on charges he didn't commit. “Justice has finally been done, however, at a price.” Victoria's police chief responded to Mr. Jama's release by banning all forensic officers from submitting DNA evidence or providing statements to the courts until further notice.

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

"The Victorian Government has awarded compensation to a man who was wrongfully convicted of rape because of a DNA mix-up," the ABC News story by reporter Emma O'Sullivam, published earlier today under the heading, "Compensation for man jailed in DNA mix-up," begins.

"In 2008 Farah Jama was found guilty of raping a woman based solely on DNA evidence," the story continues.

"He was jailed for 16 months before the court of appeal ordered his release.

In a review, retired Supreme Court Judge Frank Vincent found that swabs from the alleged victim were accidentally contaminated with Mr Jama's DNA.

Mr Jama has settled his claim for $550,000, but his lawyers are still hoping he will get a personal apology.

One of Mr Jama's lawyers, Hina Pasha, says the compensation settlement was reached on Friday.

"Provided that Mr Jama's happy and can move on with his life, it's an adequate settlement," he said.

"In terms of whether he can ever be compensated for the amount of time he was incarcerated is a matter of opinion."

Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls has said sorry publicly, but Mr Pasha says his client has not received a personal apology

"It would make a profound difference if Mr Jama was to receive an apology and I would hope that that would be forthcoming very soon," he said.

Last year Mr Jama said his experience of being found guilty of a crime he did not commit was terrifying.

"Really, really, really bad - cannot imagine how bad I felt," he said at the time.

Mr Jama's family is now considering launching further legal action against the State Government and Victoria Police for nervous shock they suffered during the ordeal.

A spokeswoman for Mr Hulls says Mr Jama has not made a request to meet with him, but that Mr Hulls would be happy to do so."

The story can be found at:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/29/2940403.htm?section=justin

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

WILLIAM MACUMBER; IN JAIL 35 YEARS; ANOTHER MAN CONFESSED; GOVERNOR NIXES PAROLE BOARD CALL FOR CLEMENCY; FORENSIC EVIDENCE PLAYED ROLE IN CASE; NY

"Mr. O’Toole, who went on to serve 24 years as a state judge, said his client was dead serious about claiming responsibility for the 1962 murders. “There is no doubt in my mind that Ernesto Valenzuela committed those crimes,” Mr. O’Toole said.

For years, Mr. O’Toole kept his client’s secret, as he was required to do by the canons of legal ethics. But after Mr. Valenzuela was himself killed in prison in 1973, and with the permission of Mr. Valenzuela’s mother, Mr. O’Toole offered to testify at Mr. Macumber’s trial.

The judge refused to let the jury hear from Mr. O’Toole, saying his account was unreliable hearsay. The judge also excluded testimony from a second lawyer and a psychiatrist who had heard similar confessions from Mr. Valenzuela.

The jury did hear about two kinds of physical evidence — a partial palm print and bullet casings — that prosecutors said connected Mr. Macumber to the killings."

REPORTER ADAM LIPTAK: NEW YORK TIMES;

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

"WASHINGTON — Ronald Kempfert was a young boy in 1975 when his father was sent to prison for murder, and they had no contact for 28 years," the New York Times story by reporter Adam Li[tak, published on June 14, 2010, under the heading, "Governor Rebuffs Clemency Board in Murder Case," begins.

"William Macumber has been in prison 35 years, and Arizona’s clemency board wants his release," the story continues.

"Gov. Jan Brewer does not want William Macumber to be released from prison.

Then, in 2003, Mr. Kempfert heard from a lawyer who had been looking into the case. “Your father is innocent,” said the lawyer, Larry A. Hammond. “And we’re pretty sure your mother framed him.”

That would seem a lot to digest, but Mr. Kempfert, 42, said he felt no hesitation. “My reaction was that it didn’t surprise me,” he said. “She’s my mother, and I love her. But I think she’s capable of anything.”

Mr. Kempfert is now certain that his father, William Macumber, is innocent. Arizona’s clemency board, citing Mr. Kempfert’s “very moving testimony” and saying there had been “a miscarriage of justice,” unanimously recommended last year that Mr. Macumber be freed.

But Mr. Macumber remains in prison, and Gov. Jan Brewer has refused to explain why.

The case against Mr. Macumber began in 1974 as his marriage was disintegrating. His wife, Carol, who worked in the local sheriff’s office, went to her superiors with a surprising story. Her husband, she said, had recently confessed to the unsolved murders of a young couple shot to death a dozen years before, in 1962, in the open desert north of Scottsdale, Ariz.

Largely on the strength of his former wife’s testimony, Mr. Macumber was convicted and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

But the jury did not hear a significant piece of evidence.

In 1967, five years after the murders in the desert, a drifter named Ernesto Valenzuela was charged with a similar double homicide. He told his lawyer that he had also killed the couple in the desert.

“He was just making a point about bragging about the people he killed,” the lawyer, Thomas W. O’Toole, said. “He was a cold-blooded killer who relished committing the murders.”

Mr. O’Toole, who went on to serve 24 years as a state judge, said his client was dead serious about claiming responsibility for the 1962 murders. “There is no doubt in my mind that Ernesto Valenzuela committed those crimes,” Mr. O’Toole said.

For years, Mr. O’Toole kept his client’s secret, as he was required to do by the canons of legal ethics. But after Mr. Valenzuela was himself killed in prison in 1973, and with the permission of Mr. Valenzuela’s mother, Mr. O’Toole offered to testify at Mr. Macumber’s trial.

The judge refused to let the jury hear from Mr. O’Toole, saying his account was unreliable hearsay. The judge also excluded testimony from a second lawyer and a psychiatrist who had heard similar confessions from Mr. Valenzuela.

The jury did hear about two kinds of physical evidence — a partial palm print and bullet casings — that prosecutors said connected Mr. Macumber to the killings.

Mr. Kempfert said he believed that his mother had done more than lie.

“I can fully see how my mother could have set him up and framed him,” Mr. Kempfert said. “She had access to the evidence. She was doing fingerprint courses at the time.”

Last year, the five members of the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency unanimously recommended to Ms. Brewer that Mr. Macumber be released after 35 years in prison “to correct a miscarriage of justice.”

But Ms. Brewer rejected the board’s recommendation without explanation in November. It is possible that politics played a role in her decision; Ms. Brewer, a Republican who became governor last year, is running for a full term in November.

“She denied the application right after she announced that she was running for governor,” said Katherine Puzauskas, a lawyer with the Arizona Justice Project at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. The project, which was founded by Mr. Hammond and works to overturn wrongful convictions, has represented Mr. Macumber since 2000.

There is little political upside to granting clemency, but there is a substantial risk, as Mike Huckabee learned when a man whose sentence he commuted as governor of Arkansas in 2000 killed four police officers last year.

P. S. Ruckman Jr., a political science professor at Rock Valley College in Rockford, Ill., has been fuming about Ms. Brewer’s handling of the Macumber case. “I have been following state clemency for 30 years,” Mr. Ruckman said, “and this is easily, easily, the most disturbing. It’s borderline despicable.”

Common-sense notions of justice should compel a governor to provide an explanation for imprisoning a man deemed innocent by an official board created to make such judgments,” he added. “You don’t imprison a man for no reason.”

A spokesman for the governor said Ms. Brewer had reviewed the case thoroughly, but he provided only boilerplate concerning her reasoning.

“Every executive clemency case is carefully scrutinized as the governor balances the very real and important concepts of public safety, justice and mercy,” the spokesman, Paul Senseman, said in an e-mail message.

Mr. Macumber is 74 and in failing health, with heart problems and arthritis, and the threat he poses to public safety is not obvious.

But Mr. Macumber’s former wife, now known as Carol Kempfert, said he was a dangerous sociopath who deserved to die in prison. She denied making up his confession and tampering with the evidence used to convict him.

It is her former husband, she said, who is a pathological liar. “I was in law enforcement for almost 20 years, and no one came close to being able to manipulate like Bill,” she said. “This man could sell water to a drowning person.”

Mr. Macumber, she said, would have said anything to save their marriage.

For instance, she said, he once falsely claimed to have a heart condition. “He intimates that if I hang around long enough, he’ll die and I’ll get the insurance money,” she said. “Well, I hung around, and he didn’t die.”

Then he threatened to kill himself. “If you’re going to do it, go outside” she recalled telling her husband. “I don’t want blood on the walls.”

In the course of a half-hour conversation, Ms. Kempfert accused Mr. Macumber of terrible and disturbing crimes beyond the killings in the desert. Asked if he deserved clemency, she said, “Absolutely not.”

“Actually,” she added, “I think he’s lucky. If he had been caught sooner, he would have gotten the death penalty.”

Ms. Kempfert and her son no longer speak. Ronald Kempfert, who took his stepfather’s last name when he was a child, is in the process of changing it back to Macumber."

The story can be found at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/us/15bar.html

BEN BUTLER; U.K. SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME; TROUBLES FAR FROM OVER; STILL FACES BATTLE WITH SOCIAL SERVICES OVER RIGHT TO SEE HIS DAUGHTER; THE TELEGRAPH;

"The conviction was finally quashed at the High Court this month following an extended legal battle. Yet Mr Butler, 30, a former removal man, said the ordeal had devastated his life and left him unable to find work.

He also now faces a fresh battle with social services in the Family Courts over his right to see his daughter.

The father, who has no previous convictions, is only given supervised access to see the child twice a year, for two hours at a time, at a social services contact centre.

Social services have also taken custody of the child away from the mother because she continued to defend him over the shaken baby charges."

REPORTER BEN LEACH; THE TELGRAPH;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND: Ben Butler, 30, of Cleeve Way in Sutton, served three-and-a-half months in prison after it was alleged he shook his baby daughter Ellie so hard he caused her a serious head injury. On Thursday after a legal battle lasting more than three years, Mr Butler finally had his conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal. In an exclusive interview with the Sutton Guardian Mr Butler told of his miscarriage of justice and his hell inside prison. He warned: “If it can happen to me, it can happen anyone."

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

"When Ben Butler noticed that his baby daughter had gone limp and was gasping for air, he called immediately for an ambulance," the Telegraph story by reporter Ben Leach, published earlier today under the heading, "Father whose 'shaken baby' conviction was quashed faces new access battle: Ben Butler, whose conviction for harming his baby daughter in a "shaken baby syndrome" case has been overturned by the Court of Appeal, now faces a new legal battle in the Family Courts for the right to see his little girl," begins.

"The new father had no idea that the health scare would mark the start of a three-year ordeal which would see him wrongly convicted of harming his child, and jailed for four months with a sex offender for a cellmate," the story continues.

"When the ambulance was slow to arrive, Mr Butler took the two-month-old baby by car to St Helier Hospital, south London.

Doctors at the hospital diagnosed bleeding on the brain, bleeding in the eye and swelling of brain tissue - the “triad” of injuries seen as indicators of a “shaken baby” who has been deliberately injured.

The father, from Sutton, insisted he had not hurt his daughter. The baby’s mother, his then-partner, supported him.

The baby was later transferred to St Thomas’ Hospital, in central London, where a different team of doctors said the head injury had in fact been caused at birth. She went on to make a full recovery.

Yet the couple were arrested in March 2007 and Mr Butler was charged with GBH and cruelty. At his trial at Croydon Crown Court in March 2009, he was convicted and given an 18-month sentence.

The conviction was finally quashed at the High Court this month following an extended legal battle. Yet Mr Butler, 30, a former removal man, said the ordeal had devastated his life and left him unable to find work.

He also now faces a fresh battle with social services in the Family Courts over his right to see his daughter.

The father, who has no previous convictions, is only given supervised access to see the child twice a year, for two hours at a time, at a social services contact centre.

Social services have also taken custody of the child away from the mother because she continued to defend him over the shaken baby charges.

The mother, who can not be named for legal reasons, said: “Because I didn’t come out and attack Ben and say I thought he’d harm her, they ridiculed me.

“My child means everything to me and now I’m only able to see her six times a year. I was told at one point that if I went against Ben it would be to my advantage and I’d have more chance of getting my daughter back.

"It’s outrageous. Because I took Ben’s side they decided that I was a risk to my child. It’s been horrendous.”

Mr Butler added that he now intends to contest the social services’ decision to deny him and the mother access to their child.

“It could be a long process,” he said. “It could be years before I get to have proper access to my daughter.

"Even now – even though I’ve been proven innocent – I’ve still got to fight. It’s been three-and-a-half years and it’s non-stop – a constant battle. It takes everything from you. I’ve thrown everything at it and I just want to see her.”

Mr Butler was freed on police bail while awaiting trial, but following his conviction he was sent to Littlehey Prison, Cambridgeshire, where he shared a cell with a man who had been convicted of sexual assault.

Mr Butler said: “It was horrendous. It’s still difficult to talk about it. They sent me to a vulnerable prisoners’ prison. I was put with sex offenders.

“I never spoke to the guy I shared a cell with – it’s like being put in a mental hospital when you’re not mental. It was just a horrible, dirty feeling where everyone is on a different wavelength.”

He added: “These three-and-a-half years have been horrendous. I can’t believe that it’s taken so long to clear my name.

"I can’t believe so much money has been wasted on prosecuting an innocent person when there was so much evidence that it wasn’t a shaken baby case.”

After four months behind bars, Mr Butler was released following an order by the Court of Appeal last year, pending its final decision on his case this month.

In quashing the conviction Lord Justice Moses also criticised the trial judge, Timothy Shaw.

He said that the significance of the fact that by the time of the trial the baby had already made a full recovery – something which is rare in shaken baby cases – had not been properly explained to the jury.

Lord Moses found that if the little girl’s injuries had been caused by shaking her full recovery “would not have been expected”.

He said: “The recovery cast doubt on a severe shaking injury; indeed it told against a major shaking incident.”

In his ruling Lord Moses said that “nowhere in his ruling” did the trial judge “fully acknowledge the weight to be attached” to parts of the evidence.

He added: “No proper direction was given to the jury that they must consider the possibility of an unknown cause, and should only convict if they reject it.”

Mr Butler added: “It should never have been a shaken baby case. The police were only interested in evidence that strengthened their case against me.

“The trial came down to medical opinion only and the medical evidence just didn’t add up.”

He also said he intends to take action against the police for wrongful arrest."

The story can be found at:

http://medicalmisdiagnosisresearch.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/social-services-response-to-innocent-criminal-sbs-rulings/

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

KENNETH REED JR. (LOUISIANA) CONVICTED RAPIST HOPES DNA TESTING OPPOSED BY STATE FREE HIM. LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT PAVES THE WAY; THE ADVOCATE;

"A Louisiana Supreme Court ruling Friday cleared the way for evidence in a convicted Baton Rouge rapist’s 1991 case to be subjected to DNA testing.

Kenneth Reed Jr., who is serving a life sentence in the aggravated rape of a 16-year-old girl, claims DNA testing — which was not available in 1991 — will exonerate him.

East Baton Rouge Parish prosecutors do not share Reed’s optimism."

REPORTER JOE GYAN JR: THE ADVOCATE;

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

BACKGROUND: Kenneth Reed Jr., 39, contends DNA testing — which was not available in 1991 — would exonerate him in the aggravated rape of a 16-year-old girl. In Reed’s case, after 19th Judicial District Court Commissioner Rachel Morgan recommended in October 2008 that DNA testing be performed, state District Judge Bonnie Jackson issued an order in January 2009 for the testing. The East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney’s Office, which maintains Reed is not entitled to such tests, took its case to the state 1st Circuit Court of Appeal. A three-judge panel of the Baton Rouge-based appellate court in July let Jackson’s ruling stand. The state then went to the Louisiana Supreme Court which has ordered the tests to proceed.

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

"A Louisiana Supreme Court ruling Friday cleared the way for evidence in a convicted Baton Rouge rapist’s 1991 case to be subjected to DNA testing," the Advocate story by reporter Joe Gyan Jr. published on June 26, 2010 under the heading, "Court rules for inmate in testing of DNA," begins.

"Kenneth Reed Jr., who is serving a life sentence in the aggravated rape of a 16-year-old girl, claims DNA testing — which was not available in 1991 — will exonerate him," the story continues.

"East Baton Rouge Parish prosecutors do not share Reed’s optimism.

“The truth is, we’ll never know until we do the testing,’’ said Vanessa Potkin, one of Reed’s attorneys.

First Assistant District Attorney Prem Burns said prosecutors will meet next week with Potkin to work out the logistics of the testing.

Burns and Potkin, who is a staff attorney with the New York-based Innocence Project, said the testing should be performed in the next few months.

“I’m so happy that this day has finally come,’’ Potkin said. “It’s just a long time coming.’’

The Innocence Project will pay for the testing, Potkin said previously.

Nineteenth Judicial District Court Commissioner Rachel Morgan recommended in October 2008 that DNA testing be performed. State District Judge Bonnie Jackson issued an order in January 2009 for the testing.

The East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney’s Office, which argued Reed was not entitled to such tests, took its case to the state 1st Circuit Court of Appeal.

A three-judge panel of the Baton Rouge-based appellate court in July let Jackson’s ruling stand, prompting a further appeal to the state Supreme Court.

The justices Friday unanimously denied the state’s appeal.

The victim testified at Reed’s trial that she knew Reed, now 39, and his co-defendant — William Reese, now 40 — from the neighborhood, and she saw and recognized both men during the pre-dawn attack in her cousin’s home."

The story can be found at:

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/97210994.html

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

BEN BUTLER; U.K. SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME; FATHER CLEARED BY APPEAL COURT; CONVICTED MAINLY BECAUSE OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND OPINION, SUTTON GUARDIAN;

"Ben Butler, 30, of Cleeve Way in Sutton, served three-and-a-half months in prison after it was alleged he shook his baby daughter Ellie so hard he caused her a serious head injury.

On Thursday after a legal battle lasting more than three years, Mr Butler finally had his conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal.

In an exclusive interview with the Sutton Guardian Mr Butler told of his miscarriage of justice and his hell inside prison.

He warned: “If it can happen to me, it can happen anyone."

THE SUTTON GUARDIAN;

(See interview with Mr. Ben Butler following this story);

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

"A father wrongly jailed for attacking his seven-week-old daughter has had his conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal," the Sutton Guardian story published on June 25, 2010, under the heading, "Sutton dad cleared of injuring baby by Court of Appeal," begins.

"Ben Butler, 30, of Cleeve Way in Sutton, served three-and-a-half months in prison after it was alleged he shook his baby daughter Ellie so hard he caused her a serious head injury," the story continues.

"On Thursday after a legal battle lasting more than three years, Mr Butler finally had his conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal.

In an exclusive interview with the Sutton Guardian Mr Butler told of his miscarriage of justice and his hell inside prison.

He warned: “If it can happen to me, it can happen anyone.

“It ruined me. I still haven’t got over it.

“It was a bit surreal sitting in court the other day. I was only in there for a second when they said they accepted my case.”

Despite conflicting medical evidence being presented to the court Mr Butler was sentenced to 18 months in prison by Croydon Crown Court in March 2009. He was convicted of cruelty and causing grievous bodily harm.

Mr Butler was arrested in February 2007, when he rushed Ellie to St Helier hospital after she became limp and pale.

Although Ellie bore no outward mark of recent injury, doctors discovered she had suffered a serious head injury.

Ellie made a full recovery from her injuries, and since she had no visible injuries the case was tried almost entirely on the basis of medical evidence and opinion.

Mr Butler served three-and-a-half months of his prison sentence before he was released on bail to fight his appeal.

That appeal was finally heard in March this year, some three years after his nightmare began.

The Court of Appeal found there was no rational basis on which a jury, in light of some of the medical evidence given, could reject an unknown cause for the injuries, rather than shaking.

It also found the judge’s summing up of the case contained serious misdirections.

Mr Butler now intends to take action against the police for wrongful arrest."

The story can be found at:

http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/news/8237305.Dad_cleared_of_injuring_baby_by_Court_of_Appeal/

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

THE SUTTON GUARDIAN'S INTERVIEW WITH BEN BUTLER; REPORTER CLAIRE FOX:

As Ben Butler was sentenced to 18 months for hurting his only daughter, the shock was so great even one of his barristers broke down in tears.

It was to be the start of a three-and-a-half month nightmare in prison, surrounded by sex offenders and violent convicts.

Devoted father Mr Butler was finally cleared of any blame at the Court of Appeal last Thursday, nearly three-and-half years after his ordeal first began.

He said: “I was destroyed. Prison was the hardest thing ever. It was beyond belief. It took everything out of me.

“They transferred me to a prison in Cambridgeshire where 75 per cent of the prisoners were sex offenders.

“I wasn’t even allowed a picture of my daughter.

“It was a terrible place. I was proud, and lost all pride for a long time in there.”

It started when Mr Butler took his daughter to St Helier hospital after she went pale and limp.

Although his seven-week-old daughter, Ellie, had no visible signs of recent injury, doctors discovered she had suffered a serious head injury.

He said: “Her mum said she had been having these periods where she went pale.

“I picked her up and she was all floppy and non-responsive.

“The ambulance was taking too long so I called a friend and he drove us to the hospital.”

While at the hospital Mr Butler came under increasing scrutiny from doctors, who then called the police.

He was later arrested and charged with cruelty and causing grievous bodily harm.

Because of the lack of any outward injury, the case against him was constructed almost entirely on medical evidence and opinion.

Mr Butler said: “Everyone I knew that was close to me couldn’t believe what was going on.

“They all said it will be all right, there’s nothing wrong with her.”

But he was convicted by a jury of causing grievous bodily harm to his baby after Croydon Crown Court heard evidence of shaken baby syndrome – a potentially fatal form of child abuse. It occurs when a baby is forcefully shaken, leading to damage within the child’s skull.

Mr Butler said this week he intends to sue the police for wrongful arrest. He claimed police ignored the evidence of four different experts who said Ellie’s injuries were unlikely to have been caused by shaking. He also claimed £1m has been spent trying to convict him.

Mr Butler believes miscarriages of justice over shaken baby syndrome will continue to happen if there is not a change in the law.

He claims the police and the courts rely on the same sort of evidence, and while the prosecution are able to fund a large number of expert witnesses to support their claims, on legal aid he was only able to call three experts in support of him.

He said: “There was conflicting medical evidence and the experts were arguing with each other all the time.

“The evidence is too complicated for a jury to understand.

“I have spent the last three-and-a-half years in a constant fight.

“Now I have got to the point where I don’t feel anything. I feel numb.

“I don’t know what to do now. I’ve been trying to keep myself busy, I’ve been doing lots of reading and researching shaken baby syndrome.

“In the past I worked in an office, I will have to get back into work.

“With everything that happened I probably lost a bit of me that will never come back.”

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

RICHARD WINFREY: DETAILS OF WINFREY FEDERAL LAWSUIT PROVIDED BY SAN JACINTO NEWS-TIMES; KNOWINGLY CONTRIVED DOG-SCENT LINEUPS ALLEGED;

"The suit states that Winfrey was wrongfully charged with capital murder on the basis of knowingly contrived dog scent lineups.

“These dog scent lineups, which were developed by defendant Keith Pikett, epitomize the worst of junk science and the defendants knew it,” the suit states.

The suit states that the defendants knew that dog scent lineups were a fraud but nonetheless continued to use them in their criminal investigations.

“The defendants fabricated evidence, including coached false testimony that incriminated Winfrey to corroborate the findings of the dog scent lineups.

“Ultimately, the criminal case against Winfrey fell apart, just as the dog scent lineups have been exposed a fraud.

SAN JACINTO NEWS-TIMES;

PHOTO: KEITH PIKETT;

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

BACKGROUND: This Blog has been delving into the havoc caused by the late John Preston and his magical dog who could purportedly trace scents across water. The focus has also been on Deputy Keith Pikett, another so-called dog-scent "specialist", a canine officer who was formerly with the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office, just southwest of Houston. Time Magazine has reported on two apparent miscarriages of Justice involving Pikett; The first case studied involves Calvin Lee Miller, who was charged with robbery and sexual assault after Pikett's bloodhounds alerted police to a scent on sheets that Pikett said matched a scent swipe from Miller's cheek. DNA evidence later cleared Miller, but only after he served 62 days in jail. In a second case, former Victoria County Sheriff's Department Captain Michael Buchanek was named as a "person of interest" in a murder case after Pikett's bloodhounds sped 5.5 miles from a crime scene, tracking a scent to Buchanek's home. Another man later confessed to the murder. Winfrey is serving 75 years in prison. Three bloodhounds, trained by their self-taught handler to sniff out criminals, indicated that they smelled his scent on gauze pads that had been rubbed on the victim's clothing three years earlier and preserved in Ziploc bags. No physical evidence tied Richard Winfrey Sr. to a brutal 2004 murder in East Texas. No witnesses placed him at the crime scene. Defense lawyers claimed Winfrey was the victim of an unreliable, unscientific process known as "scent lineups," where dogs sniff crime scene evidence and try to match it to smells obtained from suspects or from items they have touched.

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

"COLDSPRING – Richard Winfrey, Jr. put the county on notice last December when he fi led a notice of intent to sue and on May 26 his suit was fi led in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas," the up-dated June 2010 San Jacinto News-Times story date-lined June, 2010 begins, under the heading, "Winfrey files civil suit in federal court attacking dog scent lineups."

"The federal civil suit names defendants as San Jacinto County, San Jacinto County Sheriff James Walters, Former San Jacinto County Sheriff Lacy Rogers, former San Jacinto County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Lenard Johnson, Texas Ranger Grover Huff, Texas Ranger Ronald Duff, Fort Bend County, Fort Bend County Sheriff Milton Wright, former Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Keith Pikett and as-of-yet unknown employees of San Jacinto County, Texas Rangers and employees of Fort Bend County," the story continues.

"The suit states that Winfrey was wrongfully charged with capital murder on the basis of knowingly contrived dog scent lineups.

“These dog scent lineups, which were developed by defendant Keith Pikett, epitomize the worst of junk science and the defendants knew it,” the suit states.

The suit states that the defendants knew that dog scent lineups were a fraud but nonetheless continued to use them in their criminal investigations.

“The defendants fabricated evidence, including coached false testimony that incriminated Winfrey to corroborate the findings of the dog scent lineups.

“Ultimately, the criminal case against Winfrey fell apart, just as the dog scent lineups have been exposed a fraud.

On June 12, 2009, after spending more than two years wrongfully imprisoned on capital charges and branded a murderer, Winfrey was acquitted of all charges and released from custody,” the suit states.

Further attacking Pikett’s dog scent lineups, the suit states the lineups “epitomize the worst of junk science.”

According to the suit, Pikett’s dog scent lineups was exposed well before Winfrey was charged with and prosecuted for capital murder.

“Before Winfrey’s arrest, the dog scent lineups were so patently false a senior prosecutor in the Harris County District Attorney’s Office alerted the Houston Police Department to the fact that Pikett and his dogs were a fraud,” it states.

According to the suit, in the days following the Aug. 7, 2004 murder of Murray Burr, the defendants canvassed the neighborhood looking for potential witnesses.

“instead of initiating a search for the perpetrator of this heinous crime, the defendants simply determined that Winfrey and his family were the offenders,” it states.

“The defendants actively ignored all evidence to the contrary, including DNA tests performed on evidence collected at the crime scene that excluded Winfrey as an offender.”

On Feb. 8, 2007, more than two years after Burr’s death, Winfrey was arrested for the murder of Murray.

On June 12, 2009, after a five day trial, Winfrey was acquitted of the murder.

The jury reached its determination in only 13 minutes.

“Although Winfrey has regained his freedom, it has come at a tremendous cost.

Winfrey spent nearly two and one half years incarcerated for a capital crime that he did not commit.

During his wrongful incarceration, Winfrey was deprived of the various pleasures of basic human experience, which all free people enjoy as a matter of right.

As a result of his wrongful incarceration, Winfrey has suffered tremendous damage, including extreme emotional distress, physical suffering and financial loss,” the suit states.

“The constitutional injuries were caused by a pattern and practice of misconduct which occurred with the knowledge and consent of those of the defendants who acted in a supervisory capacity, such that these officers personally knew about, facilitated, approved and condoned this pattern and practice of misconduct, or else affirmatively turned a blind eye without taking any steps to stop it,”it states.

Winfrey is also suing for at least four state law violations for: malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy.

He is seeking compensatory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees as well as punitive damages against each of the individual defendants and any other relief the court deems appropriate.

Last December, Winfrey presented San Jacinto County with a demand suit claiming that he suffered “tremendous damages” while falsely accused of capital murder and spending over two years in jail for crimes he did not commit.

In that suit, filed without legal representation, he was seeking $3 million in damages. He is currently represented by a Chicago based law firm.

Winfrey was the third family member tried for the 2004 brutal slaying of Murray Burr, a Willow Springs resident who worked as a janitor for the Coldspring- Oakhurst Consolidated Independent School District.

His father, Richard Winfrey Sr., was tried in 2007, found guilty and sentenced to 75 years in prison.

His sister, Megan Winfrey, was given a life sentence for capital murder and 45 years for conspiracy to commit murder following a 2008 trial.

Both were convicted using Piket’s dog scent lineups.

According to a Harris County medical examiner, Burr’s injuries were located on his face, neck and head.

Burr sustained 28 sharp-force injuries.

The fatal wound involved the left internal jugular vein and the left external carotid artery.

Burr’s right eye orbital was broken and both sides of his jaw were broken.

Following young Winfrey’s trial, San Jacinto County Criminal District Attorney Bill Burnett said, “Because this was the weakest of the three cases we tried this one last.

I am convinced that the two primary actors were convicted.

I think a fair trial by an impartial jury showed that even though we could put Richard Jr., in contact with the victim the jury didn’t feel we had enough other evidence to corroborate the canine scent evidence in this case.

In the other two cases we did have sufficient corroboration coming from the defendants themselves.”

During the June 2009 trial for Winfrey Jr., it was announced that the 11th Court of Appeals had upheld the 2007 jury conviction of Richard Lynn Winfrey Sr., for the offense of murder."

The story can be found at:

http://www.easttexasnews.com/Sanjac/News/Ind/June2010/story10.html

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;