Grigson was nicknamed "Dr. Death" because he repeatedly testified in competency hearings for the state and frequently opined in capital trials that defendants represented a future danger (a requirement of the Texas capital murder statute at the time), even in cases where he conducted no evaluation of or had any contact with the defendant."
REPORTER MIKE TOLSON: HOUSTON CHRONICLE;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Although I veer away from making sweeping comparisons this much occurs to me: Both Denkowski and Grigson were Texas forensic scientists who were hired by the state to make the critical decision as to whether the defendant should die or not - after prosecutors vouched for their scientific prowess and judges ruled that they should be permitted to testify. They were both given enormous power to influence a key state decision far greater than the so-called science they pretended to exercise so confidently, deserved. They drew their disciplines into disrepute by enthusiastically allowing themselves to be used an an instrument of the state's drive to kill. But they didn't do this alone.HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A controversial Texas psychologist whose criminal justice work had made him a modern-day version of the notorious "Dr. Death" — who testified for the state in hundreds of capital punishment trials a generation ago — has reached a settlement with a state licensing board in which he agrees to conduct no more evaluations of intellectually challenged defendants in criminal proceedings," the Houston Chronicle story by reporter Mike Tolson published on April 16, 2011 begins, under the heading, "Psychologist agrees not to testify again: Deal with state lets controversial witness in capital cases keep license."
"While admitting no wrongdoing, psychologist George Denkowski agreed to stop evaluating criminal defendants for possible mental retardation after the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists determined that his techniques lacked scientific credibility. The board had become concerned that Denkowski's methods were being used to make life-and-death decisions but had not been validated," the story continues.
"The board also issued a formal reprimand and a fine of $5,500 in exchange for dropping complaints against Denkowski. The settlement came after increasing opposition to Denkowski's opinions, which had been used to keep 16 Harris County killers on Texas' death row after the Fort Worth psychologist concluded that they were intellectually capable enough to be subject to execution. Two of those inmates were executed.
But the tide turned against him as lawyers for inmates marshaled the collective opinion of clinical psychology. In in 2008, a state judge in Harris County tossed out a Denkowski evaluation in a capital case because the judge said it lacked evidence of accepted methodology. The defendant's sentence was commuted to life. Two years later, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities cautioned against using Denkowski's methods until they had been scientifically proved.
Denkowski could not be reached for comment.
Essentially, his approach often sought to appraise an individual's lack of knowledge about certain ordinary things in light of his impoverished or cultural background, arguing that those could be responsible things he did not understand instead of a lack of basic intelligence.
Favorite of prosecutors
Denkowski also deviated from the norm when using standard questionnaires about adaptive behavior and life skills, an assessment that is supposed to show how well the person functioned in society. Typically these are given to those who know the examinee well, including relatives and close friends. Denkowski favored questioning the subject instead, saying that others overstate the degree of impairment. Many other psychologists dispute this.
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the mentally retarded may not be executed, but it left it to the states to develop ways of determining retardation. Denkowski's reliance on his own approach to determining mental ability made him a favorite expert for prosecutors, albeit one who often was dismissed by other experts. He offered opinions in at least 17 capital cases, finding in all but one that the defendant's intellect was sufficient to make him eligible for prosecution.
Parallels to 'Dr. Death'
Denkowski's testimony was reminiscent of that of forensic psychiatrist James Grigson, another prosecutor favorite in the 1980s.
Grigson was nicknamed "Dr. Death" because he repeatedly testified in competency hearings for the state and frequently opined in capital trials that defendants represented a future danger (a requirement of the Texas capital murder statute at the time), even in cases where he conducted no evaluation of or had any contact with the defendant.
He once testified that defendant Kelsey Patterson, an oft-delusional schizophrenic, was sane when he inexplicably killed two people in Palestine in 1992, even though in previous non-lethal assaults by Patterson, Grigson had consistently found that Patterson, because of schizophrenia, was not sane when he attacked people.
In time, Grigson also ran afoul of professional organizations and became largely discredited. Though he thumbed his nose at the professional disapproval, claiming it was politically motivated, his testimony became a double-edged sword too dangerous for prosecutors to use. Grigson died in 2004.
Unlike Grigson, who critics claimed would find a way to tailor his testimony to the facts of a case, Denkowski has not uniformly produced results favorable to prosecutors.
In the case of convicted murderer Robert Smith, sentenced to die for a 1992 killing, he was brought in by the Harris County District Attorney's Office to confirm Smith's intelligence. Denkowski agreed with the expert hired by Smith's attorney, and Smith's sentence later was commuted."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7524138.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
