"Matchim had denied that he hurt his daughter, even though the Crown presented videotape of a police interview in which he admitted to shaking the girl, although not violently.
Court was told that the girl, who was three and a half months old at the time, has sustained brain damage that is probably permanent and which will require ongoing treatment.
Justice Wayne Dymond rejected Matchim's defence, which included a suggestion that the girl's mother, Kate Coombs, was actually responsible for the harm that came to August."
CBC NEWS;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A St. John's man accused of shaking his own baby was taken to a cell Tuesday after he was found guilty of aggravated assault," the CBC News story published earlier today begins, under the heading, "St. John's man found guilty in baby-shaking trial: Colin Matchim was found guilty Tuesday of aggravated assault against his baby daughter."
"Colin Matchim, 25, was charged in 2009 after his daughter, August, was brought to hospital with what proved to be serious injuries," the story continues.
"Matchim had denied that he hurt his daughter, even though the Crown presented videotape of a police interview in which he admitted to shaking the girl, although not violently.
Court was told that the girl, who was three and a half months old at the time, has sustained brain damage that is probably permanent and which will require ongoing treatment.
Justice Wayne Dymond rejected Matchim's defence, which included a suggestion that the girl's mother, Kate Coombs, was actually responsible for the harm that came to August.
Court had been presented with the transcript of an emotional texting exchange between Matchim and Coombs in March 2009 after their daughter was brought to hospital.
During the exchange, Coombs said she was too angry to speak to Matchim and that she did not want to be near him.
"just know that it was an accident ok she was holding her breath and she wouldnt let go and i panniked," Matchim typed.
Following the exchange, Matchim went to the police and told investigators what happened. Matchim's lawyer later fought having that tape admitted."
The story can be found at:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2011/05/31/nl-matchim-verdict-baby-shaken-531.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
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
CLEVE FOSTER; U.S. SUPREME COURT LIFTS STAY OF EXECUTION; TEXAS IS NOW FREE TO KILL HIM. CASE RAISES CLAIMS OF INNOCENCE; ASSOCIATED PRESS;
"Foster’s appeal raised claims of innocence and poor legal help during his trial and early stages of his appeals.
He was sentenced to death for fatally shooting Nyaneur Pal, 30, in Ft. Worth in February 2002."
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: "Foster, 47, convicted in the 2002 rape-murder of 30-year-old Nyaneur Pal, was scheduled to be put to death at 6 p.m. Tuesday (April 5, 2011); He would have been the first Texas killer executed using the state's reformulated lethal three-drug cocktail.At the core of Foster's case is the contention that his early trial and appeals attorneys provided insufficient representation when they failed to challenge blood-spatter evidence prosecutors said linked him to the crime......A former Army recruiter, Foster was convicted of Pal's murder after a Fort Worth pool hall bartender testified she saw Ward and Foster leave with the victim in February 2002. Pal's body, shot in the head, later was found in a Tarrant County ditch. Police and a medical examiner testified that Pal likely had been killed elsewhere, and carried - probably by two people - to the place her body was found. That scenario was supported by blood-spatter at the scene, they said. Semen from Foster and Ward were found in her body. Last December, an expert for the defense, Ohio forensics consultant Gary Rini, examined blood-spatter evidence and concluded Pal had been killed at the spot she was found, lawyers said." Reporter Allan Turner; Houston Chronicle;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has lifted its hold on the execution of a Texas man convicted in the shooting death of a woman in 2002," the Associated Press story filed earlier today begins.
"The court’s order Tuesday frees the state to set a new execution date for Cleve Foster, who was hours away from receiving a lethal injection in April when the high court stepped in," the story continues.
"Foster’s appeal raised claims of innocence and poor legal help during his trial and early stages of his appeals.
He was sentenced to death for fatally shooting Nyaneur Pal, 30, in Ft. Worth in February 2002."
The story can be found at:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7588424.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
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
AUBREY LEVIN; (PRELIMINARY HEARING); LAWYER FOR CALGARY FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIST WANTS COURTROOM DOORS SHUT - EXCEPT FOR ACCREDITED MEDIA.
"He said there was a concern that at least one member of the international media — from South Africa, where Levin previously practised — is expected to attend and will not abide by a publication ban and will file reports to his outlet.
“There is no control of foreign press in foreign jurisdiction,” Hepner said outside court Monday. “Once something is out on the Internet, it is out there forever.........
The application comes four months after a similar argument was successful in the case of a man charged with the alleged torture of his roommate.
Provincial court Judge Brian Stevenson banned the public from sitting in on the preliminary hearing in Calgary for Dustin Ward Paxton, after his lawyer Jim Lutz argued there were already substantial postings on social media networks on the Internet discussing the case.
Lutz said he was concerned that his client, who will have his case heard by judge and jury, would not have a fair trial if members of the public are not controlled in their postings of prohibited testimony.
The ban does not apply to media who are accredited with the court. Hepner will make his restricted access application to Assistant Chief Judge Bob Wilkins on Wednesday in court, thus abiding by a three-day notice to media to argue against such a restriction on who can enter the courtroom."
REPORTER DARYL SLADE; THE CALGARY HERALD;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: Dr. Aubrey Levin, 71, was first arrested and charged March 23 after allegations that a 36-year-old patient was repeatedly sexually assaulted. Calgary Police said that following that charge, “the sex crimes unit was approached by numerous people alleging they, too, were Sexually assaulted by Levin during counselling sessions or court-ordered visits. These assaults allegedly occurred at Levin's Peter Lougheed (hospital) office or examination rooms. Dr. Levin has now been charged with 20 additional counts of sexual assault involving 20 other patients. Alberta Justice has been reviewing all criminal cases in which Dr. Levin offered testimony to ensure there were no miscarriages of justice. Spokesman David Dear said the work in 17 cases in which Dr. Levin was currently involved has been redone by other psychiatrists. The department is currently reviewing 21 other cases which had been finished. Mr. Dear said that Dr. Levin most commonly gave expert testimony to help the court make decisions on sentencing for people who had already been convicted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"CALGARY — The lawyer for a prominent Calgary forensic psychiatrist facing 21 sexual assault charges against former patients will apply to have the courtroom closed to the public for a month-long preliminary hearing starting June 6," the Calgary Herald story by reporter Daryl Slade published earlier today under the heading, "Lawyer for psychiatrist wants trial closed to public," begins.
"Alain Hepner filed notice on Monday with Alberta Justice to be able to restrict access to all members of the public, except accredited local media, for Dr. Aubrey Levin’s hearing in provincial court," the story continues.
"He said there was a concern that at least one member of the international media — from South Africa, where Levin previously practised — is expected to attend and will not abide by a publication ban and will file reports to his outlet.
“There is no control of foreign press in foreign jurisdiction,” Hepner said outside court Monday. “Once something is out on the Internet, it is out there forever.
“I’ll be getting direction from the preliminary inquiry judge. That’s why I filed the application.”
The application comes four months after a similar argument was successful in the case of a man charged with the alleged torture of his roommate.
Provincial court Judge Brian Stevenson banned the public from sitting in on the preliminary hearing in Calgary for Dustin Ward Paxton, after his lawyer Jim Lutz argued there were already substantial postings on social media networks on the Internet discussing the case.
Lutz said he was concerned that his client, who will have his case heard by judge and jury, would not have a fair trial if members of the public are not controlled in their postings of prohibited testimony.
The ban does not apply to media who are accredited with the court. Hepner will make his restricted access application to Assistant Chief Judge Bob Wilkins on Wednesday in court, thus abiding by a three-day notice to media to argue against such a restriction on who can enter the courtroom.
He said he will request the statutory publication ban before Wilkins to prevent publication of evidence at the start of the hearing next Monday.
Levin was often asked over the past 10 to 15 years to assess the mental fitness of an accused facing trial or sentencing.
Those meetings would have taken place at Peter Lougheed Hospital, the Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatric Centre, at court, at the Calgary Remand Centre or at a prison.
Levin was charged with sexual assault on March 23, 2010, in relation to the initial complaint by a former male patient.
By July, Calgary police had laid 20 additional counts of sexual assault after other men came forward with similar allegations.
Levin, who was first licensed by the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons 15 years ago, has been suspended and has not practised since the first charge was laid.
Alberta Justice contacted former patients examined under court order by Levin following the initial charge, leading to many of the subsequent charges.
The first letters were sent in November to defence lawyers asking for help identifying possible victims. Later, the province sent notification to former patients.
Only patients who were court-ordered to see Levin were contacted, an Alberta Justice spokesperson said at the time. The province did not pursue the doctor’s private patients."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Lawyer+psychiatrist+wants+trial+closed+public/4864847/story.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
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
CHARLES SMITH; (ASHLEY SMITH INQUEST); (4); GLOBE COLUMNIST CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD ASKS "WHY SO SECRETIVE?" SAYS INQUEST IS BECOMING "A BAD JOKE."
"Dr. Porter has three decisions to make, all of which in my view could be made in a few minutes by a chimpanzee.
One is: must reporters be made to continue to use the stupid form?
Two is: should Dr. Porter rescind her order threatening lawyers with contempt if they share with reporters properly filed exhibits (in the interests of time and deadlines)?
Three, and most important: should she accept a joint submission from all counsel (but one, who took no position) that she should seize videos from Quebec’s Joliette Institution that show poor Ms. Smith being forcibly injected with drugs just a few months before she strangled herself in her cell?
It was a joint submission. It means lawyers for all the parties with their diverse interests agree that these videos would help the jurors understand Ms. Smith’s frame of mind at the time of her death. (Let’s see: Three months before she ties a ligature around her neck, she’s nine times drugged against her will. … Hmmm. Could it have affected her state of mind?)
These are the issues, all affecting the openness of the inquest and one crucial to the breadth of its scope, which will take Dr. Porter at least a week to figure.
The delay seems massively excessive to me. But fair enough; she’s entitled.
What’s telling is that even this minor decision – the delay and for how long – she has turned into a state secret."
COLUMNIST CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD: THE GLOBE AND MAIL;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"After hours of legal argument this week, after a dozen lawyers had pounded her about the head over the importance of freedom of expression and an open and public inquest in a free and democratic society, Bonnie Porter offered what appeared to be a sincere thanks," Christie Blatchford's column, published on May 27, 2011 under the heading, "Why so secretive? Ashley Smith Inquest becoming a bad joke," begins.
"Pointing in particular to the media lawyers – Peter Jacobsen, who had acted for The Globe and Mail and CTV, and Paul Schabas, who was representing the Toronto Star and CBC – the presiding coroner at the Ashley Smith inquest beamed and said, “I assure you, the seriousness of the issue is not lost on me,” the story continues.
"The inquest adjourned then – Dr. Porter was reserving her decisions on three issues, one of which directly affects the scope of the inquest into the prison death of the 19-year-old Ms. Smith – and as people gathered up their things, there was optimism in the air, soft little cries of, “By Jove, I think she’s finally got it!”
Alas, if the seriousness of the issue wasn’t lost on her for that shining moment late Wednesday, it got lost in a whacking big hurry.
Perhaps Dr. Porter changed purses the next morning, and forgot to put the issue in the new one; perhaps it accidentally fell into the toilet (such things happen); perhaps she mislaid the damn thing on the subway.
But certainly, the first thing she did, or the Crown counsel advising her did on her behalf, the very next day was decide to delay the proceeding and shroud that hardly Earth-shattering decision in her usual secrecy for no apparent reason but that this is how she does business.
All but the media lawyers, Mr. Jacobsen and Mr. Schabas, were notified via “confidential memo” about the delay and the expected length of the delay. The lawyers who were informed about both weren’t allowed to tell the other lawyers what they knew, or anyone else.
The jurors, as is absolutely proper, were notified first, and according to the coroner’s senior counsel, Eric Siebenmorgen, “advised that their attendance will not be required next week.” What Dr. Porter apparently hadn’t yet figured out was exactly how much time she would need to write her decisions, and for some not-explained reason, the jurors apparently couldn’t be reached again until Monday to give them the anticipated return date.
Who cares? They knew enough not to come back to court for a week. Surely that much information could have been given to the two lawyers hired by the four news organizations. You won’t get a decision for at least a week; the jurors have been told they have a week off.
How hard would that have been?
But no, Dr. Porter decided – the confidential memo came with a cover e-mail noting it was being forwarded “at the Coroner’s request” – not to pass along the news to Mr. Jacobsen and Mr. Schabas.
As well, none of the reporters who have covered the inquest for two weeks, and who every day have filled out the absurd forms the coroner requires every time we want to get a copy of an exhibit, and whose e-mail addresses are on every one of those stupid forms, were notified either.
Instead, at about 7 p.m. on Thursday, a singularly unhelpful news release was put on the ministry’s site. I learned of it only secondhand.
None of this matters a pinch of coon-dung in the big scheme of things.
Dr. Porter has three decisions to make, all of which in my view could be made in a few minutes by a chimpanzee.
One is: must reporters be made to continue to use the stupid form?
Two is: should Dr. Porter rescind her order threatening lawyers with contempt if they share with reporters properly filed exhibits (in the interests of time and deadlines)?
Three, and most important: should she accept a joint submission from all counsel (but one, who took no position) that she should seize videos from Quebec’s Joliette Institution that show poor Ms. Smith being forcibly injected with drugs just a few months before she strangled herself in her cell?
It was a joint submission. It means lawyers for all the parties with their diverse interests agree that these videos would help the jurors understand Ms. Smith’s frame of mind at the time of her death. (Let’s see: Three months before she ties a ligature around her neck, she’s nine times drugged against her will. … Hmmm. Could it have affected her state of mind?)
These are the issues, all affecting the openness of the inquest and one crucial to the breadth of its scope, which will take Dr. Porter at least a week to figure.
The delay seems massively excessive to me. But fair enough; she’s entitled.
What’s telling is that even this minor decision – the delay and for how long – she has turned into a state secret.
Funny, but one day this week, I got a note from a Globe colleague who was reading about the difficulty we were having with exhibits at the inquest. He is plugged into the Rana terrorism trial going on in Chicago, and is receiving e-mails from the fellow in charge of posting exhibits online the same day.
America, now there’s a country where freedom of expression actually means something."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The column can be found at:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/christie-blatchford/why-so-secretive-ashley-smith-inquest-becoming-a-bad-joke/article2038323/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com
Sunday, May 29, 2011
CHARLES SMITH; (ASHLEY SMITH INQUEST); (2); ONTARIO CHIEF CORONER'S OFFICE RECORD OF CONTEMPT FOR THE MEDIA; HAS ANYTHING CHANGED?
"I will repeat that: $7,888.20 - almost $8,000.00 out of the taxpayer's pocket to help Dr. Smith sue the CBC - in connection with the CBC Fifth Estate documentary which, we now know, as a result of the evidence called at the Goudge Inquiry, told the truth about Dr. Charles Smith and the Chief Coroner's Office......
But I am also troubled by the fact that the government should go to bat to protect Dr. Smith's reputation with taxpayer's dollars - when many of the innocent parents and caregivers affected by Dr. Smith - and their families - had to scrape together funds in order to retain lawyers who were willing to take on the government and its
supreme witness, Dr. Charles Smith."
HAROLD LEVY: THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE; One of the many disturbing revelations of the Goudge Inquiry was then Chief Coroner James Young's admission that he had arranged for public money to be given to Charles Smith to help sue the Canadian Broadcasting System in connection with a Fifth Estate exposee of Smith and the Chief Coroner's Office. I have no doubt that Smith launched the lawsuit in a bid to "chill" the CBC into backing off of the story. Smith had launched a similar suit against MacLean's magazine in connection with a probing story by writer Jane O'Hara. He later dropped both lawsuits. We know from the evidence called at the Inquiry that both the Fifth Estate and Macleans stories were factual and very much in the public interest. I was stunned by the Chief Coroner's support of an attack on the C.B.C. I therefore launched an access to information application which ultimately hit paydirt: Smith had been advanced almost $8,000.00 out of the taxpayers pocket to help Smith sue the C.B.C. The advancement of these funds suggests to me that the Chief Coroner's Office was contemptuous of the important role that the media plays in protecting the public. Turning to the present, we are compelled to ask whether the current Chief Coroner's Office is showing a similar contempt to the media in its efforts to conceal key video's at the Ashley Smith Inquest from the public against its own lawyers advice - and being ordered to reconsider its actions by the Divisional Court of Ontario. In the view of this Blog, the current Chief Coroner's Office - now headed by Dr. Andrew McCallum - appears to acting very much like its predecessor, as if the Goudge Inquiry, which was meant to restore confidence in Ontario's Coronial system never happened. I hope I'm wrong.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FOLLOWING POST APPEARED ON THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG ON FRIDAY JUNE, 6, 2008;
Friday, June 6, 2008:
Stop The Press: Part Two; Access to Information Request:
This Blog's access to information request appears to confirm that $7,888.00 was paid out of taxpayer's funds to reimburse Dr. Charles Smith for legal expenses he incurred in suing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for libel.
I will repeat that: $7,888.20 - almost $8,000.00 out of the taxpayer's pocket to help Dr. Smith sue the CBC - in connection with the CBC Fifth Estate documentary which, we now know, as a result of the evidence called at the Goudge Inquiry, told the truth about Dr. Charles Smith and the Chief Coroner's Office.
In previous posts I have discussed this issue in the context of freedom of expression - and government funds being used to chill the press from performing its watchdog function.
That's a no-brainer.
But I am also troubled by the fact that the government should go to bat to protect Dr. Smith's reputation with taxpayer's dollars - when many of the innocent parents and caregivers affected by Dr. Smith - and their families - had to scrape together funds in order to retain lawyers who were willing to take on the government and its
supreme witness, Dr. Charles Smith.
Some had to borrow heavily.
Others had to use up their hard-earned retirement savings.
All this while trying to cope with the horror of being accused of killing a child - and, in some cases, fighting to fend off the seizure of other children by the Children's Aid Societies.
The thought that Dr. Smith's victims were unknowingly helping pay his legal fees out of the taxes they paid to protect his reputation is also disturbing.
I wonder how they feel.
We learned from the Inquiry that attempts to complain about Dr. Smith to the Chief Coroner's Office came to naught - because there was no political will to receive and consider them - and determine if they were justified.
(That allowed Dr. Smith to continue reaping the damage with impunity);
Since there was no channel within the Chief Coroner's to have complaints seriously probed and acted on, Dr. Smith's victims had only one other recourse - the media - and at the same time the government was helping thwart media scrutiny by supporting Dr. Smith's private lawsuit against the CBC.
I am also troubled by the secrecy with which this appears to have been done.
If it weren't for the Goudge inquiry we might never have discovered that public funds had been used to fund this private law suit.
What now?
Justice Stephen Goudge is set to issue his report on Sept. 30, 2008: Perhaps he could recommend that Dr. Smith return the $8,000 to government coffers.
I would love to see the Canadian Civil Liberties Asociation take on this issue: It goes to the heart of our democracy;
I would also like to see the CBC wake up to this issue that hit them so close to home, follow up with its own stories, and join me on my appeal of the government's refusal to provide several documents relating to this matter on the basis that they are protected ny the "solicitor client privilege."
This post can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2008/06/stop-press-part-two-access-to.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, June 5, 2008;
Stop The Press: Access To Information Request: Government Funding Of Smith Libel Suit Against CBC; Payment Authorized; Appeal To Be Launched;
"THE INVOICE - ON THE LETTERHEAD OF GOWLING, LAFLEUR, HENDERSON LLP, IS FOR A TOTAL OF $7,880.20;
AN APPARENTLY HAND-WRITTEN SIGNATURE "J. YOUNG M.D." IS LOCATED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE INVOICE.
A SIMILAR APPARENTLY HAND-WRITTEN NOTE IS LOCATED AT THE TOP OF THE INVOICE , SAYS "PAY DR. C. SMITH," AND HAS AN ARROW POINTING TOWARDS HIS NAME AND ADDRESS."
DESCRIPTION OF RECORD PROVIDED TO THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG IN RESPONSE TO ITS ACCESS TO INFORMATION APPLICATION;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Readers:
I have received a response to this Blog's application for records relating government funding of Dr. Charles Smith's lawsuit against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The government has provided me with three records;
The first record (two pages) is described as, "legal services invoice."
The second record (one page) is described as, "a printout of payment data."
The invoice - on the letterhead of Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson LLP, is for a total of $7,880.20;
An apparently hand-written signature "J. Young M.D." is located at the bottom of the invoice.
A similar apparently hand-written note is located at the top of the invoice , says, "pay Dr. C. Smith," and has an arrow pointing towards his name and address.
The third record bears the heading: "GEAC Financial System Payment Data."
Here is some of the information in contains:
Company: MSG2;
Name: Chief Coroner's Office;
Account: Legal Services Other;
Vendor Name; Dr. Charles Smith;
Amount: $7880.20;
Run Date: 11/3/2001;
The access coordinator's letter indicates that "solicitor client privilege has been waived" in relation to the first three records.
It goes on to say, however, that:
"Pages 4 to 7 are records that contain information reflecting confidential privileged communications. Access to these records is denied in accordance with the discretionary exemption from disclosure contained in section 19 of the Act for records that are subject to solicitor-client privilege or prepared by or for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice or in contemplation of or for use in litigation."
Please be advised, dear readers, that I intend to pursue this matter by way of an appeal.
True, this would appear to conclusively establish that public funds were paid to Dr. Smith's lawyers to enable them to sue the CBC for libel in connection with the Fifth Estate Documentary.
(I personally find this to be outrageous and invite our reader's views);
However, I want to see the remaining documents to determine what, if any consideration was given to the constitutional propriety of using tax-payer's funds to to back a law-suit which could have the effect of chilling public discussion of Dr. Smith's work;
Any suggestions from our readers as grounds to be included in the appeal would be greatly appreciated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the previous post as published on March 3, 2008, under the heading, "Blog applies for information on Ontario Government funding of private lawsuit brought by Dr. Charles Smith against the CBC.":
"The Charles Smith Blog is filing a request today for information relating to the Ontario government's partial funding of a libel suit brought personally by Dr. Charles Smith against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in connection with a hard-hitting Fifth Estate documentary;
The application, under Ontario's Freedom of Information legislation, is based on Dr. Young's testimony to the Goudge Inquiry as set out in a previous posting: "Young tells Inquiry he persuaded Ontario government to fund Dr. Charles Smith's libel suit against the CBC: Abuse of Office? December 3, 2007".
Ths Bloggist believes that there should be a public investigation into how public funds came to be used fund a private lawsuit against the CBC - an issue with important constitutional ramifications - but until that happens this application will have to do.
The Blog ran as follows:
"I -- I PASSED ON A MESSAGE FROM OUR LEGAL BRANCH, WHO HAD DISCUSSED IT WITHIN THE MINISTRY AND SAID THEY WOULD TO A VERY LIMITED EXTENT, THAT THEY WOULD PAY A SMALL AMOUNT TOWARDS THE --THE CASE."
FORMER CHIEF CORONER DR. JAMES YOUNG TO GOUDGE INQUIRY;
I am extremely troubled by former Chief Coroner Dr. James Young's evidence that he persuaded the Ontario government to financially back a private libel suit brought by Dr. Charles Smith against the CBC in connection with a hard-hitting documentary produced by the "Fifth Estate;" (The entire documentary can be found in previous postings: Interrogation of an innocent mother: Parts eleven to fourteen);
The groundbreaking documentary, telecast on Nov. 10. 1999 was highly critical of Dr. Smith's competence and credibility. (See earlier posting: Smith and the media; Part four; Fifth Estate probe triggers plea to Premier Mike Harris for inquiry into Smith cases; Deaf ears;)
It included interviews with the mother of a deceased child, Deputy Chief Coroner Dr. James Cairns, who was very supportive of Dr. Smith, and several medical experts who were critical of Smith's work in the cases examined by the program,
I am reprinting Dr. Young's testimony to the Inquiry earlier this week in full, so that the readers of this Blog can make their own judgment of the propriety of Dr. Young's actions;.
(Inquiry lawyer): MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Now, we see, again, skipping ahead in time a little bit, that -- that Dr. Smith has filed a statement of claim against the CBC. And it's dated February of 2000, which would be not that long after the -- the matter was originally televised. And did you become aware of the existence of the statement of claim against The Fifth Estate?
DR. JAMES YOUNG: I became aware that he was going to issue a statement of claim.
MR. MARK SANDLER: And how did you become aware of that?
DR. JAMES YOUNG: I believe he asked me whether or not the Ministry would support -- would help with the legal fees if -- if he proceeded.
MR. MARK SANDLER: And did you get back to him about that?
DR. JAMES YOUNG: I did.
MR. MARK SANDLER: And what did you tell him?
DR. JAMES YOUNG: I -- I passed on a message from our legal branch, who had discussed it within the Ministry and said they would to a very limited extent, that they would pay a small amount towards the -- the case.
MR. MARK SANDLER: And did you support the -- the determination that at least to some extent he would be financially assisted, if he chose to go that route, by the Ministry?
DR. JAMES YOUNG: I believe I probably did. I remember bringing it forward for consideration, which was first and foremost what I agreed to do. I -- I probably said to a -- some limited extent we should -- we should back him on this.
MR. MARK SANDLER: Well, the question that arises is that to a limited extent you indicated to the Ministry that we should back him on this without having heard the telecast, without have read its contents, and without being in any position to
independently form an opinion as to whether there was any merit at all to his statement of claim?
DR. JAMES YOUNG: No. First of all, I've said I don't know if I said that, whether I backed him. I may have or I may not have, but I think I did -- probably did. The other issues that were going on at the time, within government, were that we were having discussions both with coroners and pathologists about issues around liability, workplace safety, providing lawyers for other hearings, et cetera.
And -- and it was becoming a very difficult matter when -- as -- as the number of things were increasing, they were saying, You know, if we're going to do the work for government, we expect support from government in return. So I remember that being an issue at the time, and I remember supporting it for that reason, that
I felt that it was important that we back the -- the people that are doing the work for us. If we're not prepared to back them, then we're not going to have them working for us. It was that simple."
Here is what troubles this Blogster.
First, the Government of Ontario;
If in fact the Ontario government did secretly throw money into Dr. Smith's private lawsuit - even one cent - there has been an extremely grave violation of the constitutionally protected right of Canadians to Freedom of Expression.
Lawsuits against the media are very dangerous because they can have a chilling effect - and can discourage the media from reporting fearlessly while the matter is awaiting trial.
Any government that secretly uses public dollars to support a private lawsuit - especially one launched in connection with a documentary that was critical of the Chief Coroner's office which is under the aegis of Ministry of the Solicitor General - crosses a very dangerous line.
Dr. Smith kept his lawsuit hanging over the CBC for years before ultimately dropping it) - just as he had sued MacLeans for a brilliant expose on Smith by reporter Jane O'Hara only to drop it before trial; (See previous posting: Smith and the Media: Part Five; Taking on Charles Smith; A second example of fearless journalism);
At the moment, we have no proof that the government did, in fact, help fund the lawsuit - just Dr. Young's testimony under oath at the Inquiry.
But Dr. Young's testimony puts a very strong onus on the McGuinty government to clear the air and tell us whether this happened or not.
If it did occur, questions abound;
Who in the Ministry's legal department approved and facilitated the funding?
What elected officials or civil servants in the Ministry gave their approval?
Have the individuals involved been brought to account?
If not, will they be brought to account?
Has there been a breach of ethical obligations by the politicians and civil servants involved?
Now for Dr. Young.
I am astounded that alarm bells didn't go off in his head when Dr. Smith asked him to persuade the government to help fund his lawsuit against the CBC - that he didn't realize at once that such a course of action could be perceived as an abuse of his office.
In this Blogster's view, Dr. Young's actions were aggravated by the fact that he signed a letter intended for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario which had been drafted by Dr. Smith's lawyers.
Dr. Young testified that he did not change a single word of this letter in which he defended Dr. Smith on the three complaints that had been filed against him - (and one of these complaints occupied a central role in the CBC documentary that was subject to the libel suit he wanted the Ontario government to help fund).
I, personally, find it very difficult to understand why Dr. Young would have asked the government to help pay for Dr. Smith's lawsuit in light of his sworn evidence that he had not seen the broadcast, he had not read its contents, and he was not in any position to independently ascertain the merit of Dr. Smith's statement of claim.
I will leave it for the readers of this Blog to decide if they accept Dr. Young's explanation that, "If we're (the coroners and pathologists) going to do the work for the government, we expect support from government in return."
I also find it very difficult to understand why Dr. Young just couldn't say "no" to Dr. Smith."
I will keep our readers informed about the progress of this application."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I wrote the above post I had somehow missed the fact that Dr. Smith admitted asking Dr. Young to secure government funding for his lawsuit.
I then included Dr. Smith's testimony on the issue in a posting called "How did I miss this?" which ran on April 12, 2008, as follows:
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: WHY DID YOU FEEL THAT YOUR LAWSUIT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO TO FUND?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: THE -- THE ISSUE OF THE LAWSUIT WAS ONE (1) WHICH I HAD DESCRIBED WITH DR. YOUNG AND -- OR I HAD DISCUSSED, I'M SORRY, WITH DR. YOUNG. AND IT WAS AS A RESULT OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS THAT -- THAT DR. YOUNG HAD GIVEN ME HIS ADVICE ON WHAT -- WHAT HE THOUGHT WOULD BE REASONABLE FOR ME, AND AS PART OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS, INDICATED THAT -- THAT, AS BEST I RECALL, THAT IN HIS ROLE, EITHER AS CHIEF CORONER OR AS ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER, THAT -- THAT HE COULD SEEK FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR A LAWSUIT.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR. CHARLES SMITH: GOUDGE INQUIRY; JANUARY 29, 2008;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As my brains started waking up this morning - with the help of a steaming cup of coffee - I started thinking about former Chief Coroner Dr. James Young's evidence that he helped secure government funding for Dr. Charles Smith's law suit against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in connection with a blistering "Fifth Estate" documentary that was highly critical both of Dr Smith and the Chief Coroner's Office;
(I am currently waiting for a response to my application under Ontario's access to information legislation for documents relating to Dr. Young's testimony at the Goudge Inquiry);
It occurred to me that Dr. Young's evidence was just one side of the story.
Was it possible that Dr. Smith had been asked about this during his five days of testimony - and that somehow I had missed it?
Sure enough, I discovered that Dr. Smith had been questioned directly on the point on JANUARY 29, 2008, while under cross-examination by Commission Counsel Linda Rothstein;
That testimony reads as follows:
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: We'll come back to it. Do you recall asking Dr. Young to obtain government funding with respect to your lawsuit against the Fifth Estate?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: I -- I don't know if I asked him or he offered it, but -- but yes, that conversation did occur.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Why did you feel that your lawsuit was appropriate for the Government of Ontario to fund?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: The -- the issue of the lawsuit was one (1) which I had described with Dr. Young and -- or I had discussed, I'm sorry, with Dr. Young. And it was as a result of those discussions that -- that Dr. Young had given me his advice on what -- what he thought would be reasonable for me, and as part of those discussions, indicated that -- that, as best I recall, that in his role, either as Chief Coroner or as Assistant Deputy Minister, that -- that he could seek financial support for a lawsuit.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: But, Dr. Smith, didn't the Fifth Estate raise the very issues with respect to Nicholas' case and Amber's case that you've now acknowledged in your written evidence; the same issues that you've acknowledged manifested errors by you?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: The -- the Fifth Estate did point to issues, but at the same time, I think that I minimized or rationalized some of those issues or errors by things like the fact that I was supported by opinions of others, which came -- which -- which lay similar to mine or supported mine. (A)nd so the -- and so as I explained yesterday, I -- I think I minimized them and -- and reacted to them as -- to make them go away, as opposed to try to dissect through and -- and determine the truth or the kernel of the issues.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Would it be fair to say you were trying to fend off any criticism of you to the extent you could?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: Yes. Absolutely. Yes. Yes. That was part of the discussion that had gone on with Dr. Young as well.
This post can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2008/06/stop-press-part-two-access-to.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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com
Saturday, May 28, 2011
CHARLES SMITH; (ASHLEY SMITH INQUEST): (1); PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN ONTARIO CHIEF CORONER'S OFFICE IN JEOPARDY; LESSONS FROM SMITH DEBACLE NOT LEARNED;
"“I am not allowed to say how long the inquest will be delayed,” said Smith family lawyer Julian Falconer, who was copied on the secret memo.
Falconer objected to the use of secret memos “to communicate matters that should be a matter of public record” in a letter to the coroner on Friday.
Lawyer Paul Schabas, representing the Toronto Star, said he was astonished and troubled by the latest developments.
“We went to court to remind it that everything it does is supposed to be public,” Schabas said. “An important public inquest has been suddenly adjourned, and we don’t know why, or for how long . . . Something seems to be very wrong here.”"
REPORTER DIANA ZLOMISLIC; THE TORONTO STAR;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The excessive, unwarranted shroud of secrecy Dr. Bonita Porter has placed over the Ashley Smith inquest - as illustrated in the following story from the Toronto Star by reporter Diana Zlomislic is a disturbing indication that Ontario's Chief Coroner's Office has failed to learn a lesson from the Charles Smith saga. The public once had entrusted the Chief Coroner's Office to provide supervision to pathologists such as Charles Smith who performed such important tasks within the criminal justice system, and to hold them accountable when they strayed. But that confidence proved misplaced after Justice Stephen Goudge found in his Inquiry into many of Charles Smith's cases that, "As the problems became more serious and impossible to ignore, Dr. (Jim) Cairns (former Deputy Chief Coroner) and Dr. (James) Young (former Chief Coroner) finally, and far too late, moved to exercise this oversight responsibility and hold Dr. Smith accountable." And now, it can be seen that the Chief Coroner's office - headed by Dr. Andrew McCallum is behaving as if the former Dr. Charles Smith never existed and the Goudge Inquiry never happened as it tries to conceal vital information from the public concerning the death of Ashley Smith (apparently against the advice of its own lawyers and treats lawyers representing the media who are trying to get this information out to the public as if they are mere nuisances. The Ashley Smith Inquest is clearly foundering on the shoals of the Chief Coroner's Office's bid to shut the public out of its processes. This should be a chilling reminder to Dr. McCAllum that his job, as current Current Chief Coroner is to help his important office win back the public confidence it deservedly lost because of its role over many years in the Smith debacle. One more observation. Up to now, Dr. Bonita Porter has been bearing the brunt of the criticism against the Coroner's Office. This strikes me as unfair. Although she is presiding over the Inquest it is apparent to me that Dr. McCallum, as Chief Coroner, should have intervened long ago, to protect the public, and help prevent public confidence in his institution from waning even further. The buck stops with him. It should not be forgotten that in the Brenda Waudby case Dr. Porter concluded from her own study of the pathological evidence that Smith had miscalculated the time framework in which Baby Jenna had been injured. She did this within a Coroner's Office headed by Dr. Young and Dr. Cairns. This is indeed to her credit. That said, there are good reasons why she should not be presiding over a reconstituted inquest into the tragic death of Ashley Smith.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The high-profile inquest into the death of teen inmate Ashley Smith has been put off indefinitely after lawyers at the coroner’s office circulated a secret memo on the delay," the Toronto Star story by reporter Diana Zlomislic published on Friday May 27, 2011 begins, under the heading, "Ashley Smith Inquest Delayed."
"Dr. Bonita Porter was expected to rule on key legal issues argued in coroner’s court earlier this week so the inquest, entering its third week seriously behind schedule, could resume on Monday. Instead, the coroner cancelled next week’s proceedings with little explanation," the story continues.
"In a “confidential memo” to all lawyers who participated in the hearings, except two representing the media, Porter reportedly outlined her plan for dealing with motions on the public’s right to access documents and videos at the inquest.
She was also revisiting a motion on her decision not to obtain additional graphic prison videos depicting the 19-year-old Moncton woman’s treatment in federal custody. The recordings show Smith duct-taped to the seat of an airplane during a transfer between prisons and forcibly injected with tranquilizers while strapped to a metal gurney for half a day without food or water at Joliette Institution in Quebec.
Porter initially ruled the events on the tapes, which happened three months before Smith choked herself to death while on suicide watch at Grand Valley Institution in Kitchener, were not connected to her death. The Smith family challenged the decision in Divisional Court and won.
A vague, three-sentence public statement issued by the province said Porter needed more time to mull over her decisions.
The contents of the secret memo, meanwhile, sparked a firestorm of emails and phone calls between lawyers and the coroner’s office on Friday.
“I am not allowed to say how long the inquest will be delayed,” said Smith family lawyer Julian Falconer, who was copied on the secret memo.
Falconer objected to the use of secret memos “to communicate matters that should be a matter of public record” in a letter to the coroner on Friday.
Lawyer Paul Schabas, representing the Toronto Star, said he was astonished and troubled by the latest developments.
“We went to court to remind it that everything it does is supposed to be public,” Schabas said. “An important public inquest has been suddenly adjourned, and we don’t know why, or for how long . . . Something seems to be very wrong here.”
After the Star sent numerous emails to the coroner’s office requesting a copy of the secret memo or at the very least some clarification on the delay, lawyer Eric Siebenmorgen said jurors have been told their “attendance will not be required next week.”
He said jurors will be advised of a “target date” for the inquest to resume on Monday.
In two weeks, the inquest has heard evidence from only one witness — a former manager at Grand Valley. More than a dozen lawyers representing various groups, individuals and agencies with standing at the inquest have yet to cross-examine the prison worker."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/998687--ashley-smith-inquest-delayed
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com
COLIN MATCHIM; NEWFOUNDLAND; DENIED BABY-SHAKING; VERDICT ON AGGRAVATED ASSAULT CHARGE EXPECTED MAY 31; CBC REPORT ON CONCLUSION OF TRIAL;
"The Crown's case included the video of a police interview in 2009, in which Matchim confessed to shaking the girl, although he told investigators he was not aggressive with her. The child was only three and a half months old at the time.
The defence argued that Matchim made the confession only to ensure that the girl was not removed from the custody of her parents, and Matchim insisted that he did not shake his daughter. He also suggested that his now-estranged partner, Kate Coombs, was responsible for the girl's injury.
But the court was presented with the transcript of a texting exchange between Coombs and Matchim in the hours before he confessed to the police. The transcript [a copy of which can be read here ] shows that Matchim was highly emotional at the time, and pleading for understanding from Coombs.
At one point, he told her that what happened was an accident and that he had panicked."
CBC NEWS:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A decision is expected in a month as to whether a St. John's man accused of assaulting his own daughter will go to jail," the April 28, 2011 CBC News story begins, under the heading, "Baby-shaking trial concludes."
"Summations were made Wednesday at the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador trial of Colin Matchim, 25, who was charged with aggravated assault after his daughter, August, was found to have permanent brain damage after being rushed to hospital," the story continues.
"Justice Wayne Dymond is scheduled to deliver his verdict on May 31.
The Crown's case included the video of a police interview in 2009, in which Matchim confessed to shaking the girl, although he told investigators he was not aggressive with her. The child was only three and a half months old at the time.
The defence argued that Matchim made the confession only to ensure that the girl was not removed from the custody of her parents, and Matchim insisted that he did not shake his daughter. He also suggested that his now-estranged partner, Kate Coombs, was responsible for the girl's injury.
But the court was presented with the transcript of a texting exchange between Coombs and Matchim in the hours before he confessed to the police. The transcript [a copy of which can be read here ] shows that Matchim was highly emotional at the time, and pleading for understanding from Coombs.
At one point, he told her that what happened was an accident and that he had panicked.
Court was told that the girl has neurological damage that is probably permanent."
The story can be found at:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2011/04/28/nl-matchim-trial-summations-428.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
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Friday, May 27, 2011
HASSAN DIAB: EXTRADITION; ANOTHER BLOW; JUDGE WILL NOT DELAY RULING; DEFENCE WANTS TO CALL FRENCH HANDWRITING EXPERTS; OTTAWA CITIZEN;
"The “tortured history” of the extradition hearing — it has suffered repeated delays — had little bearing on his decision to proceed, Maranger said, since he could not act on any new handwriting evidence brought forward.
He has already ruled that it will be up to a French criminal court to decide if the Bisotti report is reliable.
What’s more, he said, any assessment of how French courts handle expert evidence must be done by Canada’s immigration minister during a later phase in the extradition process.
“I do not have the jurisdiction to examine the fairness or unfairness of a foreign procedure,” he said, “but the minister does.”
Diab wanted to introduce French experts who would speak to the flawed methodology and unreliability of the Bisotti report. He also wanted to use the experts to establish that the French legal system would not allow him to effectively dispute the report in court."
REPORTER ANDREW DUFFY; THE OTTAWA CITIZEN;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"OTTAWA — A former University of Ottawa professor wanted by the French government in connection with a 1980 terrorist bombing has lost his bid to delay the decision in his extradition case," the Ottawa Citizen story by reporter Andrew Duffy published earlier today under the heading, "Alleged synagogue bomber loses bid to delay extradition ruling," begins.
"Hassan Diab had asked Justice Robert Maranger to put his verdict on hold while new evidence from French handwriting experts was developed," the story continues.
"But Maranger denied the request Thursday, saying the court had already heard enough handwriting evidence during 46 days of testimony.
The extradition case has been before the courts for 2½ years.
Maranger said he will deliver his verdict on extradition as planned on June 6.
Diab’s extradition hinges on the evidence of a French forensic handwriting expert, Anne Bisotti, who found similarities between five words written in a Paris hotel registration book shortly before the bombing and samples of Diab’s writing.
As part of his defence, Diab presented three expert witnesses, from Canada, the U.S. and the United Kingdom, all of whom sharply criticized the Bisotti report.
“I find it difficult to conceive of how the French experts will be more critical than the experts who have already testified,” Maranger said Thursday in denying the application for a postponement.
The “tortured history” of the extradition hearing — it has suffered repeated delays — had little bearing on his decision to proceed, Maranger said, since he could not act on any new handwriting evidence brought forward.
He has already ruled that it will be up to a French criminal court to decide if the Bisotti report is reliable.
What’s more, he said, any assessment of how French courts handle expert evidence must be done by Canada’s immigration minister during a later phase in the extradition process.
“I do not have the jurisdiction to examine the fairness or unfairness of a foreign procedure,” he said, “but the minister does.”
Diab wanted to introduce French experts who would speak to the flawed methodology and unreliability of the Bisotti report. He also wanted to use the experts to establish that the French legal system would not allow him to effectively dispute the report in court.
Diab, 57, a Lebanese-born Canadian, faces murder and attempted murder charges in France for his alleged role in the bombing of a Parisian synagogue on Oct. 3, 1980.
Crown prosecutors allege that Diab was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine when he helped arrange the synagogue bombing, which killed four people and injured more than 40."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Alleged+synagogue+bomber+loses+delay+extradition+ruling/4843540/story.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 accessed at:
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.coM;
Thursday, May 26, 2011
BREAKING NEWS; ALAN SHADRAKE: APPEAL AGAINST JAIL TERM DISMISSED; SINGAPORE NEWS.
"Alan Shadrake, a freelance journalist and author of "Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock", was allowed to undergo a medical test before starting his jail term on Wednesday."
SINGAPORE NEWS;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Alan Shadrake had the courage to attack the uneven application of the death penalty in Singapore and apparently now must pay the price. To me, as publisher of this Blog, he is a hero who has proven himself to be a man of the strongest conviction. He has put Singapore Justice "in the dock" where it belongs. My thoughts, along with others who oppose the capriciousness of the death penalty - I am utterly opposed to the death penalty in any circumstances - will be with him as he endures his prison term. I would like to think that the Singapore Government would have the decency to pardon him. But I somehow doubt that this will happen. I am truly looking forward to Mr. Shadrake's next book.HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"SINGAPORE: A 76-year-old British author on Friday lost his appeal against a six-week jail term and fine for insulting Singapore's judiciary in a book about criminal executions in the city-state," the Singapore News reported earlier today," under the heading, "British author Alan Shadrake loses appeal against jail term."
"Alan Shadrake, a freelance journalist and author of "Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock", was allowed to undergo a medical test before starting his jail term on Wednesday."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_singapore/view/1131506/1/.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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
U.S. ARMY CRIME LAB; LAB EVIDENCE TOSSED FROM DOUBLE MURDER TRIAL; PROSECUTION VIOLATED DISCLOSURE RULES; MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS;
"The judge, however, concluded that the prosecution should have revealed the information to the defense earlier in the trial as part of routine evidence-sharing practices, known as discovery. By the time it was turned over to the defense, Garcia had already testified and couldn't be cross-examined.
"She testified that no one had detected any problems with her work," Gittins said. "But the judge told the (jury) to disregard her testimony and said it was unreliable.""
REPORTER MARISA TAYLOR; MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"WASHINGTON — Work by the military's premier crime lab is being questioned again — this time by the presiding judge in a double murder case," the McClatchy Newspapers story by reporter Marisa Taylor published earlier today under the heading, "Military crime lab evidence tossed from double murder trial," begins.
"In the latest example of troubled testimony by the lab's analysts, a judge overseeing the trial of Army Sgt. Joseph Bozicevich told jurors to disregard testimony from a fingerprint analyst," the story continues.
"The analyst had identified the defendant's fingerprint on a document that prosecutors had presented as evidence.
On Wednesday, a military jury at Fort Stewart, Ga., found Bozicevich guilty of murdering two fellow soldiers in Iraq. Bozicevich, who had claimed self-defense in the 2008 shooting, will be spared the death penalty because the verdict was not unanimous.
His defense attorney, Charles Gittins, said he didn't know whether the judge's decision on the expert's testimony and other questions about the prosecution's handling of evidence helped sway any of the jurors.
"But there was at least one (juror) who wasn't buying the premeditated murder charge," he said.
Military Judge Col. Tara Osborn handed down the ruling on the testimony Monday after the prosecution belatedly revealed that the analyst with the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory had made a mistake on a proficiency test.
The expert was identified as both Monika and Monica Wilk Garcia in military documents. An Army spokesman said the military doesn't believe her name should be publicized although she had testified in a public court proceeding. As a result, the spokesman refused to confirm the spelling of her first name.
According to the documents obtained by McClatchy, the analyst failed to identify a fingerprint during the proficiency test.
"The root cause was determined to be that Ms. Garcia had a misunderstanding of the proficiency test procedures and how reports were to be handled," a report on the matter said.
The report, dated May 17, said a lab review of her work over three months "resulted in completely satisfactory performance." She was initially put on probation and returned to full duty in October.
"As of the date of this memorandum, Ms. Garcia's performance as a latent print examiner has consistently met and exceeded the required standard," it said.
The judge, however, concluded that the prosecution should have revealed the information to the defense earlier in the trial as part of routine evidence-sharing practices, known as discovery. By the time it was turned over to the defense, Garcia had already testified and couldn't be cross-examined.
"She testified that no one had detected any problems with her work," Gittins said. "But the judge told the (jury) to disregard her testimony and said it was unreliable."
In response to questions from McClatchy, the Army said in a statement that the examiner did not commit misconduct of any kind.
"The lab has, and continues to, abide by the law concerning the discovery process," the Army said.
New technology and stepped-up scrutiny in labs in general have led to more possible problems being flagged, the Army said. As a result, similar "corrective actions" have been taken after these routine reviews. But the Army did not elaborate on what those cases entailed.
Gittins said he had been prompted to ask for information related to mistakes made by the analyst after reading a McClatchy series on the crime lab.
"They should have told me about this issue from the outset," he said.
The McClatchy investigation revealed that the crime lab had not always informed defense attorneys about mistakes and misconduct at the lab. In one of the more serious cases, analyst Phillip Mills was found to have falsified a report, prompting a massive retesting of his cases. As a result, the lab concluded he had made dozens of mistakes, often when testing evidence in rape cases.
In one of the most serious instances, two Navy officers were convicted of charges related to a sexual misconduct case based in part on evidence tested by Mills. They were exonerated by the retesting effort, but they learned about the retesting by chance without getting notice from the military.
The military, however, has repeatedly refused to provide information on whether other analysts have been found to have committed misconduct or made mistakes that impact criminal cases. Officials have only acknowledged problems when confronted with details obtained from outside sources.
McClatchy, for instance, discovered that military investigators concluded in 2006 that former firearms lab analyst Michael Brooks destroyed evidence from a case file and lied about his actions. His supervisor also had concluded that Brooks had not examined evidence that he said he had.
Meanwhile, Garcia is the second print examiner to face questions about her work in court in a Fort Stewart murder case.
Mistakes made by the other fingerprint examiner, Shauna Steffan, came up earlier this year in a pre-indictment hearing of Army Spec. Neftaly Platero. He's accused of killing two of his 3rd Infantry Division roommates and wounding a third in Iraq last year."
The story can be found at:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/25/114792/military-crime-lab-evidence-tossed.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
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
"She testified that no one had detected any problems with her work," Gittins said. "But the judge told the (jury) to disregard her testimony and said it was unreliable.""
REPORTER MARISA TAYLOR; MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"WASHINGTON — Work by the military's premier crime lab is being questioned again — this time by the presiding judge in a double murder case," the McClatchy Newspapers story by reporter Marisa Taylor published earlier today under the heading, "Military crime lab evidence tossed from double murder trial," begins.
"In the latest example of troubled testimony by the lab's analysts, a judge overseeing the trial of Army Sgt. Joseph Bozicevich told jurors to disregard testimony from a fingerprint analyst," the story continues.
"The analyst had identified the defendant's fingerprint on a document that prosecutors had presented as evidence.
On Wednesday, a military jury at Fort Stewart, Ga., found Bozicevich guilty of murdering two fellow soldiers in Iraq. Bozicevich, who had claimed self-defense in the 2008 shooting, will be spared the death penalty because the verdict was not unanimous.
His defense attorney, Charles Gittins, said he didn't know whether the judge's decision on the expert's testimony and other questions about the prosecution's handling of evidence helped sway any of the jurors.
"But there was at least one (juror) who wasn't buying the premeditated murder charge," he said.
Military Judge Col. Tara Osborn handed down the ruling on the testimony Monday after the prosecution belatedly revealed that the analyst with the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory had made a mistake on a proficiency test.
The expert was identified as both Monika and Monica Wilk Garcia in military documents. An Army spokesman said the military doesn't believe her name should be publicized although she had testified in a public court proceeding. As a result, the spokesman refused to confirm the spelling of her first name.
According to the documents obtained by McClatchy, the analyst failed to identify a fingerprint during the proficiency test.
"The root cause was determined to be that Ms. Garcia had a misunderstanding of the proficiency test procedures and how reports were to be handled," a report on the matter said.
The report, dated May 17, said a lab review of her work over three months "resulted in completely satisfactory performance." She was initially put on probation and returned to full duty in October.
"As of the date of this memorandum, Ms. Garcia's performance as a latent print examiner has consistently met and exceeded the required standard," it said.
The judge, however, concluded that the prosecution should have revealed the information to the defense earlier in the trial as part of routine evidence-sharing practices, known as discovery. By the time it was turned over to the defense, Garcia had already testified and couldn't be cross-examined.
"She testified that no one had detected any problems with her work," Gittins said. "But the judge told the (jury) to disregard her testimony and said it was unreliable."
In response to questions from McClatchy, the Army said in a statement that the examiner did not commit misconduct of any kind.
"The lab has, and continues to, abide by the law concerning the discovery process," the Army said.
New technology and stepped-up scrutiny in labs in general have led to more possible problems being flagged, the Army said. As a result, similar "corrective actions" have been taken after these routine reviews. But the Army did not elaborate on what those cases entailed.
Gittins said he had been prompted to ask for information related to mistakes made by the analyst after reading a McClatchy series on the crime lab.
"They should have told me about this issue from the outset," he said.
The McClatchy investigation revealed that the crime lab had not always informed defense attorneys about mistakes and misconduct at the lab. In one of the more serious cases, analyst Phillip Mills was found to have falsified a report, prompting a massive retesting of his cases. As a result, the lab concluded he had made dozens of mistakes, often when testing evidence in rape cases.
In one of the most serious instances, two Navy officers were convicted of charges related to a sexual misconduct case based in part on evidence tested by Mills. They were exonerated by the retesting effort, but they learned about the retesting by chance without getting notice from the military.
The military, however, has repeatedly refused to provide information on whether other analysts have been found to have committed misconduct or made mistakes that impact criminal cases. Officials have only acknowledged problems when confronted with details obtained from outside sources.
McClatchy, for instance, discovered that military investigators concluded in 2006 that former firearms lab analyst Michael Brooks destroyed evidence from a case file and lied about his actions. His supervisor also had concluded that Brooks had not examined evidence that he said he had.
Meanwhile, Garcia is the second print examiner to face questions about her work in court in a Fort Stewart murder case.
Mistakes made by the other fingerprint examiner, Shauna Steffan, came up earlier this year in a pre-indictment hearing of Army Spec. Neftaly Platero. He's accused of killing two of his 3rd Infantry Division roommates and wounding a third in Iraq last year."
The story can be found at:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/25/114792/military-crime-lab-evidence-tossed.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
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
HASSAN DIAB; EXTRADITON HEARING; HIS LAWYER SEEKS TO DELAY EXTRADITION RULING "FOR MORE HANDWRITING EVIDENCE." OTTAWA CITIZEN;
"Defence lawyer Donald Bayne said he has found several French experts who will testify that key handwriting evidence against Ottawa’s Hassan Diab is completely unreliable.
Justice Robert Maranger was scheduled to give a decision in the two-year-old extradition case on June 6.
But Bayne asked him to suspend that judgment so that the new evidence can be finalized, then presented to court.
“This is the only opportunity for the defendant to seek to adduce this evidence,” Bayne argued, noting that the French government has repeatedly added evidence to the Crown’s case during the extradition process."
REPORTER ANDREW DUFFY; THE OTTAWA CITIZEN;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"OTTAWA — The lawyer for a former University of Ottawa professor France wants to put on trial for a 1980 terrorist bombing has asked a judge to delay the extradition case so that new evidence can be introduced," the Ottawa Citizen story by reporter Andrew Duffy published earlier today under the heading, "Alleged synagogue bomber seeks to delay extradition ruling for more handwriting evidence," begins.
"Defence lawyer Donald Bayne said he has found several French experts who will testify that key handwriting evidence against Ottawa’s Hassan Diab is completely unreliable," the story continues.
"Justice Robert Maranger was scheduled to give a decision in the two-year-old extradition case on June 6.
But Bayne asked him to suspend that judgment so that the new evidence can be finalized, then presented to court.
“This is the only opportunity for the defendant to seek to adduce this evidence,” Bayne argued, noting that the French government has repeatedly added evidence to the Crown’s case during the extradition process.
Diab, 57, a Lebanese-born Canadian, faces murder and attempted-murder charges in France for his alleged role in the bombing of a Parisian synagogue on Oct. 3, 1980.
He has repeatedly insisted that French authorities have the wrong man and that he is the victim of mistaken identity.
Diab’s extradition case hinges on the evidence of a French forensic handwriting expert, Anne Bisotti, who found similarities between five words written in a Paris hotel registration book shortly before the bombing and samples of Diab’s writing.
As part of his defence, Diab has already presented three expert witnesses, from Canada, the U.S. and the United Kingdom, all of whom sharply criticized the Bisotti report.
Bayne now wants to introduce several French experts who will speak to the methodology Bisotti employed. He also wants to use the experts to establish that the French legal system will not allow Diab to effectively dispute the Bisotti report in court.
Crown prosecutor Claude LeFrançois told Maranger that he does not have the legal jurisdiction to consider whether Diab will receive a fair trial in France, “a first-world country in Western Europe.”
LeFrançois suggested that such an approach would render already complicated extradition hearings a “nightmare” and would require judges to assess perceived judicial failings in countries such as Mexico. “It would lead to absurdity,” he said.
What’s more, LeFrançois said, Diab has already called expert witnesses to dispute the Bisotti report and could have called more during the lengthy extradition hearing that concluded in March.
Crown prosecutors allege that Diab was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine when he helped to arrange the synagogue bombing, which killed four people and injured more than 40.
Judge Maranger is to deliver a decision on the defence application Thursday morning."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Alleged+synagogue+bomber+seeks+delay+extradition+ruling+more/4839575/story.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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM. THE REPUBLIC REPORTS THAT SCIENCE COMMISSION CHAIR JOHN BRADLEY IS OUT OF A JOB! (EDITORIAL COMMENT: HALLELUJAH)!
"Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in 2004. Critics have said new science standards suggest the blaze that killed his children was not arson and that he was wrongly executed.
Bradley slowed down the panel's work and pushed members to find no misconduct by fire investigators."
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND OF REVIEW: District Judge Charlie Baird agreed to hold the unprecedented two-day hearing to consider evidence on whether Cameron Todd Willingham was actually innocent of and executed for a crime that never occurred. Willingham was executed in 2004 in connection with a fire in his home in Corsicana that claimed the lives of his three young children. State officials – including the State Fire Marshal's Office – concluded that the 1991 fire had been deliberately set by Willingham; Willingham maintained his innocence, including in his last words before death...Baird, who will retire at the end of the year, will consider testimony and evidence in the case on Oct. 6 and 7. Baird last year presided over the state's first posthumous hearing in the case of Tim Cole.
BACKGROUND OF WILLINGHAM CASE: (Wikipedia); Cameron Todd Willingham (January 9, 1968 – February 17, 2004), born in Carter County, Oklahoma, was sentenced to death by the state of Texas for murdering his three daughters—two year old Amber Louise Kuykendall, and one year old twins Karmon Diane Willingham and Kameron Marie Willingham— by setting his house on fire. The fire occurred on December 23, 1991 in Corsicana, Texas. Lighter fluid was kept on the front porch of Willingham’s house as evidenced by a melted container found there. Some of this fluid may have entered the front doorway of the house carried along by fire hose water. It was alleged this fluid was deliberately poured to start the fire and that Willingham chose this entrance way so as to impede rescue attempts. The prosecution also used other arson theories that have since been brought into question. In addition to the arson evidence, a jailhouse informant claimed Willingham confessed that he set the fire to hide his wife's physical abuse of the girls, although the girls showed no other injuries besides those caused by the fire. Neighbors also testified that Willingham did not try hard enough to save his children. They allege he "crouched down" in his front yard and watched the house burn for a period of time without attempting to enter the home or go to neighbors for help or request they call firefighters. He claimed that he tried to go back into the house but it was "too hot". As firefighters arrived, however, he rushed towards the garage and pushed his car away from the burning building, requesting firefighters do the same rather than put out the fire. After the fire, Willingham showed no emotion at the death of his children and spent the next day sorting through the debris, laughing and playing music. He expressed anger after finding his dartboard burned in the fire. Firefighters and other witnesses were suspicious of how he reacted during and after the fire. Willingham was charged with murder on January 8, 1992. During his trial in August 1992, he was offered a life term in exchange for a guilty plea, which he turned down insisting he was innocent. After his conviction, he and his wife divorced. She later stated that she believed that Willingham was guilty. Prosecutors alleged this was part of a pattern of behavior intended to rid himself of his children. Willingham had a history of committing crimes, including burglary, grand larceny and car theft. There was also an incident when he beat his pregnant wife over the stomach with a telephone to induce a miscarriage. When asked if he had a final statement, Willingham said: "Yeah. The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man - convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do. From God's dust I came and to dust I will return - so the earth shall become my throne. I gotta go, road dog. I love you Gabby." However, his final words were directed at his ex-wife, Stacy Willingham. He turned to her and said "I hope you rot in hell, bitch" several times while attempting to extend his middle finger in an obscene gesture. His ex-wife did not show any reaction to this. He was executed by lethal injection on February 17, 2004. Subsequent to that date, persistent questions have been raised as to the accuracy of the forensic evidence used in the conviction, specifically, whether it can be proven that an accelerant (such as the lighter fluid mentioned above) was used to start the fatal fire. Fire investigator Gerald L. Hurst reviewed the case documents including the trial transcriptions and an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene. Hurst said, "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire. Legendary "Innocence" lawyer Barry Scheck asked participants at a conference of the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers held in Toronto in August, 2010, how Willingham, who had lost his family to the fire, must have felt to hear the horrific allegations made against him on the basis of the bogus evidence, "and nobody pays any attention to it as he gets executed." "It's the Dreyfus Affair, and you all know what that is," Scheck continued. "It's the Dreyfus AffaIr of the United States. Luke Power's music video "Texas Death Row Blues," can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/09/cameron-todd-willingham-texas-death-row_02.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"AUSTIN, Texas — The embattled chairman of the Texas Forensic Science Commission will be out of the job next week," the Associated Press story filed earlier today under the heading, "Bradley out as head of Texas forensics panel as Senate refuses to confirm nomination," begins.
"The state Senate Nominations Committee has ended its work this session without voting on John Bradley's appointment. His term will end when the Legislative session concludes Monday," the story continues.
"Gov. Rick Perry appointed Bradley, the Williamson County district attorney, to lead the commission in 2009, just days before it was to hear a critical report of the original investigation of arson evidence in a death row case.
Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in 2004. Critics have said new science standards suggest the blaze that killed his children was not arson and that he was wrongly executed.
Bradley slowed down the panel's work and pushed members to find no misconduct by fire investigators."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/e70dae58745743499352d1cb0ec9514b/TX-XGR--Forensic-Commission/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
TERRILL SWIFT AND THREE OTHERS; ILLINOIS; NEW DNA TESTS MAY CLEAR THEM IN WOMAN'S MURDER; DNA MATCH TO CONVICTED RAPIST; CHICAGO TRIBUNE;
"The developments in the case bear striking similarities to another wending its way through Cook County's criminal justice system. Five teenagers were convicted of the 1991 rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl in Dixmoor after several of them confessed. But recent DNA testing has connected a convicted rapist to the crime.........
The Tribune wrote in March about the quest by Terrill Swift, one of the four convicted in Glover's murder, to prove his innocence by seeking new DNA testing even after he had served 15 years for the homicide and been released from prison. Co-defendant Michael Saunders, who remains in prison, joined in the effort.
In a court filing Monday, their lawyers revealed that the new DNA testing connected Douglas to Glover's murder and rape in 1994, not their clients."
REPORTER STEVE MILLS; THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"New DNA evidence implicates a convicted killer in a rape and murder that sent four teenagers to prison for lengthy sentences in the 1990s," the Chicago Tribune story by reporter Steve Mills published earlier today begins, under the heading, "New DNA tests may clear 4 in woman's murder: Evidence links case to convicted killer, lawyers say."
"The four were convicted of the murder and rape of Nina Glover, 30, largely on the basis of confessions they made to police and prosecutors, even though primitive DNA testing at the time excluded them as the source of semen evidence," the story continues.
"But new testing links Johnny Douglas to Glover's rape and murder, according to court papers filed this week in Cook County Circuit Court.
Before his own violent death, Douglas was charged with the murders of two other women after Glover's homicide; he was convicted of one and acquitted of the other. And Chicago police and Cook County prosecutors suspected him in other murders as well and questioned him in several sexual assaults, though he was never charged in those, according to attorneys.
The developments in the case bear striking similarities to another wending its way through Cook County's criminal justice system. Five teenagers were convicted of the 1991 rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl in Dixmoor after several of them confessed. But recent DNA testing has connected a convicted rapist to the crime.
The state's attorney's office declined to discuss the DNA match to Douglas, but the office has been skeptical of the new DNA evidence in both the Glover and Dixmoor murders.
The Tribune wrote in March about the quest by Terrill Swift, one of the four convicted in Glover's murder, to prove his innocence by seeking new DNA testing even after he had served 15 years for the homicide and been released from prison. Co-defendant Michael Saunders, who remains in prison, joined in the effort.
In a court filing Monday, their lawyers revealed that the new DNA testing connected Douglas to Glover's murder and rape in 1994, not their clients.
Douglas had pleaded guilty to the 1997 murder of one woman, Gytonne Marsh, and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. In 2002, a jury acquitted Douglas of the murder of Elaine Martin, even though DNA linked him to the crime. Martin's body had been discovered near a church altar in 1995.
Douglas himself was shot to death in 2008 at age 46. His accused killer claimed self-defense and was acquitted at trial.
In their request for DNA testing last year, attorneys for Swift and Saunders had theorized that Glover's murder was the work of one of a number of serial killers who targeted women — mostly prostitutes and drug users — on the South Side in the 1980s and 1990s. Like many of those victims, Glover was beaten and strangled and her body dumped in a trash bin.
Two attorneys who worked on cases connected to Douglas both said Chicago police and Cook County prosecutors suspected Douglas in other murders as well and questioned him in several sex assaults. But he was never charged in those.
Lisa Brean, an assistant Cook County public defender who defended the man who fatally shot Douglas, said police told her that Douglas was suspected of being a serial killer and that police reports detailed the murders and rapes he was suspected of committing.
"One of the detectives said, 'Your client ought to get a medal because this guy's killed more women than we know,'" recalled Brean, who won the acquittal earlier this year. "They thought he was one of the worst."
Amy Thompson, an assistant public defender who won Douglas' acquittal in 2002, said she heard similar allegations. "I know they considered him a suspect in a lot of the cases that had to do with the prostitutes at that time," she said.
While declining to get into specifics, a spokeswoman for State's Attorney Anita Alvarez said the office "has just recently received new information" in Glover's murder case — an apparent reference to the DNA match to Douglas.
"We are beginning the process of reviewing this information as this case moves forward," said Sally Daly, the spokeswoman.
Prosecutors initially opposed the new round of DNA testing, as well as entering the results in a national law enforcement databank to check for matches. Alvarez dropped the opposition after inquiries from the Tribune, but the office downplayed the importance of any DNA match, saying in court papers it would be a "red herring."
In the Dixmoor case, prosecutors said in court recently that the DNA match to a convicted rapist was not new evidence. At trial, all five defendants were excluded by the primitive DNA testing available at the time, though there was no connection to another possible suspect as there is now. That man is in Cook County Jail on unrelated drug charges.
Joshua Tepfer, a lawyer at Northwestern University's Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth who is representing Swift, said the DNA link to Douglas is crucial. Police and prosecutors would have investigated Douglas if they had known of the link early on, he said.
Tepfer and lawyers for Swift's co-defendants Monday filed a motion seeking to throw out their convictions.
"We believe this is entirely exonerating and this man who has been tied to so many other cases is the one who alone committed this crime," Tepfer said. "The DNA doesn't lie in this case. … He's a man who was preying on women."
In addition, Tepfer said, no physical evidence tied the teenagers to Glover's murder, just the confessions. And those, he said, were marked by inconsistencies.
Although Swift had been working since his release from prison last year, he recently violated parole after he allegedly went to a fast-food restaurant and two stores instead of going straight home from work, according to parole documents. He was returned to prison.
Lt. Tom Keane, the commander of the Chicago police cold-case squad, said that even with the new DNA evidence, Douglas' death made reaching a conclusion in Glover's murder difficult because Douglas might have claimed he had consensual sex with Glover. Douglas, according to Thompson, made that claim in the Martin murder and was acquitted despite DNA evidence.
"The DNA in and of itself does not clear the case," said Keane, though he acknowledged that the crimes linked to Douglas were of the era and bore "a ton of similarities" to the serial killings on the South Side. "If this guy's dead and so he can't tell you, 'Yeah, I killed her,' it doesn't mean on its own John Douglas killed Nina Glover. You need more than just DNA."
But Peter Neufeld, an attorney with the Innocence Project in New York who represents Saunders, said the DNA from Douglas, particularly considering his criminal history, is more powerful than the confessions of Swift, Saunders and the other youths. None of them mentioned Douglas, who was considerably older than the teens, he said.
"To make the argument that it was consensual, you have to suggest that (Douglas) has the bad luck that right after he has consensual sex with a prostitute, she dies and that it's happened more than once," Neufeld said."
The story can be found at:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-dna-murder-swift-20110524,0,1561470.story
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
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
The Tribune wrote in March about the quest by Terrill Swift, one of the four convicted in Glover's murder, to prove his innocence by seeking new DNA testing even after he had served 15 years for the homicide and been released from prison. Co-defendant Michael Saunders, who remains in prison, joined in the effort.
In a court filing Monday, their lawyers revealed that the new DNA testing connected Douglas to Glover's murder and rape in 1994, not their clients."
REPORTER STEVE MILLS; THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"New DNA evidence implicates a convicted killer in a rape and murder that sent four teenagers to prison for lengthy sentences in the 1990s," the Chicago Tribune story by reporter Steve Mills published earlier today begins, under the heading, "New DNA tests may clear 4 in woman's murder: Evidence links case to convicted killer, lawyers say."
"The four were convicted of the murder and rape of Nina Glover, 30, largely on the basis of confessions they made to police and prosecutors, even though primitive DNA testing at the time excluded them as the source of semen evidence," the story continues.
"But new testing links Johnny Douglas to Glover's rape and murder, according to court papers filed this week in Cook County Circuit Court.
Before his own violent death, Douglas was charged with the murders of two other women after Glover's homicide; he was convicted of one and acquitted of the other. And Chicago police and Cook County prosecutors suspected him in other murders as well and questioned him in several sexual assaults, though he was never charged in those, according to attorneys.
The developments in the case bear striking similarities to another wending its way through Cook County's criminal justice system. Five teenagers were convicted of the 1991 rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl in Dixmoor after several of them confessed. But recent DNA testing has connected a convicted rapist to the crime.
The state's attorney's office declined to discuss the DNA match to Douglas, but the office has been skeptical of the new DNA evidence in both the Glover and Dixmoor murders.
The Tribune wrote in March about the quest by Terrill Swift, one of the four convicted in Glover's murder, to prove his innocence by seeking new DNA testing even after he had served 15 years for the homicide and been released from prison. Co-defendant Michael Saunders, who remains in prison, joined in the effort.
In a court filing Monday, their lawyers revealed that the new DNA testing connected Douglas to Glover's murder and rape in 1994, not their clients.
Douglas had pleaded guilty to the 1997 murder of one woman, Gytonne Marsh, and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. In 2002, a jury acquitted Douglas of the murder of Elaine Martin, even though DNA linked him to the crime. Martin's body had been discovered near a church altar in 1995.
Douglas himself was shot to death in 2008 at age 46. His accused killer claimed self-defense and was acquitted at trial.
In their request for DNA testing last year, attorneys for Swift and Saunders had theorized that Glover's murder was the work of one of a number of serial killers who targeted women — mostly prostitutes and drug users — on the South Side in the 1980s and 1990s. Like many of those victims, Glover was beaten and strangled and her body dumped in a trash bin.
Two attorneys who worked on cases connected to Douglas both said Chicago police and Cook County prosecutors suspected Douglas in other murders as well and questioned him in several sex assaults. But he was never charged in those.
Lisa Brean, an assistant Cook County public defender who defended the man who fatally shot Douglas, said police told her that Douglas was suspected of being a serial killer and that police reports detailed the murders and rapes he was suspected of committing.
"One of the detectives said, 'Your client ought to get a medal because this guy's killed more women than we know,'" recalled Brean, who won the acquittal earlier this year. "They thought he was one of the worst."
Amy Thompson, an assistant public defender who won Douglas' acquittal in 2002, said she heard similar allegations. "I know they considered him a suspect in a lot of the cases that had to do with the prostitutes at that time," she said.
While declining to get into specifics, a spokeswoman for State's Attorney Anita Alvarez said the office "has just recently received new information" in Glover's murder case — an apparent reference to the DNA match to Douglas.
"We are beginning the process of reviewing this information as this case moves forward," said Sally Daly, the spokeswoman.
Prosecutors initially opposed the new round of DNA testing, as well as entering the results in a national law enforcement databank to check for matches. Alvarez dropped the opposition after inquiries from the Tribune, but the office downplayed the importance of any DNA match, saying in court papers it would be a "red herring."
In the Dixmoor case, prosecutors said in court recently that the DNA match to a convicted rapist was not new evidence. At trial, all five defendants were excluded by the primitive DNA testing available at the time, though there was no connection to another possible suspect as there is now. That man is in Cook County Jail on unrelated drug charges.
Joshua Tepfer, a lawyer at Northwestern University's Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth who is representing Swift, said the DNA link to Douglas is crucial. Police and prosecutors would have investigated Douglas if they had known of the link early on, he said.
Tepfer and lawyers for Swift's co-defendants Monday filed a motion seeking to throw out their convictions.
"We believe this is entirely exonerating and this man who has been tied to so many other cases is the one who alone committed this crime," Tepfer said. "The DNA doesn't lie in this case. … He's a man who was preying on women."
In addition, Tepfer said, no physical evidence tied the teenagers to Glover's murder, just the confessions. And those, he said, were marked by inconsistencies.
Although Swift had been working since his release from prison last year, he recently violated parole after he allegedly went to a fast-food restaurant and two stores instead of going straight home from work, according to parole documents. He was returned to prison.
Lt. Tom Keane, the commander of the Chicago police cold-case squad, said that even with the new DNA evidence, Douglas' death made reaching a conclusion in Glover's murder difficult because Douglas might have claimed he had consensual sex with Glover. Douglas, according to Thompson, made that claim in the Martin murder and was acquitted despite DNA evidence.
"The DNA in and of itself does not clear the case," said Keane, though he acknowledged that the crimes linked to Douglas were of the era and bore "a ton of similarities" to the serial killings on the South Side. "If this guy's dead and so he can't tell you, 'Yeah, I killed her,' it doesn't mean on its own John Douglas killed Nina Glover. You need more than just DNA."
But Peter Neufeld, an attorney with the Innocence Project in New York who represents Saunders, said the DNA from Douglas, particularly considering his criminal history, is more powerful than the confessions of Swift, Saunders and the other youths. None of them mentioned Douglas, who was considerably older than the teens, he said.
"To make the argument that it was consensual, you have to suggest that (Douglas) has the bad luck that right after he has consensual sex with a prostitute, she dies and that it's happened more than once," Neufeld said."
The story can be found at:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-dna-murder-swift-20110524,0,1561470.story
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
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;