STORY: "Eyewitness nightmare: We've convicted countless on evidence that is unreliable 25% of the time," by Nancy Petro, published on the Wrongful Convictions Blog on July 6, 2012. (Yesterday, this Blog featured a post headed "Groundbreaking research: One out of every 10 rape allegations wrong?" by Forensic Psychologist Karen Franklin published on "Forensic Psychologist", on July 3, 2012 with thanks to the Wrongful Convictions Blog for pointing out this disturbing analysis. Considered together, these two posts raise the spectre of many more wrongful convictions out there, including death penalty cases, which have not been exposed - and the possibility of many more wrongful convictions in the future - in spite of the means at hand for avoiding them. The alarm bells are quite deafening. HL.)
GIST: "A fundamental principal in American criminal justice is that one is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But in the past two decades, DNA-proven wrongful convictions have revealed that we’ve routinely met the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” with evidence that is quantifiably incorrect one-fourth of the time. A 25 percent error rate in school has historically earned the very lackluster grade of D. A 25 percent margin of error would shutter any hospital and ground any airline. But, in the criminal justice system, most Americans, blinded by trust in the system and a popular allegiance to “tough on crime” policies, have yet to demand best practices in securing the most accurate evidence possible from those who have witnessed a crime. .........This error rate is consistent with the findings of years of pairings in both public and private labs of crime scene biological evidence, primarily from sexual assault cases, with the DNA of the suspect, usually identified by the victim. From a report by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld in the landmark 1996 National Institute of Justice study, Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial: “Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained (primarily by state and local law enforcement), the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing.........Any case based solely upon eyewitness identification should raise red flags. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that eyewitness identification alone, with its 25-percent error rate, cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."The entire post can be found at:
http://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/07/06/eyewitness-nightmare-weve-convicted-countless-on-evidence-that-is-unreliable-25-of-the-time/PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
I am monitoring this case. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
