Sunday, June 9, 2013

Richard Wollert: Disturbing trend: Attacks on experts who testify for the defense. Martin Yant. (News council rules that newspaper unfairly maligned forensic psychologist): Wrongful Convictions Blog; (Must Read HL).

POST: "Attacks on experts who testify for the defence keep on coming," by Martin Yant, published by the Wrongful Convictions Blog on June 7, 2013.

GIST: "One of the best ways end the scourge of wrongful convictions is to prevent them from occurring in the first place. That starts with competent defense teams backed by expert witnesses and unbiased news coverage. But that doesn’t always happen. Phil Locke reported here how vicious social media attacks on an experienced expert witness for the defense in the heated Jodi Arias murder trial put her in the emergency room for anxiety attacks and palpitations. Experts asked to testify for the defense in controversial trials undoubtedly take note. Now The Seattle Times has been rebuked by the independent Washington News Council for inaccurately and unfairly representing the work of a forensic psychologist who testifies for defense attorneys in its investigative series on the state’s sexually violent predator program. Relying on prosecution sources, the council said, reporter Christine Willmsen unfairly portrayed Richard Wollert as a hack who promulgated unorthodox theories in order to line his own pockets, quoting detractors who called him an “outlier” who spoke “mumbo jumbo.” During a June 1 hearing, Wollert said the Times series had “tainted the Washington jury pool” by implying that psychologists who testify for the defense are not credible, damaged his professional reputation and caused his income to plummet. “By relying almost exclusively on prosecution sources,” forensic psychologist Karen Franklin wrote in her In the News blog, “Willmsen became nothing more than a mouthpiece for government efforts to discredit and silence experts who present judges and juries with information that they don’t like.” She added: “The main theme of the series was that defense-retained experts were gouging the state. Willmsen wrote that Wollert made more than $100,000 on one SVP case; in a video from the series, Wollert is shown testifying that he earned $1.2 million from sexually violent predator cases in Washington and other states over a two-year period. That’s a big chunk of taxpayer money, and the revelation undoubtedly caused public outrage against defense attorneys and their experts. “Willmsen wrote that government experts were not paid that much. However, this is patently false."

The entire post can be found at:

Dear reader: Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following developments relating to these issues.

I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site. 

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:

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:

Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to:

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.