PUBLISHER'S VIEW (EDITORIAL); During a lunch break in the trial, a prosecutor threatens the DNA who is still on the stand. He begins cursing, suggest that her job will be in jeopardy if she doesn't cooperate, attempts to get her to say things which go beyond science - and threatens to charge her with a felony. The scenario is not out of a John Grisham novel. It is alleged to have played out during David Camm's first trial - and became an issue in his third trial, which just concluded with not guilty verdicts. The good news is that Lynn Scamahorn, the analyst, says she refused to be intimidated, and reported the alleged threats in a letter of complaint against prosecutor Stan Faith. That takes courage, strong character and professionalism. If these allegations prove to be true, it's fair to ask what if another analyst had lacked these qualities and succumbed to such ugly threats to their freedom and job security? These alleged threats colour the entire prosecution - all three trials. The record already shows that prosecutors attempted to stack the forensic deck by using Robert Stites - a man with scarcely any experience with blood splatter evidence (labelled a "fraud" by the defence) to help secure convictions. Throw in the fact that they tried to have Camm convicted because of factors later found by the appeal courts to have no bearing on the case (allegations of marital infidelity and child abuse), and you are left with an ill-motivated, hollow prosecution of an innocent man. Travis Kircher writes: In the end, Judge Jonathan Dartt decided against admitting the evidence, stating that while he doesn't condone the alleged actions of Faith, he said it was a fight "that will be left for another day." That day cannot come too soon."
Harold Levy. Publisher. The Charles Smith Blog.
STORY: "Janice Renn testifies," posted by Travis Kircher on his "David Camm Blog" on September 3, 2013 - published by WDBR; (He reports a hearing in the absence of the jury given at the trial by Lynn Scamahorn, a former DNA analyst for the Indiana State Police);
GIST: Sub-heading: "A letter of complaint); "A few minutes later, the jury was excused for lunch. But the attorneys weren't done. After the jury left, Scamahorn remained on the stand and the attorneys discussed a matter the jurors would never hear. Uliana presented Scamahorn with a document and asked her to describe it. "It's a letter that I wrote regarding the first trial and the prosecutor," she said. Scamahorn said that the first prosecutor – Stan Faith – called her into a private meeting in his office during a break from her testimony in the first trial. He then allegedly demanded that Scamahorn testify that she found David Camm's DNA on the mysterious gray sweatshirt that, years later, would be traced to Boney. Scamahorn said she couldn't do this because the facts didn't back it up. "He was not pleasant, I would say," Scamahorn said. "He cursed at you?" Uliana asked. "Yes." "And he wanted you to say things that you felt were beyond science?" Uliana asked. "Yes," Scamahorn said, adding, "he was very much not happy with me." Scamahorn said Faith threatened to contact her superiors and that it was "definitely implied" that her job was being threatened. She also said Faith threatened to charge her with obstruction of justice if she didn't testify to what he wanted. Uliana asked if she thought Faith was trying to wrongfully influence her to testify to facts that were beyond science. "Possibly. Possibly. Yeah." "He did threaten your job," Uliana said. "That is true." "And he did threaten to charge you with a felony," Uliana added. "That is true," Scamahorn replied. Moments later, Special Prosecutor Stan Levco rose to address Scamahorn. He asked her what effect Faith's actions had on her testimony in THIS trial. "No effect on my testimony," Scamahorn said. He then asked if he (Levco) or anyone else on the current prosecution team had ever threatened her in any way. "No," Scamahorn smiled. "Not at all." Uliana then asked the judge to allow the testimony and evidence related to Faith's alleged actions to be submitted to the jury when they came back from lunch. "This has nothing to do with Ms. Scamahorn's credibility," Uliana said. "This shows tunnel vision at best," and "a win-at-all-costs mentality at worst." "It goes to the credibility of the other analysts in this case…the ones that will go beyond the science," she said. Levco countered: "I don't think it proves anything as to whether David Camm is guilty in this case." In the end, Judge Jonathan Dartt decided against admitting the evidence, stating that while he doesn't condone the alleged actions of Faith, he said it was a fight "that will be left for another day.""
The entire post can be found at:
http://www.wdrb.com/story/23330738/david-camm-blog-janice-renn-testifies
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
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:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.
I look forward to hearing from readers at:
hlevy15@gmail.com;
