STORY: "Law Lords: Why Lundy evidence doesn't add up," by Jared Savage, published by the New Zealand Herald on September 9, 2013.
GIST: Reporter Jared Savage, who was at the Privy Council hearing in London in June, takes a detailed look at why Mark Lundy's murder convictions were quashed on an issue by issue basis. Here's a taste: (The brain tissue issue): "The most damning evidence against Lundy at his 2002 trial was that two specks of tissue found on his polo shirt were brain tissue. The samples were found by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) 59 days after the bodies of Christine and Amber were found and pathologists suggested the material might contain cells found only in brain or spinal cord tissue. But the samples were so poorly preserved that they were unable to state this categorically. The police took the stains to Texas pathologist Dr Rodney Miller. He was also unable to positively identify the tissue under a microscope but conducted an immunohistochemical (IHC) procedure, from which he categorically stated the tissue was from the brain or spinal cord. The IHC procedure had never been used before in this manner, and was powerful evidence that went unchallenged. At the original trial, the defence conceded the matter was brain tissue and the only issue was how it ended up on the shirt, possibly by accidental contamination during the police investigation. One of the grounds of the Privy Council appeal was that the expert evidence given by Dr Miller, and others who relied on his opinion, was "fundamentally flawed". Affidavits sworn by Professors Phillip Sheard, Helen Whitwell and Kevin Gatter - all experts in immunohistochemistry - concluded the tissue was poorly preserved and it was impossible to reach any conclusion as to the nature of the material. They concluded the IHC procedure was an "uncontrolled experiment" which could not produce a reliable outcome.(What the Privy Council said): "The fresh evidence "at a minimum" raised questions about the use of IHC in the forensic setting of a criminal trial. "[IHC's] widespread and successful use as a diagnostic tool is undisputed but its acceptance as a means of establishing a scientific proposition as an element of proof of guilt remains untested by any experimental or empirical means," said the Law Lords. "While these might not avail as a basis for excluding the evidence of Dr Miller, they certainly sound on the question of what impact the new evidence might have on the safety of the appellant's conviction."
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11137058
The complete decision: (All fifty pages); Must read! HL.
http://www.jcpc.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/JCPC_2012_0094_Judgment.pdf
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 foward to hearing from readers at:
hlevy15@gmail.com;
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
