STORY: "3 of imprisoned 'San Antonio 4" could soon go free," by reporter Norman Merchant, published by Associated Press on November 15, 2013.
PHOTO CAPTION:"Anna Vasquez is greeted by Gloria Herrera during a Work-In-Progress screening of "San Antonio Four" a documentary by Deborah S. Esquenazi, on Thursday, Nov. 14, 2013 in Austin. Three of four San Antonio women imprisoned for sexually assaulting two girls in 1994 could soon walk free after their attorney and prosecutors agreed that a key expert witness' testimony is now discredited. Bexar County prosecutor Rico Valdez and defense attorney Mike Ware told The Associated Press on Friday, Nov. 15, 2013, that they agree the convictions of the so-called "San Antonio 4" should be vacated. Elizabeth Ramirez, Kristie Mayhugh and Cassandra Rivera remain imprisoned. Vasquez, was paroled last year, but under strict conditions."
GIST: "Three of four San Antonio women imprisoned for sexually assaulting two girls in 1994 could soon walk free after their attorney and prosecutors agreed that a key expert witness' testimony is now discredited. Bexar County prosecutor Rico Valdez and defense attorney Mike Ware told The Associated Press on Friday that they agree the convictions of the so-called "San Antonio 4" should be vacated. A judge on Monday is scheduled to review findings of fact that will be sent to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The women may be able to obtain a bond to allow them to walk free that day, Ware said. Elizabeth Ramirez, Kristie Mayhugh and Cassandra Rivera remain imprisoned. The fourth, Anna Vasquez, was paroled last year, but under strict conditions. The four were accused by two of Ramirez's nieces, ages 7 and 9, of successive attacks during a week in 1994. The girls testified that the women held them by their wrists and ankles, attacked them and threatened to kill them.
Ramirez was given a 37-year prison sentence. Mayhugh, Vasquez and Rivera were given 15-year sentences. More than a decade later, their case came to the attention of attorneys affiliated with the nonprofit Innocence Project of Texas, which investigates potential wrongful conviction cases and pushes for criminal justice reforms. Ware, who has worked on the case for two years, filed petitions on their behalf last month with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. They were convicted in 1998 based on an expert's testimony that the 9-year-old girl had a scar in her vaginal area caused by the tearing of her hymen — which could only have been caused by a painful attack. According to a petition filed by Ware, the expert, Dr. Nancy Kellogg, also testified that the injury in question happened around the time of the alleged assaults. Ware's petition cites a 2007 study by the American Academy of Pediatrics that found that "torn or injured hymens do not leave scars as a matter of scientific fact." Valdez said Friday that the mark Kellogg observed "would be identified as non-specific if she were testifying today," not as evidence of trauma. Kellogg declined an interview request. One of the girls, who was 7 at the time, also has since recanted in an interview with the San Antonio Express-News, though she didn't specify what led her to make the allegations. "I can't take back what I did, but if I could talk to all of them in one room, I would just say I'm sorry," said the woman in the interview published last year. "I'm sorry for ruining them.""
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/us/article/APNewsBreak-San-Antonio-4-could-soon-go-free-4985580.php
See also: Wall Street Journal story; "Gathering of forensic evidence goes on trial in Texas: New law allows challenges to convictions based on faulty science," by reporter Nathan Koppel. " For the past 16 years, Elizabeth Ramirez has been behind bars in Texas after being convicted of sexually abusing her nieces, a crime she has always said she didn't commit. But any day now, Ms. Ramirez, of San Antonio, is expected to be freed on bail, thanks to a new state law—believed to be the first of its kind in the country—allowing defendants to contest criminal convictions by arguing they were secured using now-disputed forensic methods. A bail hearing has been scheduled for Monday in San Antonio. Bexar County prosecutors have agreed not to oppose the release of Ms. Ramirez and two other women convicted of sexual abuse in the case, after a pediatrician who testified for prosecutors conceded recently that evolving scientific standards have discredited her trial testimony that an alleged victim had exhibited physical signs of an assault.........Forensic evidence has come under greater scrutiny nationwide following a 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences, which concluded that no forensic method, with the exception of DNA analysis, has been proved to reliably allow crime-scene evidence to be linked to a particular suspect. This past summer, the Federal Bureau of Investigation agreed to review more than 2,000 cases to determine whether hair analysis conducted by its experts was used properly in cases. Some law-enforcement officials say forensic analysis is often valid and useful, so long as prosecutors do not overstate the extent to which forensic evidence incriminates a suspect. And some prosecutors remain concerned that laws like the one in Texas may open the door to frivolous appeals. Texas, long known for being tough on criminals, has emerged as a bellwether on the issue, in part because the state has had some high-profile disputed cases involving forensic evidence. Two state agencies are reviewing convictions that relied on potentially questionable arson and hair-particle evidence. "If we possibly have a wrongfully convicted person in prison based on faulty science, we have a duty to review that," said Texas state Sen. John Whitmire, a Houston Democrat who wrote the law. Robert Kepple, executive director of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, said many prosecutors have grown more aware of the limitations of science. "I thought hair and fiber stuff was terrific when I used it," he said. "We find out now, maybe not so much." The Texas law has already prompted a number of appeals. Last month, a judge in Conroe, near Houston, recommended a new trial for Neal Robbins, who was convicted of murder in 1999, after a prosecution expert admitted that her inexperience in the field of forensic pathology played a role in her mistakenly concluding that he had asphyxiated his girlfriend's 17-month-old child. Brian Wice, Mr. Robbins's lawyer, said the new law gives defense lawyers a weapon to counter the "CSI effect," in which jurors raised on TV crime dramas regard forensic evidence as truth, even when it arguably rests on suspect science. Mr. Robbins remains in prison. Bill Delmore, an appellate lawyer with the Montgomery County district attorney's office, said prosecutors remain convinced of his guilt and believe he shouldn't be allowed to appeal just because an expert changed her opinion. The San Antonio Four may be the most high-profile case to date impacted by the law. Ms. Ramirez was sentenced to 37½ years in prison in 1997 after she was convicted of sexually assaulting her nieces when they were ages 7 and 9. The following year, three of her friends were convicted of taking part in the alleged sexual assault. A San Antonio pediatrician provided key evidence against the women at their trials. The pediatrician, Nancy Kellogg, has since retracted her testimony, stating that new medical standards by the American Academy of Pediatrics contradict her conclusion that the victim exhibited signs of an internal injury.
The entire story can be found at:
http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-384042/http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-384042/
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
