PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I encourage readers to take the very few minutes it takes to see Part 2 of the ABC News story "The Burning Bed," broadcast on May 22, 2014. It gives us the good news that a county judge has agreed to look into the case of James Hugney Sr. who is described by Justin J. McShane, his lawyer, as "an innocent man locked in
jail for 35 years for an arson that never happened." In this post, McShane takes on the points raised on the newscast by the First Assistant District Attorney one by one and clearly sets out McShane's quest to use modern science to remedy an injustice which he believes occurred in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania almost forty years ago. I find this case fascinating and look forward to following developments closely and presenting them to our readers around the world.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
POST: "Free Hugney update and response to the DA's points," by lawyer/forensic blogger supreme Justin J. McShane, published on his blog "The truth about forensic science," on May 22, 2014.
GIST: "We applaud the First Assistant District Attorney for picking up this case personally. Until the reporters called for comment, he had not been aware of the litigation. In a very short period of time, he was seemingly able to understand some of the basics of the case in under 24 hours. However, in fairness to him, it is believed that due to his late arrival and because of that, understandably, he may not have been aware of some of the matters that we have been blogging on here for some time. According to his comments, his major points of criticism were as follows: 1. Why are there no expert reports? Answer: This is a legitimate question, one that we have been pursuing for some time now. He and I talked early this morning (I understand his comments to the press were made yesterday). At least now, and as of that conversation, he knows full well that our petition for funds that was filed on January 13, 2014 and has not been acted upon. He also knows that due to this delay and other issues, we filed a motion to recuse the trial judge......... 2. There was gasoline (later corrected to “consistent with gasoline”) near the bed. Answer: That is not entirely accurate. That is perhaps a summary of what was believed in 1978 and was part of the problem with the science of the day.........There were 5 other points that were brought up in the 1978 investigation that were soundly refuted and is in that declaration. While I admit, it is my opinion, it is far from what I think the DA meant to say. I think in the interview that he means to state that I only have a belief. This is not so. My opinion is not an uneducated one. I have provided all of my references as found in the modern fire science......... It is our hope that the Office of the District Attorney will work with us hand-in-hand in determining and evaluating the empirical evidence through modern science. We are confident, and are optimistic, that this District Attorney’s Office will do the right thing. It is not too late to right this wrong. It is not too late to do justice."
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
POST: "Free Hugney update and response to the DA's points," by lawyer/forensic blogger supreme Justin J. McShane, published on his blog "The truth about forensic science," on May 22, 2014.
GIST: "We applaud the First Assistant District Attorney for picking up this case personally. Until the reporters called for comment, he had not been aware of the litigation. In a very short period of time, he was seemingly able to understand some of the basics of the case in under 24 hours. However, in fairness to him, it is believed that due to his late arrival and because of that, understandably, he may not have been aware of some of the matters that we have been blogging on here for some time. According to his comments, his major points of criticism were as follows: 1. Why are there no expert reports? Answer: This is a legitimate question, one that we have been pursuing for some time now. He and I talked early this morning (I understand his comments to the press were made yesterday). At least now, and as of that conversation, he knows full well that our petition for funds that was filed on January 13, 2014 and has not been acted upon. He also knows that due to this delay and other issues, we filed a motion to recuse the trial judge......... 2. There was gasoline (later corrected to “consistent with gasoline”) near the bed. Answer: That is not entirely accurate. That is perhaps a summary of what was believed in 1978 and was part of the problem with the science of the day.........There were 5 other points that were brought up in the 1978 investigation that were soundly refuted and is in that declaration. While I admit, it is my opinion, it is far from what I think the DA meant to say. I think in the interview that he means to state that I only have a belief. This is not so. My opinion is not an uneducated one. I have provided all of my references as found in the modern fire science......... It is our hope that the Office of the District Attorney will work with us hand-in-hand in determining and evaluating the empirical evidence through modern science. We are confident, and are optimistic, that this District Attorney’s Office will do the right thing. It is not too late to right this wrong. It is not too late to do justice."
http://www.thetruthaboutforensicscience.com/freehugney-update-response-das-points/
See previous post of this blog: "This is a lot of work. It is also expensive. Importantly, the more experts that are retained and come to the same independent conclusion, the harder it is for the Office of the District Attorney and any appellate courts to find other than the scientific truth: there is no arson. Any additional money that is raised above and beyond what is needed will be reserved for appeals and other court-related costs. Again, no money goes to his volunteer legal team. Any excess money beyond that will be donated to The Pennsylvania Innocence Project."
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=120008354894645705#editor/target=post;postID=4393636685805024897;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=14;src=link
See recent Pacific Standard Magazine story: "To catch an arsonist: Will we ever have a reliable way to identify fire starters?"; "As it happens, arson investigation is a strange and very young science. Researchers are developing and testing new forensic methods all the time; techniques will only improve. These small advances won’t help the countless people in the U.S. who have been sentenced to life in prison for crimes of arson they did not commit and who won’t have their cases re-opened in time for them to be set free. But arson science will still advance, at the same slow and methodical pace that every branch of science does. Sue Russell previously wrote for Pacific Standard about the primitive, almost voodoo-like methods used in “the dark ages of fire investigation.” She spoke to attorneys at several Innocence Project groups who, along with scientists at several criminal forensics schools, were working to fight wrongful convictions for arson. Some of the cases involved people who had been in prison for three or four decades already. Fighting arson convictions is an uphill battle. “DNA is the undisputed gold standard for exonerations, a virtually unassailable magic bullet,” Russell wrote. “But arson convictions are a new frontier for exoneration work.”"
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/nature-and-technology/catch-arsonist-fire-california-execution-science-81814/
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.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
I look forward to hearing from readers at:
hlevy15@gmail.com.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
