STORY: "Question before high court: Was planted evidence essential in murder suspect's conviction?," by reporter Joe Duggan, published by the Omaha World-Herald on January 7, 2014.
GIST: "The work of a disgraced former crime scene investigator for Douglas County came under scrutiny again Wednesday when another convicted killer asked the Nebraska Supreme Court to revisit his case. During oral arguments Wednesday, the judges repeatedly circled back to a key question: Even if David Kofoed planted the victim’s blood in the suspect’s vehicle, was it the evidence that ultimately convicted Richard K. Cook? His attorney, Jerry Soucie of Lincoln, said failing to fully investigate the possibility of planted evidence in a murder conviction taints the integrity of the entire criminal justice system. “I don’t think you should establish a standard that says law enforcement can plant evidence, but if there’s other evidence, so what,” Soucie said. “I don’t think it’s no harm, no foul.” Cook is asking the Supreme Court to order an evidentiary hearing so his allegations against Kofoed can be aired. Assistant Attorney General Erin Tangeman, who represented the state Wednesday, said the jury’s decision came down not to blood evidence collected by Kofoed, but rather whose testimony was more credible.........Kofoed, the longtime director of Douglas County’s Crime Scene Investigation Unit, was convicted of felony evidence tampering in a 2006 Murdock double-homicide that contributed to the wrongful prosecution of two innocent men. The men successfully sued Kofoed, winning damages of $6.5 million Kofoed was fired from the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office and was last living in North Carolina. The Supreme Court has granted evidentiary hearings in two other Kofoed cases. One involves the conviction of Christopher Edwards for murdering his girlfriend with a sword in 2006. In the other, Ivan Henk, was convicted of killing his 4-year-old son in 2003.
The entire story can be found at:
GIST: "The work of a disgraced former crime scene investigator for Douglas County came under scrutiny again Wednesday when another convicted killer asked the Nebraska Supreme Court to revisit his case. During oral arguments Wednesday, the judges repeatedly circled back to a key question: Even if David Kofoed planted the victim’s blood in the suspect’s vehicle, was it the evidence that ultimately convicted Richard K. Cook? His attorney, Jerry Soucie of Lincoln, said failing to fully investigate the possibility of planted evidence in a murder conviction taints the integrity of the entire criminal justice system. “I don’t think you should establish a standard that says law enforcement can plant evidence, but if there’s other evidence, so what,” Soucie said. “I don’t think it’s no harm, no foul.” Cook is asking the Supreme Court to order an evidentiary hearing so his allegations against Kofoed can be aired. Assistant Attorney General Erin Tangeman, who represented the state Wednesday, said the jury’s decision came down not to blood evidence collected by Kofoed, but rather whose testimony was more credible.........Kofoed, the longtime director of Douglas County’s Crime Scene Investigation Unit, was convicted of felony evidence tampering in a 2006 Murdock double-homicide that contributed to the wrongful prosecution of two innocent men. The men successfully sued Kofoed, winning damages of $6.5 million Kofoed was fired from the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office and was last living in North Carolina. The Supreme Court has granted evidentiary hearings in two other Kofoed cases. One involves the conviction of Christopher Edwards for murdering his girlfriend with a sword in 2006. In the other, Ivan Henk, was convicted of killing his 4-year-old son in 2003.
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/question-before-high-court-was-planted-evidence-essential-in-murder/article_568ed058-782e-5fa8-8cf4-5bcc7fad88e1.html
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
