Bulletin: Max Houck, the embattled director of the District’s first independent DNA lab resigned Thursday, a week after two audits found that the lab’s procedures were inadequate, thereby forcing a national accreditation body to suspend all of the lab’s DNA testing. Washington Post;

The embattled director of the District’s first independent DNA lab resigned Thursday, a week after two audits found that the lab’s procedures were inadequate, thereby forcing a national accreditation body to suspend all of the lab’s DNA testing. Max M. Houck has been the director of the District’s Department of Forensic Sciences since the lab opened its $220 million facility in Southwest Washington three years ago. In addition to Houck’s resignation, two other senior officials, the chief scientist for the lab and the senior manager for DNA testing, were let go.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/director-of-dcs-embattled-dna-lab-resigns-following-suspension-of-testing/2015/04/30/1c619320-ef80-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html

Willie Manning; (Mississippi); The Jackson Free Press asks "Why does the state still want to kill William Jerome Manning?" "Willie Jerome Manning was recently exonerated in the murders of two Starkville women in 1992," the paper notes. "Now, will the discredited science used to convict him in a separate case, in which he has always maintained his innocence, lead to his freedom?" (Must Read. HL);

STORY: "Why does the state still want to kill William Jerome Manning?,"  by R.L. Nave, published by the Jackson Free Press on April 29, 2015.

PHOTO CAPTION:  "Willie Jerome Manning was recently exonerated in the murders of two Starkville women in 1992. Now, will the discredited science used to convict him in a separate case, in which he has always maintained his innocence, lead to his freedom?"

GIST: "Although the Miller-Steckler murder certainly matched the Jordan-Jimmerson slayings in heinousness, many believe the evidence against Manning's involvement is just as shaky if not more so. The week of his scheduled execution, the Federal Bureau of Investigation admitted that its forensic expert erred in testimony during Manning's original trial. In a letter to Allgood, who prosecuted Manning, U.S. Justice Department officials stated "that testimony containing erroneous statements regarding microscopic hair comparison analysis was used" in Manning's case. The Mississippi Supreme Court halted the execution over objections from Hood. Since then, the science of hair comparison and law enforcement's reliance on it to obtain convictions, including of Manning, has come under scrutiny. A recent analysis by The Washington Post concluded that the FBI's hair analysis was used in thousands of cases. Last week, the Justice Department and FBI admitted that the practice went on for two decades despite the existence of data questioning the veracity of hair testing, which involves comparing hair samples under a microscope. Information from The Innocence Project shows that of the 329 wrongful convictions that DNA evidence has helped reverse, some 20 percent of them also involved hair analysis.  Tucker Carrington, founding director of the Mississippi Innocence Project and law professor at the University of Mississippi, told the Daily Beast last week that he believes the state wrote Manning off a long time ago and had no interest in seeing that he received justice. "'Who gives a f*ck about this guy? He's already condemned. We know he's the type of person who's capable of doing this. It's him,'" Carrington said they thought. The FBI has offered to conduct DNA testing in the Steckler-Miller case on Manning's behalf. Voisin, Manning's attorney in both cases, said several items have been sent to a lab in Houston, Texas, for analysis. (Hood has said that no serological evidence from the victims' fingernail scrapings or semen on the vaginal swabs from the rape test kit exists for a DNA test to identify). Voisin said the timing of the testing and issuing of results is up to the lab and the FBI. In the meantime, an effective moratorium on the death penalty has been in place for two years in Mississippi due to problems with prosecutions and execution procedures."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2015/apr/29/why-does-state-still-want-kill-willie-jerome-manni/

See Innocence Project release: Willie Manning has spent over 20 years on death row in Mississippi for two double-murders which he has consistently maintained he did not commit. In 2013, the FBI announced that their expert gave testimony in one of Manning’s cases containing erroneous statements regarding microscopic hair comparison analysis. The announcement prompted the state to halt Manning’s execution only five days before it was scheduled to take place.

Last week, a judge threw out the other murder cases. A key witness—Kevin Lucious—had told police he saw Manning enter the victims' apartment from his own apartment, but police found that the apartment where Lucious claimed to live was vacant at the time of the crime. The building manager also did not have him listed as a resident. However, Manning remains on death row, awaiting possible execution for the other set of murders. To compensate for their erroneous testimony, the FBI offered to conduct DNA testing on Manning’s behalf.  Manning’s attorney says that several items have been sent to a lab in Houston for analysis. It is not known how long the testing will take. Meanwhile, Mississippi has halted all scheduled executions in the state due to concerns over execution procedures. This month, two death row inmates filed a lawsuit arguing that the risks of excruciating pain and torture during an execution violates their constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishment."

 http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-exonerations/mississippi-man-exonerated-of-double-murder-remains-on-death-row-pending-dna-testing-in-second-case

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/charlessmith

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;

Ivan Henry: Among the potentially raft of exculpatory information failed to have been disclosed to him was "the recovery of spermazoa from some of the victims" - as well as the existence of contradictory victim statements and the fact that Donald McRae, a prolific sexual predator, had been a suspect. A huge barrier lies in the way of his right to sue for compensation: the need to prove 'malicious prosecution'. Author Joan McEwen is hoping that on Friday the Supreme Court of Canada will finally remove this barrier. (Must Read. HL);

COMMENTARY:  Joan McEwen: Wrongfully convicted Ivan Henry should win the right to sue," published by the Province on April 30 2015. (Joan McEwen is a Vancouver-based labour arbitrator, who authored, Innocence on Trial: The Framing of Ivan Henry, which has been nominated for The Arthur Ellis Awards for Excellence in Canadian Crime Writing.)

GIST: "If I’m right, the Supreme Court of Canada will rule Friday that wrongly convicted Ivan Henry has the right to sue the Crown for a breach of the Charter — no-one can be deprived of life, liberty and security of the person “except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Henry’s lawyers argued in November that the Crown failed to disclose at trial a raft of potentially exculpatory information, including contradictory victim statements; the recovery of spermatozoa from some of the victims; and the fact that Donald McRae, a prolific sexual predator, had been a suspect. As the law now stands, a wrongly convicted person must prove “malicious prosecution” — namely, an intentional abuse or perversion of the system of criminal justice for ends it was not designed to serve. In setting that high bar 25 years ago, the highest court in the land said that it would be sufficient to ensure that the Crown would not be hindered in “the proper execution of its important public duties.” The court was right; only one case has succeeded since. However, should the Supreme Court of Canada rule in Henry’s favour, the need for proving malice will, at least in cases of wrongful conviction, be gone. Instead, any wrongly convicted person will simply be required to establish, at the very most, a “marked departure” from the standards expected of prosecutors within the profession. In practical terms, what if any impact would such a decision have on Henry himself? From a legal perspective, precious little. While lawyers wrangle about the law’s niceties, Henry remains penniless, hoping that justice — the cold, hard cash kind — will occur before he dies. Sentenced as a dangerous offender in 1983 for 10 sex crimes he did not commit, Henry spent 27 years in prison before being acquitted — found “not guilty” — by the B.C. Court of Appeal in 2010. Arguing that he has not proven his factual innocence, the state has yet to pay him a dime in compensation. Yet who among us could establish — if charged with a serious crime — that we are innocent? Absent DNA (in Henry’s case, the police “lost” the semen samples), an ironclad alibi (the police and Crown failed to investigate his alibi statement) and/or the confession of the actual perpetrator (a man who went on to commit 25 to 50 reported rapes after Henry was behind bars), proving actual innocence is well nigh impossible. So much for the presumption of innocence, that “golden thread” supposedly running through our criminal justice system. The problem is that, once lost, that state of innocence is seemingly impossible to recover, no matter how reprehensible the behaviour of police and the Crown."

The entire commentary can be found at:

 http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/04/30/joan-mcewen-wrongful-accused-ivan-henry-should-win-right-to-sue/

 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/charlessmith

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;

FBI overstated hair match crisis: (16): (The Emperor's Clothes); Reporter Jordan Smith reports in the Intercept on "Five disturbing things you didn't know about forensic "science." One is that, "The FBI trained an army of local hair-analysis charlatans." (Must, Must Read. HL); (PS: The other disturbing things on her list are a Must Read too. (HL));

STORY: "Five disturbing things you didn't know about forensic "science," by Jordan Smith, published by"the Intercept" on April 24, 2015;

GIST: "Last week The Washington Post revealed that in 268 trials dating back to 1972, 26 out of 28 examiners within the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit “overstated forensic matches in a way that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent” of the cases. These included cases where 14 people have since been either executed or died in prison. The hair analysis review — the largest-ever post-conviction review of questionable forensic evidence by the FBI — has been ongoing since 2012. The review is a joint effort by the FBI, Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The preliminary results announced last week represent just a small percentage of the nearly 3,000 criminal cases in which the FBI hair examiners may have provided analysis. Of the 329 DNA exonerations to date, 74 involved flawed hair evidence analysis. While these revelations are certainly disturbing — and the implications alarming — the reality is that they represent the tip of the iceberg when it comes to flawed forensics. In a landmark 2009 report, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that, aside from DNA, there was little, if any, meaningful scientific underpinning to many of the forensic disciplines. “With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis … no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source,” reads the report. There is one thing that all troubling forensic techniques have in common: They’re all based on the idea that patterns, or impressions, are unique and can be matched to the thing, or person, who made them. But the validity of this premise has not been subjected to rigorous scientific inquiry. “The forensic science community has had little opportunity to pursue or become proficient in the research that is needed to support what it does,” the NAS report said. Nonetheless, courts routinely allow forensic practitioners to testify in front of jurors, anointing them “experts” in these pattern-matching fields — together dubbed forensic “sciences” despite the lack of evidence to support that — based only on their individual, practical experience. These witnesses, who are largely presented as learned and unbiased arbiters of truth, can hold great sway with jurors whose expectations are often that real life mimics the television crime lab or police procedural. But that is not the case, as the first results from the FBI hair evidence review clearly show. And given the conclusions of the NAS report, future results are not likely to improve. What’s more, if other pattern-matching disciplines were subjected to the same scrutiny as hair analysis, there is no reason to think the results would be any better. For some disciplines the results could even be worse. Consider the examples below:

1. Bite-mark analysis is based on two falsehoods and has wrongfully convicted at least 24 people; (Elaboration);

 2. Dexter lied to you about blood splatters; They sew chaos and confusion. (Elaboration)'

 3. Worn shoes and tires can land you on death row, but there’s no evidence they’re unique.  (Elaboration); 

4. No two fingerprints are alike? That is the question; (Elaboration)

5. The FBI trained an army of local hair-analysis charlatans:  "Although it is certainly a good thing that the FBI agreed to undertake a review of the work of its hair examiners — and then to clearly and publicly declare the miserable results — there is a deeper and even more troubling truth about the hair analysis revelations: There are potentially tens of thousands of additional cases out there that will not necessarily ever be reviewed. That’s because the FBI examiners for 25 years provided training to hundreds of hair examiners across the country — training that included the demonstrably, scientifically-flawed language that has been exposed in the current, and ongoing FBI case review. Whether all of the state cases will ever be identified let alone reviewed, remains to be seen.  For Timothy Bridges, the stakes couldn’t be much higher. Bridges was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the beating and rape of an 83-year-old woman in Charlotte, NC, in the spring of 1989. The victim (who died of unrelated causes before Bridges trial), variously described her attacker and denied that she was raped. Ultimately, Bridges, who had wavy shoulder-length hair — which is how the victim once described her attacker — was charged with the crime. There was no DNA to connect Bridges to the crime and he was not a match for a bloody palm print found at the scene (that print was never matched to anyone). But there were two hairs collected that an FBI-trained examiner testified not only were “likely” Bridges, but also that there was a very low chance they could belong to anyone else: The “likelihood of two Caucasian individuals having indistinguishable head hair is very low,” expert Elinos Whitlock testified — the very sort of language unsupported by science and found in the faulty cases identified in the current FBI review. Bridges appealed his conviction, arguing in part that there was no scientific basis to Whitlock’s testimony. In 1992, the state appeals court disagreed: “We find no reversible error,” the court ruled, concluding that testimony by a “properly qualified witness on hair identification” was admissible. Bridges is currently seeking a new trial and the state is reportedly reviewing the matter. "

The entire story can be found at:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/24/badforensics/

 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/charlessmith

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;

Washington Post Editorial takes on DC's inadequate crime lab: “Insufficient and inadequate.” "That biting assessment of the District’s crime lab by independent auditors puts to rest any suggestion that federal prosecutors overreacted when they stopped sending DNA evidence to the facility on the grounds that it was making serious mistakes."

EDITORIAL: "D.C.'s inadequate crime lab," published by the Washington Post on April 29, 2015;

GIST: “Insufficient and inadequate.” That biting assessment of the District’s crime lab by independent auditors puts to rest any suggestion that federal prosecutors overreacted when they stopped sending DNA evidence to the facility on the grounds that it was making serious mistakes. The finding also raises the questions of why officials in charge of the lab were so dismissive of prosecutors’ concerns and what that says about their ability to remedy the problems. A national accreditation board commissioned by Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) to assess complaints raised by the U.S. Attorney’s Office ordered the Consolidated Forensic Laboratory to immediately halt all DNA casework after concluding that analysts “were not competent and were using inadequate procedures.” ........The work of this lab has a direct bearing on the fair administration of justice — who goes to jail and who goes free. Having invested a quarter-billion dollars in a state-of-the-art crime lab, District residents shouldn’t have to wonder about the competence of the work or the accuracy of the analysis......... Among thequestions that need to be answered: why it was federal prosecutors, and not city officials, who recognized the problems — and what would have happened if the feds hadn’t noticed."

The entire editorial can be found at;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bad-science/2015/04/29/88f649d6-ed28-11e4-8abc-d6aa3bad79dd_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions

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/charlessmith

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; 

Bulletin: Pedro Hernandez: Jurors resume deliberations after sending a note saying they could not agree on a verdict; A twist: Jurors now want a readback of closing arguments - which is expected to delay any possibe verdict until later in the week; NBC New York;

A judge has ordered the 12-person jury in the Etan Patz murder trial back to the deliberation room after the five men and seven women, deliberating for their eleventh day, sent him a note saying they could not agree on whether 54-year-old Pedro Hernandez killed the 6-year-old child in 1979. Jurors have labored over their deliberations for nearly two weeks, asking for reviews of exhibits and hours of testimony from key witnesses. Before they sent the hung jury note, they had asked the judge for a replay of closing arguments, which would have been a minimum of six hours of readback. State Supreme Court Justice Maxwell Wiley hadn't decided on whether to grant them the testimony before they sent the deadlock note; he later authorized the readback, which will delay any possible verdict until later in the week.http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Etan-Patz-Disappearance-Murder-Trial-Pedro-Hernandez-Kidnap-Jury-Verdit-Trial-SoHo-Missing-Children-Milk-Carton-299598341.html

FBI overstated hair match crisis: (15); (The Emperor's Clothes); Reaction reaches political level as Democratic senator's urge the Justice Department and the FBI to "take steps to correct the incredible injustices the review has revealed and to strengthen the science and standards underpinning forensic science.” Rollcall.

STORY: "Senators urge action on FBI's use of faulty forensic evidence," by reporter Matthew Fleming, published by rollcall.com on April 28, 2015;

GIST:  "A group of Democratic senators on Tuesday urged action from the Justice Department and the FBI in response to a recent FBI study showing erroneous and invalid testimony in 96 percent of cases analyzed involving microscopic hair analysis. The study also revealed 32 defendants of the 257 cases found to be prosecuted on faulty forensic evidence had been sentenced to death. “We are deeply disturbed to learn that hundreds of potentially innocent defendants were imprisoned or even executed based at least in part on flawed evidence,” the senators wrote. “We commend the Department of Justice (“the Department”) and the FBI for voluntarily undertaking this review. We now request that you  take steps to correct the incredible injustices the review has revealed and to strengthen the science and standards underpinning forensic science.” The letter calls for a three-pronged response to the study: that the Justice Department review the use of microscopic hair analysis in prosecutions by the FBI; that the Justice Department give those who have been convicted using erroneous microscopic hair analysis evidence a “full and fair opportunity to challenge their convictions” instead of simply just being informed of the error; and that the Justice Department and FBI work with the National Academy of Sciences and the National Institute of Standards and Technology to review the processes and standards of other disciplines of forensic science to identify opportunities for “stronger standards, better training, and further scientific research.”

The entire story can be found at:

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/senators-urge-action-on-fbis-use-of-faulty-forensic-evidence/?d

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/charlessmith

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; 

Bulletin: Douglas Prade; Ohio; Supreme Court rejects his latest appeal: A key issue in his aggravated murder conviction is the validity of forensic bite mark matching evidence. Cleveland.com;

"The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the latest appeal for former Akron Police Capt. Douglas Prade in his 1998 murder case. The court typically does not issue opinions on the cases they reject. Justices William M. O'Neill and Paul Pfeifer wanted to hear the case. Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor recused herself because she was the Summit County Prosecutor at the time of the original trial. Prade's case will now be returned to Summit County Common Pleas Judge Christine Croce. She said in October that if the state's top court rejected Prade's appeal, that she will issue an order either granting or denying Prade a new trial. Croce could also order a hearing to for prosecutors and defense attorneys to present evidence on the new trial issue...... Prade, now 69, was convicted by a jury in 1998 of killing his wife Margot Prade. The case has been appealed several times since. A Summit County judge exonerated Prade in 2013 because of DNA evidence from someone other than Prade was found on Margot Prade.  The 9th Ohio District Court of Appeals reinstated Prade's conviction last year. Croce ordered him back to prison after he was free for about 18 months. The Ninth District, however, reversed that decision, ruling that the evidence was far from conclusive and the common pleas judge abused her discretion. Margo Prade, a 41-year-old physician, was found dead in her minivan outside her medical office on Nov. 26, 1997. She had been shot six times at close range, and the killer bit through her lab coat into her arm. Douglas Prade, whom Margo divorced seven months before her death, was subsequently tried and convicted of aggravated murder, in part because of expert testimony by a forensic dentist matching him with the bite mark. Prosecutors also painted a picture of Prade as a stalker who tapped his ex-wife's phones, verbally abused her, and threatened her.
http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index.ssf/2015/04/ohio_supreme_court_rejects_akr.html

Bulletin: Pedro Hernandez: Developing situation; CBS reports hung jury - but defence not granted mistrial; (NBC reports that judge has ordered jury to continue deliberating. HL);

The jury deliberating in the murder trial of a man accused of kidnapping and killing 6-year-old Etan Patz in 1979 says it is deadlocked. Jurors have been deliberating since April 15. They sent a note to the judge Wednesday afternoon saying they have been unable to reach a unanimous decision in the trial of Pedro Hernandez. The defense argued for a mistrial, saying it was obvious the jury was hung. “Any charge to them at this point, even sending a note in to them saying, ‘Would you like to try harder?’ is inherently coercive,” said lawyer Alice Fontier. “We believe that a mistrial is warranted, and any further proceedings after that are over the strenuous objections of the defense.”"
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/04/29/etan-patz-hung-jury/

Aisling Brady McCarthy: Massachusetts: Columnist says she should be permitted to wait trial out from home pending a re-review of how the 1-year-old child she had been looking after for six months allegedly died, by violent shaking and blunt force trauma at the hands of her caretaker. Columnist Peter Gelzinis points out that: "The “re-review” in the Irish nanny case parallels an eerily similar case when Geoffrey Wilson was charged with the death of his 6-month-old son, Nathan. The same diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome was made by Alice Newton, whose assessment of little Rehma formed the basis for McCarthy’s arrest. Eventually in that case, after a host of defense experts concluded that the child suffered from a genetic condition, the medical examiner’s original diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome was changed to natural causes." (Must Read. HL);

COMMENTARY:  "Gelzinis: Acccused nanny should be allowed to wait trial out from home, by Peter Gelzinis, published by the Boston Herald on April 28, 2015.

GIST: "The term “re-review” is another way of saying that the initial hyperbolic assessment of how Rehma Sabir allegedly died, by violent shaking and blunt force trauma at the hands of her caretaker, will now be examined in a more clinical light. Perhaps more attention will be paid to the fact that Rehma had a host of medical issues and for several weeks prior to her death had been travelling outside the country with her family and not in McCarthy’s care. The “re-review” in the Irish nanny case parallels an eerily similar case when Geoffrey Wilson was charged with the death of his 6-month-old son, Nathan. The same diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome was made by Alice Newton, whose assessment of little Rehma formed the basis for McCarthy’s arrest. Eventually in that case, after a host of defense experts concluded that the child suffered from a genetic condition, the medical examiner’s original diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome was changed to natural causes. After more than two years, there’s no reason why Aisling Brady McCarthy should not be able to await her trial — if indeed it happens — at home, rather than in a jail cell."

The entire commentary can be found at:

https://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/peter_gelzinis/2015/04/gelzinis_accused_nanny_should_be_allowed_to_wait_out

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/charlessmith

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; 

FBI overstated hair match crisis: (15): (The Emperor's Clothes); A stimulating philosphical perspective appears in 'Fusion' in which Natasha Lennard contends that, "this FBI dog hair scandal should make us question our faith in scientific evidence." ..."Access to scientific expertise is protected and reserved for the privileged," she writes. "But there is no mythic force of scientific progress that will deliver justice. The lesson of the FBI hair scandal is that authority must be challenged, especially when it’s parading as truth." (Must Read. HL);

COMMENTARY: "This FBI dog hair scandal should make us question our faith in scientific evidence, " by Natasha Lennard, published by 'Fusion' on April 26 2015. (Natasha Leonard is member of Fusion's news team. She is a former news columnist for Vice,  worked as a stringer for the New York Times covering the "occupy" protests, and  opinion blogged for Salon.

GIST: "In 1978, Santae Tribble, then 17, was convicted of a murder in D.C. based on the testimony of two FBI forensics experts. They asserted that a single hair strand found at the crime scene matched Tribble’s DNA. He served 28 years in prison before an independent analysis found that the hair was no match—it was a dog’s hair. Tribble was exonerated, but his case is one among potential thousands of individuals convicted on the highly questionable FBI hair forensics practices. As Fusion’s Daniel Rivero reported this week, “over 95 percent of the cases involving hair evidence that the FBI has reviewed so far contained flawed testimony—257 out of 268 cases.” Consistently racist and ubiquitously prosecution and conviction driven, investigators wield the power society accords them as experts, often with scant regard for consequences of their “facts” for the condemned. But there’s more than pernicious police work at play here. There’s a problem—a deep, philosophical problem—of how we think about science and truth. The FBI witnesses presented their testimony as fact. In Tribble’s case, it was bullshit—DNA analysis found it was a dog’s hair. But, and this is crucial, by the scientific paradigms of the day, the hair forensic testimony was fact. And it got to be a fact, and sent a man to jail, because the science of the time has purview over the production of facts. Trusted scientific fields are always regimes of expertise—systems of authority, hierarchy, and control. And the FBI witnesses had dominion over facts in that courtroom. As if scientific knowledge floats above systems of power and oppression.........A near-religious belief in modern science-as-objective truth means that we view our given terrain of facts, managed and controlled by experts, as proven, discovered truths. Science doesn’t do this ever: rather, the power structure we call scientific knowledge determines the field of what might count as evidence, and the method by which facts are established. These regimes of expertise, regimes of truth in Michel Foucault’s terminology, produce the terrain of things that get to be facts in a given point in time. That’s what I mean when I say that science produces truth, it does not discover it. We can say things are true and are scientifically proven—that’s fine, so long as we recognize that proof and truth always exist within systems, which can and often should be challenged. In 1978, it got to be fact that the hair at the crime scene belonged to a 17-year-old black man. In a new regime of scientific truth production, this was no longer a fact. It was a dog’s hair. This is not simply a case of the better science of DNA-analysis winning through. Crucially, groups like the Innocence Project do the work of challenging the claims made by police and FBI experts. DNA-analysis is the tool du jour, and an important one, but only in so far as it is wielded as a weapon against our racist, vicious criminal justice system. If we celebrate DNA-based exonerations as primarily a victory of scientific progress, we forget that this current science can be used by pre-existing power structures to control and oppress. DNA-databases, for example, are a vast work of fact production: the fact of individuals deemed suspect and criminal in perpetuity. No science does neutral work.........Without improvements in DNA forensic sciences, the FBI’s decades of hair forensics convictions could not be challenged. And if the set of facts produced by DNA-analysis means that fewer humans are in cages, then this is indeed progress to be celebrated. Yet, often the only way to successfully undo the problematic facts produced by one revered science is to rely on scientific progress; to find better evidence to highlight bad evidence, to pull out the dog hairs. So it matters all the more to recognize that established power structures—within government, law enforcement and the academy—control the productions of truth which can condemn a person to prison or death, shielded from responsibility by pointing to infallible science. Access to scientific expertise is protected and reserved for the privileged. But there is no mythic force of scientific progress that will deliver justice. The lesson of the FBI hair scandal is that authority must be challenged, especially when it’s parading as truth."

The entire commentary can be found at:

http://fusion.net/story/126293/this-fbi-dog-hair-scandal-should-make-us-question-our-faith-in-scientific-evidence/

  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/charlessmith

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; 

Aisling Brady McCarthy; Massachusetts: Major development: (Shaken baby syndrome case); The trial of this Irish nanny accused of murdering a baby in her care has been postponed to permit a review of the entire medical case against her; "The case against Ms McCarthy hinges on the medical evidence and reports, which have been consistently challenged by her lawyers. Central to the prosecution case will be testimony of child care expert, Dr Alice Newton, who claims Ms McCarthy violently shook Rehma, causing blunt force trauma. But the defence have questioned the diagnoses of shaken baby syndrome and have raised Rehma's previous injuries and that she was sick much of her young life." BBC News.

STORY: "Irish nanny Aisling Brady McCarthy's US murder trial postponed," published by BBC News on April 28, 2015.

SUB-HEADING: "Aisling Brady McCarthy is accused of murdering a one-year-old girl."

GIST: "The entire medical case against an Irish nanny accused of murdering a baby in her care in the US is to be reviewed, prompting a further delay to her trial. Aisling Brady McCarthy, originally from County Cavan, denies attacking one-year-old Rehma Sabir at the baby's home in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  The baby died on 16 January 2013. Prosecution and defence lawyers agreed on Tuesday it should be delayed. Her trial had been due to start next week. At a hearing at Middlesex Superior Court, Ms McCarthy's lawyer said the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner was "reviewing the entire case", including nine medical reports from outside experts. "I think it's in everyone's interest to allow as much time as they need to perform a full reconsideration of the case," her lawyer told the court. Ms McCarthy's lawyer also told the court that, in light of the delay, he would be applying for bail at a hearing next week......... The case against Ms McCarthy hinges on the medical evidence and reports, which have been consistently challenged by her lawyers. Central to the prosecution case will be testimony of child care expert, Dr Alice Newton, who claims Ms McCarthy violently shook Rehma, causing blunt force trauma. But the defence have questioned the diagnoses of shaken baby syndrome and have raised Rehma's previous injuries and that she was sick much of her young life."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32506604

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/charlessmith

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;

Willie Manning: Mississippi; Momentous decision: State abandons murder prosecution for which he was sentenced to death in 1996 after a jury convicted him of murdering 90-year-old Alberta Jordan and her 60-year-old daughter, Emmoline Jimmerson during a robbery on Jan. 18, 1993, in Starkville. (Now Manning, with the assistance of the Innocence Project, can focus on his battle for exoneration - through fingerprint and DNA testing ( thanks to a recent victory in the Mississippi Supreme Court) - on the double-murder charges he is still facing. (The Steckler-Miller murders)); HL);;

STORY: Prosecution dropped in Manning case," by reporter Alex Holloway, published by the Starkville Daily News on April 22, 2015.

GIST: "The state of Mississippi’s case against Willie “Fly” Manning in the 1993 murder of two elderly women has come to a dead end after Mississippi 16th Circuit Judge Lee Howard approved an order ending the prosecution Monday in Oktibbeha County Circuit Court. Manning was sentenced to death in 1996 after a jury convicted him of murdering 90-year-old Alberta Jordan and her 60-year-old daughter, Emmoline Jimmerson during a robbery on Jan. 18, 1993, in Starkville."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.starkvilledailynews.com/node/20518

See fascinating Wikipedia account: "Willie Jerome "Fly" Manning (born June 12, 1968) is on death row at Mississippi State Penitentiary, with two death sentences for a conviction of double murder (Steckler-Miller murders). He was previously also convicted and sentenced to death for a second double murder (Jimmerson-Jordan murders), but the charges against him for these murders were eventually dropped.........(Jimmerson-Jordan murders):  In 1993, 90-year-old Emmoline Jimmerson and her 60-year-old daughter, Alberta Jordan, were murdered during an attempted robbery at their apartment in Starkville. They had been beaten and their throats were slashed. In 1996 Manning was convicted of their murder, and sentenced to death.^[29] The state's key witness, Kevin Lucious,^[30] has been serving two life sentences without parole in St. Louis, Missouri, since the mid-1990s, for murder convictions there.^[31] Lucious testified that he saw Manning enter the Jimmerson-Jordan apartment on the night of the murders; he also testified that Manning later told him that he had committed the murders."^[32] Lucious was the only eyewitness to testify that he saw Manning enter the women’s home, and no witnesses said they saw Manning leave that apartment."^[33] Lucious formally recanted his testimony in 2011. He also filed affidavits stating that his statements given to authorities and his testimony at Manning’s 1996 trial were false, and coerced by authorities because he was afraid he would be charged with the murders.^[34] He said that law enforcement produced the information for him to use when testifying.^[35] In a 7-2 decision on February 12, 2015, the Mississippi Supreme Court said notes made by Starkville police when they knocked on doors at the complex revealed that the apartment where Lucious claimed to live was in fact vacant when the crime occurred;^[36] they also showed that neither Lucious nor his girlfriend were resident in any of the apartments canvassed. The court said police withheld this information from both the district attorney's office and Manning's defense attorneys. For the majority Justice Randolph wrote: "[T]he State violated Manning’s due-process rights by failing to provide favorable, material evidence." He added "There is no question that defense counsel would have had the opportunity to meaningfully impeach Lucious’s testimony that he lived in the apartment at the time of the crime and saw Manning enter the victims’ apartment. Any attorney worth his salt would salivate at impeaching the State’s key witness using evidence obtained by the Starkville Police Department."^[37 The Mississippi Supreme Court's 7-2 decision granted Manning a new trial for this case,^[38] but the charges against him were dropped on April 20 2015. ( Outstanding Steckler-Miller murder charges): Jon Steckler, 19, and Tiffany Miller, 22, two students at Mississippi State University in Starkville were kidnapped from the street in front of Steckler's fraternity house on December 11, 1992. About an hour later, a motorist found Steckler shot in the back of the head and left for dead by the side of a road, having been run over by Miller's car, a Toyota MR2.^[1] When law enforcement officers arrived, they found Miller's body in nearby woods. She had been shot twice, in the forehead and mouth.^[2] Steckler died shortly thereafter. In the morning, Miller's car was found near the MSU campus.^[3] Also that morning, one of Steckler's fraternity brothers, John Wise, found his car had been burglarized. The trial of Manning included testimony that he possessed and also tried to sell items stolen from the Wise burglary. One of the items stolen was a gas station token.^[4] A very similar token was found at the scene of the killings.^[5] Also stolen was a black leather bomber jacket that was later recovered from Manning's girlfriend who testified at trial that Manning had given it to her; and a portable CD player, which was traced by its serial number from Wise to a pawn shop in Jackson. The person who pawned it, Gaylon Hall, testified that he obtained it from Manning.^[6] Ginger Wallace testified that she saw Manning wearing a leather jacket and in possession of a gold class ring and a watch similar to Steckler's.^[7] Prosecutors said that Manning had a record of convictions for theft and other crimes and had recently been paroled.^[8] Manning said that he did not commit the murders, and that he was at a club on the night of the murders."^[9] He stated that the property he was selling was stolen by someone he did not know,^[10] Manning was convicted of the murders of Steckler and Miller after a jury trial; the jury deliberated for one hour.^[11] Manning was sentenced to death on November 8, 1994." ^[12] Mr. Manning's lawyers argued that some of the trial witness testimony contradicted known facts. They also contended that Manning’s former girlfriend, a key witness, was granted a favorable plea deal on fraud charges, in addition to almost $18,000, to reward her for testifying for the prosecution, arrangements which were not fully disclosed to the trial jury."^[13] Manning's lawyers alleged that she also tried to implicate Manning when she asked him leading questions that were secretly recorded by officials and not disclosed to defense attorneys."^[14] Manning said that at his trial the prosecutor, Forrest Allgood, illegally dismissed as potential jurors African Americans who read African American magazines, on the grounds that these were liberal publications."^[15] Manning’s former girlfriend, said she had once seen Mr. Manning firing a gun into a tree. An F.B.I. firearms expert testified that bullets found in the tree had been fired from the same gun as the bullets used in the murders. However, this testimony was later discredited. Issues were found with an FBI firearms examiner who testified in the case. A US Justice Department letter stated: “The science regarding firearms examinations does not permit examiner testimony that a specific gun fired a specific bullet to the exclusion of all other guns in the world. The examiner could testify to that information, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, but not absolutely.^[16] He added, "As with any process involving human judgment, claims of infallibility or impossibility of error are not supported by scientific standards."^[17] As well as the firearms letter, the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice sent other letters. These stated that an FBI examiner had misrepresented his findings about hair fibers,^[18] found in Miller’s car, when he concluded that the hair came from an African American. The two victims were white, but Manning is black. This hair sample was the only physical evidence that connected Manning to the murder scene. The authorities stated, "We have determined that the microscopic hair comparison analysis testimony or laboratory report presented in this case included statements that exceeded the limits of science and was, therefore, invalid."^[19] Federal officials scrutinized Manning’s case as part of a wider review of the FBI’s analysis of scientific evidence in thousands of violent crimes in the 1980s and 1990s, intended to correct errors in forensic hair examinations before 2000."^[20] Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood responded, "The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that the evidence is so overwhelming as to Manning's guilt [that] even if technologies were available to determine the source of the hair, to indicate someone other than Manning, it would not negate other evidence that shows his guilt."^[21] Oktibbeha County District Attorney, Forrest R. Allgood, who tried Manning, said that because only fragments of hair were recovered the FBI hair expert, Chester E. Blythe, had not been able to match Manning to the crime-scene hairs. According to Allgood the FBI’s admission of the error was therefore irrelevant."^[22] Allgood added that Manning’s call for DNA testing was probably a delaying tactic. Representatives from the Innocence Project supported DNA testing, saying that it had exonerated even prisoners with seemingly strong evidence against them. Similarly, one of the dissenting judges, Justice James W. Kitchens, wrote “whatever potential harm the denial seeks to avert is surely outweighed by the benefits of ensuring justice by the scientific analysis of all the trace evidence.” Manning pointed out that multiple fingerprints found in Miller's car matched neither him nor the two victims. There were indications of sexual assault on Ms. Miller, but analysis of a rape kit at the time did not reveal evidence of seminal fluid.^[23] Manning alleged that DNA testing could be done."^[24] Benjamin Russell, from the organization, Mississippians Educating for Smart Justice, said that physical evidence from the crime scene included hair found in both victims’ hands, scrapings from under the victims’ nails, and hair fragments found in the car. He added that modern DNA testing, unavailable when the murders occurred, could determine Manning’s guilt or innocence and probably identify the person who committed the murders.^[25]
Mr Manning’s lawyers stated "A finding by the circuit court that Manning's conviction in the Brooksville Gardens case was procured on the basis of false testimony would also be relevant to the claims in this case (the college students), because it would show a pattern of reliance on testimony procured unfairly.".^[26] On May 7, 2013, in an 8-1 ruling, the Mississippi Supreme Court granted a last-minute stay of execution to Manning.^[27] On July 25, 2013, the same Court reversed its earlier 5-4 ruling preventing the testing of the fingerprints and DNA evidence. The new ruling, which was unanimous, allowed Manning to request analysis of both.[28]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Jerome_Manning

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/charlessmith

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;