STORY: "Junk science cited in bid to clear man in ’89 Dallas killing," by reporter Brandi Grissom, published by the Dallas News on October 10, 2015.
GIST: "In 1989, Dr. Jim Hales told a Dallas County jury that there was a “1 to a million” chance that someone other than Steven Mark Chaney made the bite marks found on John Sweek’s murdered body. Now, in an affidavit filed Friday, the longtime dentist whose testimony cemented a life sentence for Chaney says he was wrong all those years ago. Lawyers for Chaney, a 59-year-old former construction worker who has been in prison more than a quarter-century, argue that he is innocent. They are asking a judge to set him free based on new evidence that the bite analysis was invalid and on allegations of prosecutor misconduct, including withholding evidence and eliciting false testimony. “Mr. Chaney’s new evidence has gutted the case against him in virtually every respect,” lawyer Julie Lesser of the Dallas County public defender’s office wrote in a court document seeking Chaney’s acquittal and release from prison. Lesser and lawyers for the New York-based Innocence Project say the linchpin of Chaney’s conviction for the fatal stabbing of John and Sally Sweek in Dallas in 1987 was testimony from forensic dentists based on what some scientists now say is among the shoddiest of junk science. A hearing in Chaney’s case is scheduled for Monday in Dallas County Criminal District Court No. 4. .. During Chaney’s trial, prosecutors said he had murdered John Sweek to avoid paying a large debt to the drug dealer. The prosecutors hired two forensic dentists who said they spent hours matching the bite marks on John Sweek’s arm to molds of Chaney’s teeth. But in the affidavit filed Friday, Hales, the chief dental consultant for the Dallas County medical examiner’s office, said the information he provided to jurors has since been invalidated. “Conclusions that a particular individual is the biter and their dentition is a match when you are dealing with an open population are now understood to be scientifically unsound,” Hales said. During the trial, Chaney’s lawyers presented nine witnesses who said that they had spent time with him the day of the slayings and that he couldn’t have been at the Sweeks’ home when they were killed. But the jury trusted the dentists’ testimony more than Chaney’s friends and relatives. At least one juror said after the trial that the bite evidence convinced her that he was guilty. In recent years, forensic scientists have raised serious doubts about the reliability of bite mark evidence...The defense lawyers also argue that prosecutors knowingly presented false evidence that blood had been found on the bottom of Chaney’s tennis shoe. They say prosecutors withheld notes from another expert who said there was no blood on Chaney’s shoes. They also say prosecutors elicited false testimony from a co-worker of Chaney’s, who initially told police that Chaney had asked him to be a “witness” to tell authorities that he had last been at the victims’ home a week before the murders. But at trial, the co-worker told the jury that Chaney had asked him to be an “alibi” witness."
The entire story can be found at:
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;
