"A marked uptick in the number of
exonerations coming out of Houston, Texas, has refocused attention on the role
guilty pleas play in generating wrongful convictions, notes Eric Benson in a
recent article published by the social action platform Takepart.com. “Plea bargaining can coerce
innocent people into accepting a sentence,” Scott Henson, executive director of
the Innocence
Project of Texas, told Benson, pointing out the added risks of a
systemic bias toward getting rapid guilty pleas. “These cases highlight the
pressures on the front end for people to plead guilty and just to put it behind
them.” According to an article by the National Registry of Exonerations, some 95% of
felony convictions in the United States are obtained by guilty pleas, yet only
15 percent of people who have been exonerated for crimes for which they didn’t
commit entered guilty pleas. According to the article, that’s not because
most people who plead guilty are innocent but because it is extremely difficult
for innocent people who plead guilty to challenge their convictions. The recent Houston exonerations help to
illustrate the scope of the problem. Since early 2014, 71 people were
exonerated who plead guilty to drug possession in Harris County, Texas
(Houston). In these cases, people plead guilty based on the results of
field tests which are so imprecise that they have misidentified “Jolly
Ranchers, breath mints, oregano and even air as illegal drugs,” writes Benson.
According to the National Registry of Exonerations, most of these people
agreed to plead guilty “because they faced months in jail before trial, and
years more if convicted.” They were exonerated because the alleged drugs were
submitted to testing after conviction and were found not to be controlled
substances.........These cases from a single jurisdiction
make up 67% of all guilty plea exonerations involving drug cases. While it is
impossible to know how many people are pleading guilty to drug cases for which
they are innocent, it is almost certain that this is happening in other
jurisdictions around the country. It’s also important to note that there is no
way to know which jurisdictions are testing the drugs after a guilty plea as
they did in Houston. Read the full article on guilty pleas here."
Monday, November 30, 2015
Bulletin: Innocence Project - prompted by, a marked uptick in the number of exonerations coming out of Houston, Texas - asks why are people pleading guilty to crimes they didn’t commit? "The recent Houston exonerations help to illustrate the scope of the problem. Since early 2014, 71 people were exonerated who plead guilty to drug possession in Harris County, Texas (Houston). In these cases, people plead guilty based on the results of field tests which are so imprecise that they have misidentified “Jolly Ranchers, breath mints, oregano and even air as illegal drugs,” writes Benson. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, most of these people agreed to plead guilty “because they faced months in jail before trial, and years more if convicted.” They were exonerated because the alleged drugs were submitted to testing after conviction and were found not to be controlled substances. (Must Read. HL);
Sunday, November 29, 2015
Bulletin: Ricky Anthony Young; Washington State; Convicted of killing a judge in 1974 he is seeking DNA testing. "Two partial fingerprints matching Young were discovered by federal agents underneath tape on a piece of paper from the package. In their motion, Young's attorneys wrote that DNA testing wasn't available at the time of his trial 40 years ago. They say it has the potential to exonerate him and identify the true perpetrator of the crime. A hearing is set for Tuesday in Franklin County Superior Court." Associated Press.
"A man convicted of killing a Superior Court judge with a pipe bomb in 1974 is asking a court to allow DNA testing on evidence from his case. The Tri-City Herald reports that attorneys with the Innocence Project Northwest are representing Ricky Anthony Young. He is serving a minimum 77-year sentence for first-degree murder in the death of Benton-Franklin Superior Court Judge James Lawless.........Two partial fingerprints matching Young were discovered by federal agents underneath tape on a piece of paper from the package. In their motion, Young's attorneys wrote that DNA testing wasn't available at the time of his trial 40 years ago. They say it has the potential to exonerate him and identify the true perpetrator of the crime. A hearing is set for Tuesday in Franklin County Superior Court."
Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/news/state/washington/article47069765.html#storylink=cpy
Han Tak Lee: Arson "science": Long-held beliefs about arson science have been debunked after decades of misuse and scores of wrongful convictions; An excellent account of the Han Tak Lee case in the context of the debunking of long-held beliefs about arson science by Mark Hansen, published by the America Bar Association Journal. (Must Must Read. HL);
STORY: “Badly Burned: Long-held beliefs about arson science have been debunked after decades of misuse and scores of wrongful convictions,”
by Mark Hansen, published by the American Bar Association Journal, December 2015 issue.
Arson cases are not like typical murder or rape cases, where DNA evidence may still exist that not only can establish one’s innocence but also implicate another. In arson cases, evidence is usually consumed in the fire. And a fire investigator can rarely rule out arson as the cause of a blaze, which is often a requirement for overturning a conviction. Lentini, who has compiled a list of 55 cases in which he has been able to help people who have been falsely accused or wrongfully convicted of arson, estimates that there may still be as many as a “few hundred” innocent people in prison for arson-related offenses. “What we see in terms of exonerations,” he says, “is just the tip of the iceberg.”
The entire article can be found at:
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/long_held_beliefs_about_arson_science_have_been_debunked_after_decades_of_m/
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;
Saturday, November 28, 2015
Bulletin: Motherisk: Group "Harmed by Motherisk" seeks out victims of disgraced 'Motherisk' program (Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto) for potential lawsuits, The Charles Smith Blog has learned.
BACKGROUND: Reporter Jacques Gallant: Toronto Star. October 16, 2015.
"The Hospital for Sick Children is apologizing for “unacceptable” practices in its Motherisk drug testing laboratory, its chief executive officer told the Star in an exclusive interview on Thursday. “We deeply regret that the practices in the
Motherisk drug testing laboratory didn’t meet the high standard of
excellence that we have here at Sick Kids, and we extend our sincere
apologies to children, families and organizations who feel that they may
have been impacted in some negative way,” said Dr. Michael Apkon,
speaking in his office at the hospital. “We remain resolved in our efforts to ensure
that we have the highest standards of quality and safety in all of our
programs so that unacceptable events like this never happen again.” Sick Kids permanently halted drug and alcohol
hair testing at Motherisk last spring in the midst of an internal
review, which showed a laboratory operating at times without appropriate
oversight or rigorous quality assurance processes, yet relied upon in
many child protection and criminal cases across the country."
A group, calling itself 'Harmed by Motherisk' is seeking victims of the Hospital for Sick Children's 'Motherisk' program to participate in potential lawsuits, this Blog has learned. The lawsuits will be handled by Benjamin Salsberg, a Toronto lawyer with more than 30 years of experience in civil litigation assisted by an independent forensic laboratory with expertise in the field of hair testing, by recognized experts in the field, and by individuals who have suffered and have had to counter testing from Motherisk.
Initial questions and communications about the lawsuits should be directed to the e-mail... info@HarmedByMotherisk.com.
Lawyer Salsberg can be reached at: 416-362-0555 | Cell: 416-417-6040
This Blog has been advised that the most common questions received by the group thus far - and answers provided by them - are as follows:
Question: Is this a Class Action Lawsuit?
Initial questions and communications about the lawsuits should be directed to the e-mail... info@HarmedByMotherisk.com.
Lawyer Salsberg can be reached at: 416-362-0555 | Cell: 416-417-6040
This Blog has been advised that the most common questions received by the group thus far - and answers provided by them - are as follows:
Question: Is this a Class Action Lawsuit?
Answer: No, this is not a Class Action
Lawsuit since Class Actions involve allegations with a large number of people
who have been injured by the same defendant in the same way. Based on initial interviews, each
client suffered differently as a result of Motherisk (i.e. the damages vary
dramatically). A Class Action is ideal
for cases where individuals suffered equally (e.g. the Volkswagen emissions
scandal). Mr. Salsberg is taking
as many individual cases to file a suit against Motherisk so that each
individual can get compensated to the fullest extent.
Question: Who can be compensated? Can Children be compensated?
Answer: Everyone is compensated including Children! In fact, we believe that Children were
equally affected by the result of the Motherisk drug and alcohol test results.
Question: What are the cost involved and what if I already have a
lawyer?
Answer: A case of this magnitude requires that large significant
cost would be required in order to give the best possible presentation for each
case. Other lawyers would require
this cost since it involves not the time and effort to go over the intricate details
of your case but a number of scientific experts in the field of hair testing
are required to analyze the significance of the test results from
Motherisk. With Benjamin Salsberg,
none of these costs would be provided by the individual plaintiffs and each
individual would be compensated based on the award/settlement.
Question: What if I currently have a lawyer? Also what if I plan on having a lawyer for family or
adoption purposes?
Answer: If you currently have a lawyer working on CAS and family law
issues, that relationship is not affected by the present matter which only
involves Motherisk laboratories.
This is a completely separate and distinct action.
The group would appreciate to a response by December 10, 2015.
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;
The group would appreciate to a response by December 10, 2015.
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;
Aarushi Talwar Case: Parent Trap "Until we find the real killers, there is no closure for us.” In conversation with Rajesh and Nupur Talwar. "There is the grief of losing one’s child in a horrific way, and then there’s the grief of being accused of it. After a chaotic few days of disorganised investigation, botched evidence, uncontrolled public access to the murder site and a cremation dictated by the elders in the family, Rajesh was arrested for his daughter’s murder. “The Noida police told us, ‘Don’t speak to the media’, so we didn’t. But then a week later when they came to arrest me, we realised the media had blindly believed what the police said, without hearing our side of the story”, says Rajesh.The tale only got murkier and murkier." (Must, Must Read. HL);
STORY: " Aarushi Talwar Case: Parent Trap "Until we find the real killers, there is no closure for us.” In conversation with Rajesh and Nupur Talwar," by reporter Aekta Kapoor, published by 'Newslaundry' on November 19, 2015.
“All ‘media ethics’ went flying out of the window when it came to Aarushi”, says Nupur. “In other cases (such as the December 2012 gang-rape), they were all very ethical about not using the victim’s name or pictures. In our case, no such discretion was followed. On the contrary, there was blatant character assassination on all fronts”, she says, adding that what pains her the most is the way the police and media stripped her daughter of all dignity. It only added to growing animosity and public anger against the parents. So much so that Rajesh was attacked with a meat cleaver by a crazed man outside court. But there was also support from unexpected quarters. A 14-page chapter in Patrick French’s book India: A Portrait was dedicated to Aarushi’s case, one of the first few to present the Talwars’ side of the story. The Toronto Star carried an article by Nupur’s cousin, supporting the family. Tehelka ran a large cover story in June this year in which senior journalist Shoma Chaudhary went into every file and sentence that was part of the case and declared the Talwars’ situation to be “Kafkaesque”. Top lawyers represented the Talwars in court pro bono. Family chipped in with finances since their dental practice was down to negligible, having to scurry between courts across states. Old patients stoically stood by them. Neighbours offered condolences and expressed shock. “It is only by the grace of these people that we are still here and able to have this conversation”, says Nupur. “That, and our complete faith in God.” The Talwars took to prayer and studying the Bhagwad Gita, looking for meaning in their excruciating experiences. “People say there’s something to learn from all this – endurance, patience, something. But I can’t see the learning or meaning in any of this”, says Nupur. “We were a normal, happy family one day, and then overnight, it’s become a living hell.” Rajesh credits his wife for being the rock in the relationship. “She gives me strength, even when I become weak and falter.” Nupur, on her part, says it’s all for Aarushi. “I just remind myself of her and that is enough to give me the courage to push through all this, without losing our sanity or breaking down.” What will they do if the court rules in their favour? “We’ll continue to seek the truth”, asserts Rajesh. “Until we find the real killers, there is no closure for us.” What if the court rules against them? They both shrug, their lips tight in determination. Nupur responds after a pause, as if the answer is obvious, “We will keep fighting. Even if the whole world is against us, we have the truth on our side. That’s what keeps us going.”"
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.newslaundry.com/2013/11/19/aarushi-talwar-case-parent-trap/
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;
Friday, November 27, 2015
Bulletin: U.S. Marine Joseph Scott Pemberton; Philippines Justice under pressure? The Inquirer reports that at least 1000 officers will be deployed to protect the judge and the courthouse following release of the verdict set for December 1. "When Judge Roline Ginez-Jabalde of the Olongapo Regional Trial Court Branch 74 hands down her verdict on the murder of transgender Jeffrey “Jennifer” Laude on Dec. 1, at least 1,000 policemen will secure her and the court. Senior Supt. Pedrito de los Reyes, city police director, said they would be on heightened alert next week, aware of the political and ideological issues surrounding the Oct. 11 murder of Laude."
"When Judge Roline Ginez-Jabalde of the Olongapo Regional Trial Court Branch 74 hands down her verdict on the murder of transgender Jeffrey “Jennifer” Laude on Dec. 1, at least 1,000 policemen will secure her and the court. Senior Supt. Pedrito de los Reyes, city police director, said they would be on heightened alert next week, aware of the political and ideological issues surrounding the Oct. 11 murder of Laude. US Marine Lance Cpl. Joseph Scott Pemberton has been charged with the crime. He has been held at the Joint US Military Assistance Group compound in Camp Aguinaldo, the headquarters of the Armed Forces of the Philippines in Quezon City. As part of security measures, police would put up steel barriers around the court premises and outside the Hall of Justice. The court had barred reporters from the premises during the trial that started in March. “The number of police personnel is enough to cover the entire Hall of Justice and its immediate periphery,” De los Reyes said in a text message on Thursday..........Roberto Garcia, chair of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, said the verdict would be crucial to the status of liberty (rest and recreation activities) for visiting US troops. Last year, the US Pacific Command (US Pacom) canceled these activities of US servicemen in the Philippines after Pemberton was detained for Laude’s slaying. The US Pacom eased up the rules in June and allowed US soldiers to leave their ships, although they were prohibited from entering the Subic Bay Freeport."
Bulletin: April Luckese; Toronto Star reports: " Mother tells court of alarming call from daycare operator; By the time An Nguyen rushed to the home, her daughter was in an ambulance. She died in hospital hours later." Reporter Alex Ballingall;
"The court has heard
that Luckese initially told police she tripped while carrying Duy-An,
and the girl hit her head on a banister. She then recanted and claimed
that she “lost control” and shook the child, the court was told. Luckese pleaded not guilty to manslaughter. Her defence lawyer is arguing that her statements to police are not true. On Thursday, the court heard from Duy-An’s
parents and a man named Trevor Doyle, whose son attended the same
daycare. Two days after Duy-An died, Doyle said, Luckese called him. “She said she was very sorry. ‘I don’t know
how this happened. It was only one second.’ She basically kept repeating
those sentences,” Doyle said. “She assured me that she never hurt my
son… She said, ‘I’ve never hit or laid a hand on a child in 15 years.’” Doyle said he didn’t ask what she was talking about." The trial resumes Friday morning."
Henry Keogh: (Aftermath 11): Article by reporter Meredith Booth in the Australian ("Flawed forensics’ trigger murder appeals") indicates that there are possibly 400 criminal convictions which may need to be reviewed in South Australia because of the defective work of disgraced pathologist Dr Colin Manock - and that a class action may be brewing.
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am grateful to Dr. Robert Moles for providing a note on an article by reporter Meredith Booth published in the Australian entitled '"Flawed forensics’ trigger murder appeals." The article, published on November 25, 2015, is important as it indicates that there are possibly 400 criminal convictions which may need to be reviewed in South Australia because of the defective work of disgraced pathologist Dr Colin Manock - and as it indicates that 'Maurice Blackburn" Australia's largest class action outfit may have dozens of cases lined up for review. It has been noted that Dr. Moles, an occasional guest contributor to this Blog, is a miscarriage of justice researcher and campaigner who as been pressing for national reform. "Moles’ organisation Networked Knowledge has already won reforms giving potential victims of miscarriages of justice more rights to appeal in South Australia and is now campaigning for a new Right to Appeal act in all states, and the establishment of a national Criminal Cases Review Commission. (For more, see his timeline)."
"On 25 November 2015 Meredith Booth of The Australian reported ‘Flawed forensics’ trigger murder appeals. Three murderers are to appeal convictions in South Australia’s highest court in coming months on the ground of miscarriage of justice after a decision to drop a prosecution case against high-profile appellant Henry Keogh. Mr Keogh, 59, spent almost 20 years in jail and faced a third trial for the “body in the bath” murder of Anna-Jane Cheney in 1994 after a second conviction was set aside on appeal last year. However, he walked free from court last week after prosecutors deemed a key witness was too sick to testify and dropped the case. Common to Mr Keogh’s and the other cases is perceived flawed and inadequate forensic evidence from former chief forensic pathologist Colin Manock. This material was crucial to their convictions. Dr Manock, who was chief pathologist for 30 years until 1995, appeared as an expert witness in an estimated 400 cases. Lawyers for Frits Van Beelen, who filed to the Court of Criminal Appeal last month to have his 1971 murder conviction of teenager Deborah Leach overturned, said Dr Manock’s evidence was inadmissible because he since had been established as unprofessional, incompetent and untrustworthy. Lawyers representing Derek Bromley and David Szach, 55, are also in the final stages of preparing appeals likely to be lodged by Christmas or early next year. Bromley, 60, in his 31st year in jail and nine years beyond his sentence, has refused to show remorse for the 1984 drowning murder of Stephen Docoza, which he denies. His co-accused, who also denies the murder, walked free on parole in 2004. Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement lawyer Chris Charles said Bromley’s team had worked for at least two years on building fresh evidence to appeal and had instructed former royal commissioner and former NSW Supreme Court judge Greg James QC to act for him in court. Maurice Blackburn managing principal Anthony Kerin is expected to file an appeal for Szach early next year, with Szach’s motor neurone disease adding urgency to a bid to clear his name. Szach received a mandatory life sentence 36 years ago for the shooting murder of his lover, 44-year-old Adelaide criminal lawyer Derrance Stevenson, a crime he denies. Mr Kerin said Szach’s case would be ahead of dozens of appeals in their early stages in light of last year’s judgment that Mr Keogh had suffered a miscarriage of justice and Dr Manock’s assertions in his murder trial were “unreliable”, his conclusions “not properly explored” and his autopsy “inadequate”.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/flawed-forensics-trigger-murder-appeals/story-e6frg6nf-1227621700050?sv=d2a631af276df7187dcfadef271611e1
Thursday, November 26, 2015
Bulletin: Ivan Henry: British Columbia; Major development: Federal government settles wrongful conviction lawsuit with Ivan Henry. "A trial hearing Henry's lawsuit began in August, but the City of Vancouver announced last week it was settling and unequivocally withdrawing its allegations that Henry was still guilty. The provincial government is the only remaining defendant and its lawyers are scheduled to make arguments in the case on Friday." The Canadian Press.
"The federal
government has become the second defendant to settle a compensation
claim made by a B.C. man who was wrongfully imprisoned for sex crimes
for nearly three decades. B.C. Supreme Court has heard
the government will settle for an undisclosed amount in the wrongful
conviction lawsuit brought by Ivan Henry after his acquittal on 10
counts of sexual assault in 2010......... A trial hearing Henry's
lawsuit began in August, but the City of Vancouver announced last week
it was settling and unequivocally withdrawing its allegations that Henry
was still guilty. The provincial government is the only remaining defendant and its lawyers are scheduled to make arguments in the case on Friday."
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/federal-government-settles-wrongful-conviction-lawsuit-with-ivan-henry-354985471.html
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/federal-government-settles-wrongful-conviction-lawsuit-with-ivan-henry-354985471.html
Police interrogation tactics can plant false memories, UBC study finds: Study participants remembered elaborate details of crimes they hadn't committed.
STORY: "Police interrogation tactics can plant false memories, UBC study finds: Study participants remembered elaborate details of crimes they hadn't committed," published by CBC News on November 19, 2015.
PHOTO CAPTION: "The interviewers in the study
used common police interrogation techniques to convince many
participating undergraduate students that they had committed a crime
when they were younger."
"Many of the interrogation tactics used by police forces in Canada can make suspects falsely believe they committed the crimes they are accused of, suggests new research from the University of B.C. Okanagan. The research study involved 60 undergraduate students who were asked to recall two different memories — a true memory that was provided by their parents, and a false memory of a criminal or violent activity they had done when they were younger. The interviewers asked the participants about the memories, using the same persuasive tactics used in Canadian police interrogations, and by the end of three separate hour-long interview sessions more than 70 per cent of the participants thought the fake memory they had been asked to recall had actually happened. "[They] came to believe and endorse that they had engaged in this kind of criminal behaviour, which ranged from assaults to assault with a weapon to serious thefts," said Stephen Porter, a psychology professor who co-authored the study published in the Psychological Science journal. The participants were so convinced that they'd actually committed these crimes that they even gave "extremely rich accounts" of what they believed had happened. "They were reporting extensive detail about getting arrested, what had happened, going to jail, their parents picking them up eventually, and to the point that they experienced significant guilt for these wrongdoings that they in fact hadn't committed," he said......"We used tactics that are very very common in the Canadian interrogation room, for example, offering, what police call incontrovertible evidence … in this case we said, 'Your parents had informed us that you did this crime and you were arrested.' In real life police would say, 'You failed a polygraph' or 'We have this kind of evidence or that kind of evidence.'"
"Many of the interrogation tactics used by police forces in Canada can make suspects falsely believe they committed the crimes they are accused of, suggests new research from the University of B.C. Okanagan. The research study involved 60 undergraduate students who were asked to recall two different memories — a true memory that was provided by their parents, and a false memory of a criminal or violent activity they had done when they were younger. The interviewers asked the participants about the memories, using the same persuasive tactics used in Canadian police interrogations, and by the end of three separate hour-long interview sessions more than 70 per cent of the participants thought the fake memory they had been asked to recall had actually happened. "[They] came to believe and endorse that they had engaged in this kind of criminal behaviour, which ranged from assaults to assault with a weapon to serious thefts," said Stephen Porter, a psychology professor who co-authored the study published in the Psychological Science journal. The participants were so convinced that they'd actually committed these crimes that they even gave "extremely rich accounts" of what they believed had happened. "They were reporting extensive detail about getting arrested, what had happened, going to jail, their parents picking them up eventually, and to the point that they experienced significant guilt for these wrongdoings that they in fact hadn't committed," he said......"We used tactics that are very very common in the Canadian interrogation room, for example, offering, what police call incontrovertible evidence … in this case we said, 'Your parents had informed us that you did this crime and you were arrested.' In real life police would say, 'You failed a polygraph' or 'We have this kind of evidence or that kind of evidence.'"
The entire story with a link to the audio interview 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; Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
Bulletin: April Luckese; Ontario; Prosecutor alleges in opening address at trial that the former runner of unlicensed home daycare in Mississauga “lost control” and shook a toddler who died of severe head trauma hours later- and that April Luckese told police she shook the baby, who had been in her care for only two days. Reporter Alex Ballingail; Toronto Star.
"A woman who used to run an unlicensed home
daycare in Mississauga “lost control” and shook a toddler who died of
severe head trauma hours later, a court has heard. Crown lawyer Amber Lepchuk outlined her case
in a Brampton court Wednesday, describing how April Luckese told police
she shook the baby, who had been in her care for only two days. Lepchuk said doctors concluded that
14-month-old Duy-An Nguyen died from severe head trauma hours after she
was rushed to hospital on Jan. 5, 2011. She had a fractured skull and
swelling and bleeding on her brain, Lepchuk said in her opening
statement of the trial. Luckese, the former daycare operator, is charged with manslaughter. “The Crown’s position is that Mrs. Luckese is
the one who inflicted the head trauma and failed to provide the
necessities of life,” Lepchuk said......... The parents described how Dawson called 911
and paramedics arrived within minutes. In the meantime, Luckese had
called the girl’s mother, who arrived at about the same time that
emergency responders were taking Duy-An to the ambulance, the court
heard. Dawson, who enrolled her daughter in Luckese’s
care upon a recommendation from Grande, said she never had any concerns
about the daycare before that day. “I thought it was wonderful.” Asked by defence lawyer Stephen Whitzman
whether she had previously been satisfied with the child care at
Luckese’s home, Grande said yes. Grande also told the court she was surprised to hear the allegations against Luckese. The trial continues."
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi: 'Private Eye' reports the latest Lockerbie decision of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC); "After endless delay by the Crown, the appeal was abandoned when the ailing Libyan returned to his country to die with his family. Since then other material has come to light, including new scientific evidence which shows – contrary to assertions made at Megrahi’s trial – that a bomb timer fragment found at the crash site was no match for those known to have been supplied to Libya. It was this evidence which raised more serious questions not only about Megrahi’s guilt but also over any part played by Libya, which last year prompted a number of the relatives of the 270 who perished in the 1988 blast – supported by members of Megrahi’s family – to launch a new SCCRC application."
POST: "Private Eye on the SCCRC's latest Lockerbie decision," by John Ashton, pubished by "Megrahi: You are my jury," on November 25, 2015.
GIST: "The following article appears in the latest issue of Private Eye: The recent decision of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) by the Scottish body that it would not be reviewing the case of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, has been met with dismay and incredulity by those who want to get to the truth behind the Lockerbie bombing. The SCCRC said its decision that it a further investigation was “not in the interests of justice” was made with “some regret”. It blamed an inability to gain access to defence appeal papers and other materials – which has outraged those who say they could have been supplied.
Eye readers will remember that back in 2007, the SCCRC identified no less than six grounds for a possible miscarriage of justice, paving the way for Megrahi’s appeal in 2009. After endless delay by the Crown, the appeal was abandoned when the ailing Libyan returned to his country to die with his family. Since then other material has come to light, including new scientific evidence which shows – contrary to assertions made at Megahi’s trial – that a bomb timer fragment found at the crash site was no match for those known to have been supplied to Libya. It was this evidence which raised more serious questions not only about Megrahi’s guilt but also over any part played by Libya, which last year prompted a number of the relatives of the 270 who perished in the 1988 blast – supported by members of Megrahi’s family – to launch a new SCCRC application. It was, they claimed, the “worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history”. But this month commissioners said “a great deal of public money and time” was expended on its original review of Megrahi’s case only for the apeal to be abandonned and it was not convinced of the family’s willingness to co-operate with the new review or take the matter to appeal. A John Ashton, Megrahi’s biographer, who worked with the defence team, accused the commission of incompetence: “If it had really wanted access to the appeal papers, it only needed to ask. Mr Megrahi had allowed me to keep a set of papers, which I was happy to share with the commission.” Tony Kelly, Megrahi’s former solicitor, had also made it clear he was anxious to assist, and had requested the SCCRC set out the legal basis for the request, so he could meet his duties of confidentiality to a former client. That was not forthcoming. The SCCRC decision was the second blow to the victims’ relatives. In summer the appeal court ruled that they did not have a “legitimate interest” in pursuing an appeal on Megrahi’s behalf."
The entire post can be found at:
http://www.megrahiyouaremyjury.net/?p=1121
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;
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Ivan Henry: British Columbia: Bulletin: Lawyer labels B.C.’s defence in Ivan Henry’s wrongful-imprisonment case "embarrassing"; Globe and Mail.
"A Vancouver lawyer says the province of
British Columbia has made an “embarrassing” argument in an effort to
defend itself in a lawsuit by a man who was wrongfully imprisoned for
nearly three decades. Michael McCubbin
says the province is acknowledging it screwed up by saying its failure
to disclose important documents to Ivan Henry would not have made any
difference because he represented himself. Henry has sued the province, the federal
government and the City of Vancouver after he was acquitted of 10 counts
of sexual assault in 2010 — about 27 years after his conviction. On
Monday, government lawyer John Hunter told B.C. Supreme Court that
Henry’s case may have ended differently had he accepted a publicly
funded lawyer. Hunter also said Henry’s
lack of legal training meant the province’s failure to pass along
potentially damning documents would not have changed the outcome of the
case."
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Henry Keogh: (Part 10): Perth lawyer Tom Percy on one of the lessons of the Keogh case: "In an age when transparency is seen as one of the most essential factors in the justice system, it is simply not good enough to have these matters (criminal case reviews) dealt with behind the closed doors of the Attorney-General’s chambers." {Perth Now);
COMMENTARY: "What more evidence do we need for new legal provision?," by Tom Percy, published by Perth Now on November 23, 2105. (Tom Percy is a Perth QC.)
SUB-HEADING: "Henry Keogh can be thankful for one thing - he doesn’t live in WA." (West Australia);
GIST: "In Adelaide last week a man named Henry Keogh was finally able to go to bed without a murder charge hanging over his head. It was the first time in more than 20 years that he had been able to do that. His conviction for murdering his girlfriend by allegedly drowning her in a bath at their home in 1994 was overturned by the Supreme Court late last year and a retrial was ordered. After thinking about it for the past nine months, the prosecution this week officially threw in the towel. Which is all good news if you don’t stop to think about the 20 years he spent in jail trying to prove his innocence. If anyone in Henry Keogh’s position in WA came upon a body of fresh evidence (as he did) that clearly proved their innocence, they would be in a very different situation. Before any new appeal could be mounted, a case like his would need the approval of the State Attorney-General, which is not lightly granted. If the Attorney-General refuses, that’s the end of the story. And so it was for Mr Keogh until three years ago when the South Australian parliament enacted a law to enable persons like him who had discovered fresh and compelling evidence of their innocence to go back to court without the permission of the Attorney. In his case the Attorney had sat on the evidence for some years before eventually rejecting it. The South Australian Court of Appeal, however, found the fresh evidence to be “compelling”, so compelling, it seems, the DPP conceded there should be no new trial. Suggestions to the WA Attorney that WA might benefit from this sort of provision has regularly fallen on deaf ears. In the normal course of events you would think any attorney-general would generally refer such a case back to the court if there was any reasonable prospect of the conviction possibly being unsafe in the light of fresh evidence that was not known at the time of the original trial and before all other appeals were exhausted. But even attorneys-general are fallible, as was seen in the Keogh case. There is every reason why this function, which has been vested in the executive for decades, should now be vested in the courts. The benefits of doing that are obvious........ In WA there are several long-serving inmates whose cases for a fresh-evidence appeal have gone before the Attorney-General and been rejected. I don’t act for any of these men, but I have seen the proposed new evidence in a number of their cases. To my mind each of them has significant grounds to be referred back to the courts. What would be the downside of doing so? A court hearing which might last one or two days? Hardly a ruinous expense to the State. On the other hand, it would put these matters to bed forever. It might well confirm their guilt. No aggrieved person could say they didn’t get the chance to have their day in court. In an age when transparency is seen as one of the most essential factors in the justice system, it is simply not good enough to have these matters dealt with behind the closed doors of the Attorney-General’s chambers."
The entire commentary can be found at:
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opinion/tom-percy/tom-percy-what-more-evidence-do-we-need-for-new-legal-provision/news-story/f0ac0764bc3c65147f37d7eda9805d45
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;
Bulletin: District of Columbia court considers how to screen out ‘bad science’ in local trials; "Lawyers from D.C.’s Public Defender Service say the rules for admitting experts are particularly important in criminal cases because juries often rely heavily on scientific evidence and because unreliable forensic evidence is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. “Innocent defendants can lose their liberty based on faulty forensic evidence,” according to the defenders’ court filing, which cites techniques such as bite-mark analysis and hair and handwriting identification." Reporter Ann E. Marimow; Washington Post;
"District prosecutors and public defenders are asking the city’s highest court to adopt what they say is a more rigorous standard for screening out “bad science” in criminal cases. The D.C. Court of Appeals on Tuesday will consider whether to change the rules for how judges admit expert witnesses — a courtroom procedural matter that can have major implications for criminal trials and civil product-liability lawsuits. If the court decides to switch to the standard used in most states and in federal courtrooms, local judges would be given a more robust role in filtering the evidence juries weigh at trial. The case before the appellate court involves the question of whether cellphones can cause brain cancer. Plaintiffs have sued cellphone manufacturers and providers in D.C. Superior Court alleging that long-term exposure to cellphone radiation causes brain tumors. The appellate court is not deciding that specific issue, but the full court is taking the opportunity to weigh how judges decide which experts are allowed to testify. Lawyers from D.C.’s Public Defender Service say the rules for admitting experts are particularly important in criminal cases because juries often rely heavily on scientific evidence and because unreliable forensic evidence is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. “Innocent defendants can lose their liberty based on faulty forensic evidence,” according to the defenders’ court filing, which cites techniques such as bite-mark analysis and hair and handwriting identification..........Attorneys for the 13 plaintiffs and a local organization of trial lawyers have urged the court to keep the current standard. Plaintiffs’ attorneys, representing people who suffer from or have died from brain tumors, say the cellphone companies are trying to change the legal standard after the fact because they are dissatisfied with the judge’s ruling. Any change, they said in court papers, would be a “drastic departure” from current practice.
“The case for further empowering judges to exclude evidence from juries is weak and should not be indulged here,” according to the Trial Lawyers Association of Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Thanks to Blogger Mike Bowers of 'Forensics in Focus - CSIDDS' - for bringing this story to our attention. HL.
Keith A. Findley's urgent call for reforming the ‘science’ in Forensic Science, published by Wisconsin Lawyer. (Must, Must Read. Should be posted on every courthouse door. HL);
COMMENTARY: "Reforming the ‘Science’ in Forensic Science," by Keith A. Findley, published by Wisconsin Lawyer on November 22, 2105. (Keith A. Findley, Yale 1985, is an assistant professor at the U.W. Law School, where he is also cofounder and codirector of the Wisconsin Innocence Project. He is president of the Innocence Network, an affiliation of 70 innocence projects in the United States and nearly a dozen other countries. He previously was a trial and appellate assistant state public defender in Madison.)
SUB-HEADING: "Despite the flaws in the criminal justice system’s long-term faith in forensic science to find and convict offenders, forensic sciences remain increasingly critical components of the fact-finding process in criminal cases. To make forensic science evidence more reliable, a wide range of reforms must take place."
GIST: "Five years ago, in a press release hailing the court of appeals’ decision in State v. Jones,1
which upheld the admission of “ballistics” evidence and affirmed a
murder conviction, then-Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen
declared, “Murderers should fear forensic science.”2
Few would quibble with that sentiment. Forensic science can and should
be a powerful tool for identifying and convicting the guilty – and for
clearing and exonerating the innocent.
Today, as we continue to learn ever more about the challenges facing forensic science, however, Van Hollen’s declaration is perhaps better reinterpreted as aspirational as much as it was congratulatory. Indeed, even then there was some irony in Van Hollen’s choice of that particular case to celebrate forensic science, because it involved some of the most suspect and least scientific expert testimony imaginable..........Challenges confronting forensic science; Until recently, few participants in the criminal justice system paused to question or examine the reliability of forensic science evidence; forensic science was a staple of criminal cases that was viewed as virtually infallible and precise, whose validity was established by decades of adversary testing through litigation. The reality, however, is different than that perception. It is a reality with which the legal system is just now beginning to come to terms. The sense of infallibility began to change when DNA evidence began to reveal criminal case errors at rates never before imagined. Since 1989, when the first two men in the United States were exonerated by postconviction DNA testing, at least 330 convicted individuals have walked free in serious cases after DNA testing proved their innocence.7 Many hundreds, indeed thousands, more have been exonerated by other types of evidence.8 Surprisingly, flawed forensic science evidence is the second-leading contributor to the wrongful convictions in those DNA cases. Of the first 325 DNA exonerations, 154, or 47 percent, included misapplication of forensic science.9 Only eyewitness-misidentification evidence contributed to more false convictions. A detailed analysis of the cases in which a forensics expert testified at trial and DNA evidence later proved the defendant’s innocence found that 60 percent of the experts proffered scientifically inappropriate testimony.10 In the much larger pool of exonerations counted by the National Registry of Exonerations since 1989 (which includes exonerations based on all types of evidence, not just DNA), misapplied forensic evidence played a smaller but still significant role – flawed science was present in 363, or 23 percent, of the 1,600 exonerations in that database.11 Of course, the problem of shaky forensic science evidence concerns much more than wrongful conviction of innocent persons. Flawed forensic science inevitably means that the system also fails to identify the truly guilty. Hence, this is a problem recognized by more than only advocates for the innocent. Most notably, in 2009 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) – the preeminent scientific authority in the United States – published its groundbreaking study of forensic sciences.12 Among its many findings, the NAS concluded that, despite their long pedigree in the criminal justice system, most forensic identification disciplines (those whose objective is to match evidentiary traces found on crime scene evidence to a particular individual) are fundamentally unscientific. The NAS wrote: “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.”13 This is not to say that traditional forensic sciences have no value. As the NAS also wrote, “For decades, the forensic science disciplines have produced valuable evidence that has contributed to the successful prosecution and conviction of criminals as well as the exoneration of innocent people.”14 But it is to say that forensic sciences are not all that they were presented as being, and that they can and must be improved. The NAS explained that, unlike science-based disciplines such as DNA analysis, serology, and chemical analyses, the identification disciplines “have been developed heuristically. That is, they are based on observation, experience, and reasoning without an underlying scientific theory, experiments designed to test the uncertainties and reliability of the method, or sufficient data that are collected and analyzed scientifically.”15 In its voluminous report, the NAS examined a number of specific identification forensic specialties, including friction-ridge analysis (fingerprints) and other pattern-impression evidence (shoe prints, tire tracks, lip prints, ear prints, glove prints, and so on); forensic odontology (bite marks); microscopic hair and fiber analysis; questioned-document analysis, including handwriting analysis; firearms and toolmark analysis; and forensic DNA profiling. For each specialty, except DNA, the NAS found that there is little if any underlying scientific research, an absence of uniform protocols and standards, no databases of evidence to enable calculating the statistical significance of a “match” between crime scene evidence and a suspect, and wide room for subjective judgments by analysts. The critique applies to even the most venerated of the traditional, pre-DNA identification disciplines – fingerprints. The NAS concluded that, because there are no set standards for declaring a fingerprint “match,” “[e]xaminers must make subjective assessments throughout. In the United States, the threshold for making a source identification is deliberately kept subjective, so that the examiner can take into account both the quantity and quality of comparable details. As a result, the outcome of a friction ridge analysis is not necessarily repeatable from examiner to examiner. In fact, recent research by Dror16 has shown that experienced examiners do not necessarily agree with even their own past conclusions when the examination is presented in a different context some time later.”17 Finally, the NAS Report also addressed serious challenges confronting forensic pathology.18 Of concern in criminal cases, for example, are growing doubts about the validity of medical diagnoses in matters such as “shaken baby syndrome,” or “abusive head trauma” cases. Numerous courts, including the Wisconsin Court of Appeals19 and the U.S. Supreme Court,20 and legal and medical literature21 have noted the increasing scientific challenges to previously held beliefs about the medical diagnosis of murder in such cases. The discovery of junk science: New scrutiny has even exposed some forensic disciplines as essentially “junk” sciences, which laboratories are abandoning as useless, or worse. Read on through the link for some of Findley's examples of junk science: Comparative bullet lead analysis; Microscopic hair comparison; Forensic odontology bite matching; Also note his enlightened references to cognitive bias in forensic analysis, context effects, role effects and group think, confirmation bias, countering cognitive biases, challenges to cutting edge sciences, and prescriptions for improvement - and a strongly worded conclusion: "Criminal cases are increasingly science dependent, and the traditional forensic sciences have played a crucial role in the way we dispense justice. Recent years have shown, however, that forensic science is no silver bullet. A weak scientific foundation, sparse research support, and surprisingly high error rates beset most forensic sciences."
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;
Today, as we continue to learn ever more about the challenges facing forensic science, however, Van Hollen’s declaration is perhaps better reinterpreted as aspirational as much as it was congratulatory. Indeed, even then there was some irony in Van Hollen’s choice of that particular case to celebrate forensic science, because it involved some of the most suspect and least scientific expert testimony imaginable..........Challenges confronting forensic science; Until recently, few participants in the criminal justice system paused to question or examine the reliability of forensic science evidence; forensic science was a staple of criminal cases that was viewed as virtually infallible and precise, whose validity was established by decades of adversary testing through litigation. The reality, however, is different than that perception. It is a reality with which the legal system is just now beginning to come to terms. The sense of infallibility began to change when DNA evidence began to reveal criminal case errors at rates never before imagined. Since 1989, when the first two men in the United States were exonerated by postconviction DNA testing, at least 330 convicted individuals have walked free in serious cases after DNA testing proved their innocence.7 Many hundreds, indeed thousands, more have been exonerated by other types of evidence.8 Surprisingly, flawed forensic science evidence is the second-leading contributor to the wrongful convictions in those DNA cases. Of the first 325 DNA exonerations, 154, or 47 percent, included misapplication of forensic science.9 Only eyewitness-misidentification evidence contributed to more false convictions. A detailed analysis of the cases in which a forensics expert testified at trial and DNA evidence later proved the defendant’s innocence found that 60 percent of the experts proffered scientifically inappropriate testimony.10 In the much larger pool of exonerations counted by the National Registry of Exonerations since 1989 (which includes exonerations based on all types of evidence, not just DNA), misapplied forensic evidence played a smaller but still significant role – flawed science was present in 363, or 23 percent, of the 1,600 exonerations in that database.11 Of course, the problem of shaky forensic science evidence concerns much more than wrongful conviction of innocent persons. Flawed forensic science inevitably means that the system also fails to identify the truly guilty. Hence, this is a problem recognized by more than only advocates for the innocent. Most notably, in 2009 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) – the preeminent scientific authority in the United States – published its groundbreaking study of forensic sciences.12 Among its many findings, the NAS concluded that, despite their long pedigree in the criminal justice system, most forensic identification disciplines (those whose objective is to match evidentiary traces found on crime scene evidence to a particular individual) are fundamentally unscientific. The NAS wrote: “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.”13 This is not to say that traditional forensic sciences have no value. As the NAS also wrote, “For decades, the forensic science disciplines have produced valuable evidence that has contributed to the successful prosecution and conviction of criminals as well as the exoneration of innocent people.”14 But it is to say that forensic sciences are not all that they were presented as being, and that they can and must be improved. The NAS explained that, unlike science-based disciplines such as DNA analysis, serology, and chemical analyses, the identification disciplines “have been developed heuristically. That is, they are based on observation, experience, and reasoning without an underlying scientific theory, experiments designed to test the uncertainties and reliability of the method, or sufficient data that are collected and analyzed scientifically.”15 In its voluminous report, the NAS examined a number of specific identification forensic specialties, including friction-ridge analysis (fingerprints) and other pattern-impression evidence (shoe prints, tire tracks, lip prints, ear prints, glove prints, and so on); forensic odontology (bite marks); microscopic hair and fiber analysis; questioned-document analysis, including handwriting analysis; firearms and toolmark analysis; and forensic DNA profiling. For each specialty, except DNA, the NAS found that there is little if any underlying scientific research, an absence of uniform protocols and standards, no databases of evidence to enable calculating the statistical significance of a “match” between crime scene evidence and a suspect, and wide room for subjective judgments by analysts. The critique applies to even the most venerated of the traditional, pre-DNA identification disciplines – fingerprints. The NAS concluded that, because there are no set standards for declaring a fingerprint “match,” “[e]xaminers must make subjective assessments throughout. In the United States, the threshold for making a source identification is deliberately kept subjective, so that the examiner can take into account both the quantity and quality of comparable details. As a result, the outcome of a friction ridge analysis is not necessarily repeatable from examiner to examiner. In fact, recent research by Dror16 has shown that experienced examiners do not necessarily agree with even their own past conclusions when the examination is presented in a different context some time later.”17 Finally, the NAS Report also addressed serious challenges confronting forensic pathology.18 Of concern in criminal cases, for example, are growing doubts about the validity of medical diagnoses in matters such as “shaken baby syndrome,” or “abusive head trauma” cases. Numerous courts, including the Wisconsin Court of Appeals19 and the U.S. Supreme Court,20 and legal and medical literature21 have noted the increasing scientific challenges to previously held beliefs about the medical diagnosis of murder in such cases. The discovery of junk science: New scrutiny has even exposed some forensic disciplines as essentially “junk” sciences, which laboratories are abandoning as useless, or worse. Read on through the link for some of Findley's examples of junk science: Comparative bullet lead analysis; Microscopic hair comparison; Forensic odontology bite matching; Also note his enlightened references to cognitive bias in forensic analysis, context effects, role effects and group think, confirmation bias, countering cognitive biases, challenges to cutting edge sciences, and prescriptions for improvement - and a strongly worded conclusion: "Criminal cases are increasingly science dependent, and the traditional forensic sciences have played a crucial role in the way we dispense justice. Recent years have shown, however, that forensic science is no silver bullet. A weak scientific foundation, sparse research support, and surprisingly high error rates beset most forensic sciences."
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;