Cammie Kelly: Illinois: Shaken baby syndrome: Patrick Yeagle reports her conviction of involuntary manslaughter in the Illinois Times: Blogger Sue Luttner headed her post on the decision "A tough decision for the jury, An NPR interviewer wrote: "Wondering if Yeagle had started questioning shaken baby theory, I contacted him. While not taking a position in the debate, he explained that he sees “no consensus” about shaken baby in the medical community, where most doctors seem to accept the common knowledge but others seem to be raising “some serious, unanswered questions” about the diagnosis. “Unfortunately,” he said, “the debate is being conducted in the courtroom, where people’s liberty and lives are at stake.”

STORY: " Jury struggles to reach verdict in child death trial;  Day care worker convicted of involuntary manslaughter," by reporter Patrick Yeagle published by the Illinois Times on December 16, 2015.

GIST:  The trial of a day care worker accused of shaking a baby to death concluded this week with the jury convicting her of involuntary manslaughter after more than 12 hours of deliberations. The case tested a controversial theory about certain child deaths, pitting conventional wisdom against a more nuanced alternative explanation. The conviction amounts to an endorsement of shaken baby syndrome and a blow to the movement set on disproving the theory. Cammie Kelly, 68, of Springfield, was charged with aggravated battery and first-degree murder after 11-month-old Kaiden Gullidge of Rochester went unconscious at her home day care in 2011 and later died. Sangamon County State’s Attorney John Milhiser dismissed the aggravated battery charge before the trial’s closing arguments on Dec. 15. Kelly’s trial began Dec. 8 and concluded Dec. 16 with the verdict coming around 1 p.m. The case revolves around the controversial theory of “shaken baby syndrome,” which is often used to explain child deaths with no other apparent cause. Although shaken baby syndrome is taught in some medical schools and is taken as gospel by many doctors, the theory has come under increased scrutiny, and there is no medical consensus on the underlying science. As a result, criminal trials like Kelly’s have repeatedly raised unanswered questions about the theory, with inconsistent outcomes......... Kelly’s trial featured testimony from 12 doctors offering highly technical and sometimes conflicting testimony. At issue was whether the “triad” of shaken baby syndrome cases – brain swelling, brain bleeding and retinal bleeding – observed in Kaiden’s brain scans resulted from a clotted blood vessel or from shaking. Kaiden had a history of medical issues that the defense said points to a stroke, but the prosecution argued that Kaiden’s medical issues were inconsequential. The prosecution showed grisly photos from Kaiden’s autopsy, attempting to establish that his bruises and his other symptoms were evidence of abuse. Dr. Channing Petrak, medical director of the Pediatric Resource Center in Peoria, examined Kaiden on Jan. 19. She didn’t notice bruises on Kaiden until the autopsy after his death on Jan. 20, but her testimony at Kelly’s trial originally implied that she based her suspicion of abuse on bruises from her Jan. 19 examination. John Rogers, Kelly’s defense attorney, grilled Petrak about the inconsistency, using it to imply that she sees every case as abuse regardless of the evidence. Petrak is a polarizing figure in the controversy over shaken baby syndrome. Her organization, which is part of the University of Illinois College of Medicine, examines children in cases where abuse is suspected. She’s seen by prosecutors as an impartial evaluator, but defense attorneys see Petrak as part of an industry that profits from indiscriminately labeling cases as abuse. Petrak previously testified for the prosecution in the 2012 Springfield case of Richard Britts, who was accused of shaking his daughter but later acquitted when his trial revealed that the girl’s symptoms – the triad common in all shaken baby syndrome cases – were caused by an apparent seizure. The lack of a medical consensus on shaken baby syndrome was readily apparent at Kelly’s trial. Some of the 12 doctors, testifying for the prosecution, said they are certain Kaiden was abused. Dr. Scott Denton, who performed the autopsy, said he could only tell there was blunt force trauma. Still others, testifying for the defense, said Kaiden’s brain showed signs of previous clotting, which would point to a renewed clot and a resulting stroke as his cause of death."

The entire story can be found at:

http://illinoistimes.com/print-article-16559-print.html

See 'ON SBS'   post: "A tough decision for the jury, a tragedy for the defendant"; "After hours of deliberation, an Illinois jury convicted child care provider Cammie Kelly of manslaughter earlier this month but found her innocent of murder, in what reporter Patrick Yeagle of the Illinois Times called “an endorsement of shaken baby syndrome and a blow to the movement set on disproving the theory.”  Although disappointed at another conviction, I was pleased to see news coverage that recognizes a debate over shaken baby theory, and I was intrigued by an interview Yeagle gave last week with Rachel Otwell of NPR Illinois. Yeagle, who also wrote about the 2011 appeal on behalf of Pam Jacobazzi and the 2012 acquittal of Springfield father Richard Britts, summarized his observations for NPR:" Patrick Yeagle: "Wondering if Yeagle had started questioning shaken baby theory, I contacted him. While not taking a position in the debate, he explained that he sees “no consensus” about shaken baby in the medical community, where most doctors seem to accept the common knowledge but others seem to be raising “some serious, unanswered questions” about the diagnosis. “Unfortunately,” he said, “the debate is being conducted in the courtroom, where people’s liberty and lives are at stake.”

http://onsbs.com/2015/12/29/a-tough-decision-for-both-jury-and-defendant/

Motherisk: (Aftermath 10): Justice Susan Lang's report on the Motherisk Hair Analysis Independent review. "The Goudge Report is relevant to this Independent Review for at least three reasons: 1: It highlighted the dangers with having a laboratory within the institution that routinely provided a forensic service yet was led by individuals who lacked any forensic training. 2: It concluded that the Hospital's lines of oversight and accountability over the forensic pathology service lacked clarity and created a vacuum where nobody was held accountable in the forensic pathology service; 3: Commissioner Goudge noted the role that SickKids reputation for excellence played in positioning Dr Smith as a leading expert in his field, not withstanding his lack of forensic expertise. All three of these lessons should have been applied to MDTL, but the Hospital did not do so." Lang report. Page 14; (Must, Must Read. HL);

The Honourable Susan Lang, the Independent Reviewer of the Motherisk Hair Analysis Review, completed her review and sent her findings and recommendations to the Attorney General of Ontario on December 15, 2015. You will find the Report of the Independent Review in both .PDF and .EPUB format on this page. 

The Report - PDF

The Report - EPUB

Independent Reviewer's Statement on the Release of the Report, December 17, 2015

"My conclusion that SickKids failed to exercise meaningful oversight over MDTL's (Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory)  work must be considered in the context of the Hospital's experience with Dr. Charles Smith, a pediatric pathologist who worked at SickKids. Dr. Smith was the firs director of the Ontario Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit (OPFPU), which was housed in the Hospital. In April 2007,  the Government of Ontario appointed the Honourable Justice  Stephen T. Goudge  as commissioner of the  Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario. The Hospital was a party with standing at the inquiry. Commissioner Goudge released his report on October 1, 2008, (Goudge Report) - the same year in which the Hospital determined  that clinical accreditation might not be achieved for MDTL. The Goudge Report is relevant to this Independent Review for at least three reasons: 1: It highlighted the dangers with having a laboratory within the institution that routinely provided a forensic service yet was led by individuals who lacked any forensic training. 2: It concluded that the Hospital's lines of oversight  and accountability over the forensic pathology service lacked clarity and created a vacuum where nobody was held accountable in the forensic pathology service; 3: Commissioner Goudge noted the role that SickKids reputation for excellence played in positioning Dr Smith as a leading expert in his field, not withstanding his lack of forensic expertise. All three of these lessons should have been applied to MDTL, but the Hospital did not do so." Lang report. Page 14;

The Lang  report ca be found in the above formats at:

http://www.m-hair.ca/

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

Harold Levy: Publisher;  The Charles Smith Blog.

Bulletin: Hassan Diab; France; Significant setback in French courts: The French Court of Appeal has rejected the 62-year-old's application to have crucial handwriting and intelligence evidence removed from the prosecution's case against him."..."The handwriting analysis was key to Diab's extradition and the subject of a bitter dispute at the extradition hearing. Three internationally renowned handwriting experts hired to testify at the extradition hearing by Diab's lawyer, Donald Bayne, denounced the French analysis as incompetent. It compared a signature on a hotel registration card with a sample of Diab's handwriting provided to the French by the University of Syracuse, where Diab studied. Bayne told the Citizen he was "disappointed" that the French legal system sees the handwriting analysis and unsourced intelligence as credible evidence."Every credible handwriting expert has said the handwriting opinion is unreliable," he said.""

STORY: "French court rejects Diab appeal to have key evidence tossed," by reporter Christopher Cobb, published by the Ottawa Citizen on December 29, 2015.
 

PHOTO CAPTION:  "Hassan Diab has been held in prison in France since his November 2014 extradition for a decades-old terrorism case." 

GIST: "Ottawa academic Hassan Diab, currently in a Paris prison awaiting trial for terrorism-related killings, has suffered a significant legal setback. The French Court of Appeal has rejected the 62-year-old’s application to have crucial handwriting and intelligence evidence removed from the prosecution’s case against him. The Lebanon-born Canadian was extradited to France at the French government’s request in November 2014. He is accused of planting a bomb that killed four people outside a Paris synagogue in October 1980. At least 40 others inside and outside the Rue Copernic synagogue were injured in the blast. Since his arrest by the RCMP in November 2008, the father of four has maintained his innocence and says he was not in Paris at the time of the bomb attack.

French authorities claim the bombers used false travel documents to enter and exit France. An Ottawa extradition judge ordered Diab deported in the summer of 2011. After a series of failed appeals — including a refusal by the Supreme Court to review his case — he was flown to Paris, jailed and charged. Canadian federal prosecutors acting for the French government withdrew the intelligence evidence at the extradition hearing when it became clear that its source was unknown and the French could not prove that it hadn’t been gleaned from torture. That same evidence now will be used against Diab at his trial, which is expected during 2016. The handwriting analysis was key to Diab’s extradition and the subject of a bitter dispute at the extradition hearing. Three internationally renowned handwriting experts hired to testify at the extradition hearing by Diab’s lawyer, Donald Bayne, denounced the French analysis as incompetent. It compared a signature on a hotel registration card with a sample of Diab’s handwriting provided to the French by the University of Syracuse, where Diab studied. Bayne told the Citizen he was “disappointed” that the French legal system sees the handwriting analysis and unsourced intelligence as credible evidence.“Every credible handwriting expert has said the handwriting opinion is unreliable,” he said."

The entire story can be found at:

 https://www.google.com/search?as_q="hassan+diab"&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=d&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=

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
Harold Levy: Publisher;  The Charles Smith Blog.

Motherisk: (Aftermath 9): (The justice system's over-reliance on junk science): Toronto defence lawyer Daniel Brown notes that "Commissioner Susan Lang's recent report on the Motherisk scandal at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children makes it clear that science has let us down again."..."It is vital that we waste no time in extracting lessons about a problem that extends far beyond Charles Smith and Motherisk: the justice system’s over-reliance on junk science. Bad science is an alarming thread that runs through almost two dozen Canadian wrongful murder convictions exposed in recent years by the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC). The roll call of errors in these cases includes clothing fibres mistakenly believed to match one another; experts who incorrectly concluded that dog bites on a dead child were knife wounds inflicted by her mother; inept autopsies that misinterpreted the cause of death; biology samples contaminated by a government lab technician; and hair samples that anchored a murder conviction, yet later turned out to be worthless. It is all too easy to latch onto cutting edge science as being a final, perfect answer to our questions. However, the steady evolution in testing techniques ought to serve as a red flag. Arson experts steadily discard old theories about the origin and spread of fire as their science progresses; ballistics technicians evolve new understandings of the impact of bullets on bone or flesh; blood spatter analysts steadily refine their opinions based on new techniques. In the U.S., the Federal Bureau of Investigation admitted last April that hair identification testimony from its forensic scientists was flawed in 95 per cent of the 268 cases before 2000 it has reviewed so far. In 32 of those cases, the defendant was sentenced to death." (Must. Must Read. HL);

 
COMMENTARY: "Junk science is undermining our justice system," by reporter Daniel Brown, published by the Toronto Star on December 29, 2015. (Daniel Brown is a criminal defence lawyer and a Toronto Director with the Criminal Lawyers’ Association.)

SUB-HEADING: "Bad science is an alarming thread that runs through almost two dozen  Canadian wrongful murder convictions exposed in recent years".

SUB-HEADING: "Commissioner Susan Lang's recent report on the Motherisk scandal at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children makes it clear that science has let us down again, writes Daniel Brown."

GIST: "It was only six years ago that an inquiry into a slew of baby death investigations botched by pathologist Charles Smith set out to expose the dangers of bad science in Canadian courtrooms once and for all. At that time, Commissioner Stephen Goudge urged the justice system to insist on better-trained experts and oversight for testing facilities. He also prescribed a healthy dose of skepticism toward the testimony of expert witnesses in criminal cases. His hopes and recommendations have been ignored. A recent report on the Motherisk scandal at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children makes it clear that science has let us down again. The jaw-dropping list of failures documented by Commissioner Susan Lang include mistaken and misrepresented test results, dangerously imprecise testimony and inexplicable shortcomings in peer review and oversight. It is vital that we waste no time in extracting lessons about a problem that extends far beyond Charles Smith and Motherisk: the justice system’s over-reliance on junk science.  Bad science is an alarming thread that runs through almost two dozen Canadian wrongful murder convictions exposed in recent years by the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC). The roll call of errors in these cases includes clothing fibres mistakenly believed to match one another; experts who incorrectly concluded that dog bites on a dead child were knife wounds inflicted by her mother; inept autopsies that misinterpreted the cause of death; biology samples contaminated by a government lab technician; and hair samples that anchored a murder conviction, yet later turned out to be worthless. It is all too easy to latch onto cutting edge science as being a final, perfect answer to our questions. However, the steady evolution in testing techniques ought to serve as a red flag. Arson experts steadily discard old theories about the origin and spread of fire as their science progresses; ballistics technicians evolve new understandings of the impact of bullets on bone or flesh; blood spatter analysts steadily refine their opinions based on new techniques. In the U.S., the Federal Bureau of Investigation admitted last April that hair identification testimony from its forensic scientists was flawed in 95 per cent of the 268 cases before 2000 it has reviewed so far. In 32 of those cases, the defendant was sentenced to death. Scientific evidence is tantalizing. It comes with a reassuring aura of reliability. Faced with the messy discrepancies inherent in eyewitness testimony, police reports or wiretap transcripts, judges and juries find comfort in cold, hard numbers and self-assured expertise. Yet, how is it that we expect our juries to comprehend mind-numbingly complex scientific data or choose between competing experts when very few possess the scientific foundation necessary to make such assessments?.........Judges must be better trained to weed out junk science and unwarranted opinions offered by experts. And they must warn juries about the perils of placing too much reliance on science or picking sides in a battle of experts. Scientific evidence will continue to play an important role in our justice system, but we must continually remind ourselves of its potential pitfalls. As Justice Fred Kaufman noted in his inquiry report on the wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin, “an innocent person was convicted of a heinous crime he did not commit. Science helped convict him.”"

The entire commentary  can be found at: 

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/12/29/junk-science-is-undermining-our-justice-system.html

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
 
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
 
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
 
 http://www.thestar.com/topic/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

Harold Levy: Publisher;  The Charles Smith Blog.

Junk Science; Michael Hall asks in "False Impressions" (Texas Monthly): Is bite-mark evidence reliable enough to help convict a defendant? What about hair analysis? As the Texas Forensic Science Commission painstakingly studies these and other issues, the once troubled organization is putting the state at the forefront of criminal justice reform—and serving as a model for the rest of the country

STORY: "False Impressions"  by Michael Hall of Texas Monthly; Hall  asks, in the January 2016 issue:  "Is bite-mark evidence reliable enough to help convict a defendant?, What about hair analysis? As the Texas Forensic Science Commission painstakingly studies these and other issues, the once troubled organization is putting the state at the forefront of criminal justice reform—and serving as a model for the rest of the country."

GIST: "Forensic dentists are not alone in feeling persecuted. The truth is, many forensic science methods, from the way fires are investigated  to how hair is analyzed, were created not by scientists but by individuals looking to aid law enforcement, and they are outdated in the world of DNA. And for the past five years, the FSC has been dragging these methods into the modern era, initiating a dozen investigations and leading the review of hundreds of old cases. It’s also brought together people who are usually sworn enemies in the courtroom to talk about how the criminal justice system makes forensic mistakes in the first place. “The commission doesn’t take sides,” said state senator Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, a Democrat from McAllen who is one of its champions in the Legislature. “The stakeholders in the system have confidence in the commission, that its findings will improve a system that needs improving.” The FSC has emerged as one of the most important forensic science policy groups in the country, one trying to fix serious problems—in particular, how to stop convicting innocent people based on outmoded science. Other states, including New York and Delaware, have similar commissions, but Texas has had the most success at bringing about reform. “The New York innocence people greatly admire the Texas commission,” said Di Maio, who is originally from Brooklyn. “For a New Yorker to say that is amazing. Texas is pioneering. We’re so far ahead—everyone else is eating our dust.”

The entire story can be found at: 

 http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/false-impressions/

See consummate blogger Dr Michael Bowers comments on his blog on this topic  "Forensics in Focus (CSDDS)":  "Well, its not just the bitemarker zealots being scoured by the Tx Commission as mentioned in the January issue of Texas Monthly. But, its title is “False Impressions” and its headpiece image is the above closeup of some badly busted up dental models. The article runs the details of this non-regulatory panel’s rise to new prominence in Criminal Justice news for its stance on junk arson investigations, DNA and the pesky 4 remaining bitemark dentists bold enough to showup at the TCFSC proceedings to defend themselves. The defending dentists totally missed (intentionally of course) the Commission’s oft-published charge to them to present legitimate scientific data behind their belief-based “system” of dental identification. This Texas article gives them short-shrift. There   are numerous quotes from the panel and one outstanding member, general counsel Lynn Garcia, who at the outset of the Commission’s bitemark journey, took alot of objectionable flack from the very same dental bunch described in the article."

http://csidds.com/2015/12/27/tx-forensic-sci-commission-gets-kudos-for-driving-bitemark-analysts-to-ground/

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

Harold Levy: Publisher;  The Charles Smith Blog.
 

Bulletin: Purvi Patel; Indiana; Women's groups (Including some in UK) protest twenty-year sentence handed to Purvi Patel for death of foetus; "The British Pregnancy Advisory Service described Patel’s case as, “tragic” and warned it could set a dangerous precedent for other pregnant women. A spokesperson told The Independent: “Purvi Patel is sadly the latest victim of the creeping criminalisation of pregnant women’s behaviour in America. “These ‘feticide’ laws are being used to punish the pregnant women they purport to protect, and will only discourage those who need medical care from seeking help, putting women and their babies at greater risk. “What we are seeing in the US should serve as a warning to those who support reproductive rights in the UK. Ending a pregnancy remains a criminal offence in British law that carries a potential twelve-year prison term if the grounds of the 1967 Abortion Act are not met. “This means that a woman who buys abortion pills online could be incarcerated." The Independent;

"Patel is the second woman to be charged with feticide in the US, but the first to receive a prison sentence. She was prosecuted under state laws that are otherwise intended at targeting illegal abortion providers and prosecuting crimes against pregnant women, Al Jazeera reports. Women’s rights activists have condemned her conviction and the subsequent sentence.  They say the law is being used to prosecute women who miscarry, have stillbirths or try to terminate their own pregnancies. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service described Patel’s case as “tragic” and warned it could set a dangerous precedent for other pregnant women.  A spokesperson told The Independent: “Purvi Patel is sadly the latest victim of the creeping criminalisation of pregnant women’s behaviour in America. “These ‘feticide’ laws are being used to punish the pregnant women they purport to protect, and will only discourage those who need medical care from seeking help, putting women and their babies at greater risk. “What we are seeing in the US should serve as a warning to those who support reproductive rights in the UK. Ending a pregnancy remains a criminal offence in British law that carries a potential twelve-year prison term if the grounds of the 1967 Abortion Act are not met. “This means that a woman who buys abortion pills online could be incarcerated. Women need access to high quality reproductive healthcare services and support. In the 21st century, their personal decisions about whether to continue or end a pregnancy do not belong in the criminal law.” Lynn Paltrow. the executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW), said she was deelpy disappointed by the outcome. "While no woman should face criminal charges for having an abortion or experiencing a pregnancy loss, the cruel length of this sentence confirms that feticide and other measures promoted by anti-abortion organizations are intended to punish not protect women.""

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/twenty-year-sentence-handed-to-purvi-patel-for-death-of-foetus-condemned-by-women-s-groups-10148831.html

Anna Yocca: Tennessee; The coat hanger abortion is back, and that’s scary for all women. If a woman can be charged with attempted murder for trying to give herself an abortion, what stops police from investigating miscarriages? "The coat hanger is just the beginning; To be sure, it's shocking to see a new case of a "coat hanger abortion" — the symbol of pre–Roe v. Wade America, when women died or were maimed by the thousands every year because they were that desperate to end their unwanted pregnancies. "I never thought I would hear of a coat hanger abortion in my medical life,"" writes OB-GYN Jen Gunter. "But here's the most alarming part of Yocca's case: Abortion is still legal in America. Yocca is being prosecuted as if it weren't. She is being charged with attempted first-degree murder. That's a dangerous legal precedent for all pregnant women." (Must Read. HL);

STORY: "The coat hanger abortion is back, and that’s scary for all women," by reporter Emily Crockett, published by Vox on December 23, 2015.

SUB-HEADING: "If a woman  can be charged with attempted murder for trying to give herself an abortion, what stops police from investigating miscarriages?

GIST: "A Tennessee woman was charged with attempted first-degree murder last week for allegedly trying to use a coat hanger to end her pregnancy. Anna Yocca, 31, was arrested in Tennessee in September after she showed up bleeding at a hospital, fearing for her health and safety. She gave birth to a very premature baby boy, who was just 24 weeks along and weighed one and a half pounds.

It's a tragic case. The baby has severe health problems, as most infants born that early do, and will likely require oxygen for the rest of his life. And whatever drove Yocca to try to end her pregnancy herself, it probably involved serious desperation if she was willing to take her chances by sticking a sharp metal object into her cervix. But this story is about a lot more than one woman and one child. It's even about more than America's dwindling access to safe, legal abortion. This story has horrifying implications for all pregnant women, even those who don't want an abortion. It shows how any woman can be treated like a criminal if law enforcement decides to take an interest in her pregnancy. The coat hanger is  just the beginning;  To be sure, it's shocking to see a new case of a "coat hanger abortion" — the symbol of pre–Roe v. Wade America, when women died or were maimed by the thousands every year because they were that desperate to end their unwanted pregnancies. "I never thought I would hear of a coat hanger abortion in my medical life," writes OB-GYN Jen Gunter. Pro-choice advocates fear that more women will try to self-induce abortions at home, since a skyrocketing number of state-level abortion restrictions have made the procedure much harder to access in the past five years......... Abortion is still legal in America, but Yocca is being prosecuted as if it weren't We don't know what motivated Yocca's decision, but these restrictions definitely make it harder for women to access abortion. Research suggests that the more restricted abortion is, the more often women take matters into their own hands. But here's the most alarming part of Yocca's case: Abortion is still legal in America. Yocca is being prosecuted as if it weren't. She is being charged with attempted first-degree murder. That's a dangerous legal precedent for all pregnant women."
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/23/10656860/coat-hanger-abortion-pregnancy-murder

  

Bulletin: Davey Reedy: Citing flawed forensics, Virginia governor pardons man who spent years in prison in deadly arson fire; " Eventually, challenging the arson finding became the focus of the case. “People tend not to challenge the forensic science because they believe ‘Oh this is chemistry, it’s infallible,’ ” said Lentini, who runs a private fire investigation business in Florida. “But we know that it’s just not true.” There was no proof of gasoline on Reedy’s shirt or the home’s floor, Lentini found, and the state ultimately agreed. The minimum characteristics needed to make that finding, he said, simply weren’t there. Burn patterns that initial investigators claimed showed signs of arson were, he said, based on old misconceptions about how fire works as well as how houses are made. For example, burning plastic gives off the same chemicals as gasoline, and wood products often contain petroleum. Natural flames can cause spontaneous combustion called “flashover,” long thought to be a sign of an intentional fire. “The old fire science was like . . . reading tea leaves,” Thomas Bondurant said, “old wives tales about how things burn.” The case is one of 56 arson convictions Lentini has been involved in fighting." Washington Post. (Must Read HL);

"Since the day he was accused of setting fire to his Roanoke home and killing his two young children in 1987, Davey Reedy has proclaimed his innocence. “I know with all my heart and all my belief on my children’s grave, before it is all over with I will prove my innocence — if I survive,” Reedy told the court before his sentencing. This week he was finally vindicated by Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), who granted Reedy a rare absolute pardon six years after his release from prison. The governor said he was convinced that the jury relied on flawed forensic analysis about the fire when they decided Reedy caused the deaths of his 4-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son. Reedy’s case is among several nationwide in which older methods of determining whether a fire was arson have been discredited or called into question. Reedy’s prison warden was the first to wonder if he was telling the truth about the early-morning fire. A psychiatrist who saw him before the trial and a prison psychologist who saw him after his trial also came to question the conviction.  Then, in 1999 a Roanoke Times article, “Did Davey Reedy Really Do It?”, caught the eye of a former public defender. Roberta Bondurant shouldered Reedy’s appeals for 10 years, much of it pro bono, until she felt her efforts had been exhausted. It was about when her husband, former federal prosecutor Thomas Bondurant, was leaving the U.S. Attorney’s Office for private practice. Eventually, he was able to get a parole investigator, Trudy Harris, to have the Division of Forensic Science send the initial arson findings to a board of three experts. They agreed: The analysis was incorrect. “It’s pretty remarkable how one person after another stepped up to help Mr. Reedy,” Roberta Bondurant said. In early appeals, Bondurant emphasized the possibility that Reedy’s ex-wife set the fire, as well as other explanations for gasoline that authorities said was found on his shirt. But Bondurant said she was always suspicious of the forensic testimony as well. “A lay person could see that it wasn’t scientific,” she said. She had marshaled the help of investigators from Combustion Science & Engineering, who alerted fire expert John Lentini. Eventually, challenging the arson finding became the focus of the case. “People tend not to challenge the forensic science because they believe ‘Oh this is chemistry, it’s infallible,’ ” said Lentini, who runs a private fire investigation business in Florida. “But we know that it’s just not true.” There was no proof of gasoline on Reedy’s shirt or the home’s floor, Lentini found, and the state ultimately agreed. The minimum characteristics needed to make that finding, he said, simply weren’t there. Burn patterns that initial investigators claimed showed signs of arson were, he said, based on old misconceptions about how fire works as well as how houses are made. For example, burning plastic gives off the same chemicals as gasoline, and wood products often contain petroleum. Natural flames can cause spontaneous combustion called “flashover,” long thought to be a sign of an intentional fire. “The old fire science was like . . . reading tea leaves,” Thomas Bondurant said, “old wives tales about how things burn.” The case is one of 56 arson convictions Lentini has been involved in fighting. Another was a 1980 Brooklyn townhouse fire whose alleged instigators were exonerated last week. One died in prison; the other two served for decades for deaths that officials now say were likely accidental. Before the 1990s, many gasoline assessments were made by chemists untrained in fire science, Lentini said. A 1980 “Fire Investigation Handbook” produced by the National Bureau of Standards actually spread myths about reading fire patterns. A 1992 guide published by the National Fire Protection Association debunked many of those myths, but it has taken years for officials to accept that change. Lentini estimates that about a couple of hundred people are imprisoned because of bad arson science. The number is based on the results of a statewide review done by Texas in response to the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who Lentini and many other fire experts believe was executed based on inaccurate arson forensics. Working with the Innocence Project, the State Fire Marshal’s Office surveyed all 1,085 arson convictions in Texas and found eight that should be reexamined. “Things are improving,” Lentini said, but “there are more cases that need to be challenged.” According to the National Registry of Exonerations, 38 people have been exonerated before Reedy for arson-related crimes since 1991."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/citing-flawed-forensics-va-governor-pardons-man-who-spent-years-in-prison-in-deadly-arson-fire/2015/12/24/357edde6-aa7d-11e5-8058-480b572b4aae_story.html

Bulletin; Motherisk: (Aftermath 8): Ontario government announces "an independent commission" that will provide support to people who have been affected by a Motherisk hair test. This Blog raises concerns about the thus far vague mandate of the Commission and asks whether it wil be truly public, open and transparent. HL.

 PUBLISHER'S VIEW:  The journalist in me has drummed up quite a few questions relating to the "independent commission" announced by the Ontario government. The stress on 'independence' - reinforced by the appointment of a judge as commissioner - is a good thing.  But what is missing is any acknowledgment that the commission will be held  publicly, in a setting accessible to the public, that the Hospital for Sick Children officials who conceived and ran the program and later deceived the public and the press will be required to testify, and that those victims who choose to do so, should be given the opportunity to testify.  Justice Lang served a valuable purpose by exposing the flaws in Motherisk's hair testing processes after conducting her research behind closed doors - leaving the public with nothing but her report.  Much more public interface is required.  This Blog will be watching closely for further announcements that clarify the Commission's mandate and hopefully answer our concerns about openness and transparency.

Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

"Today Attorney General Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur made the following statement regarding the selection of an independent commissioner to assist individuals who may have been affected by Motherisk's flawed hair testing methodology: "Our government continues to be deeply concerned by the Honourable Susan Lang's findings regarding the adequacy and reliability of hair tests conducted at the Motherisk laboratory. We are committed to moving as quickly as possible to help those who may have been impacted by the laboratory's flawed testing practices. That's why I wish to announce that the Honourable Justice Judith C. Beaman has agreed to lead an independent commission that will provide support to people who have been affected by a Motherisk hair test. Justice Beaman was first appointed to the bench of the Ontario Court of Justice in 1998 and has led a distinguished career presiding over Ontario's criminal and family courts in the Toronto and Ottawa areas. Rising to the rank of Regional Senior Justice for Eastern Ontario in 2008, she has served as a per diem judge since January 2014..........In the meantime, we recognize that many potentially impacted people will have questions. Anyone who believes that they may have been impacted by a Motherisk test can call 1-855-235-8932 for short-term counselling assistance and to request that their name be provided to the commissioner."
http://www.news.ontario.ca/mag/en/2015/12/statement-from-attorney-general-on-next-steps-in-response-to-motherisk-report.html

Bulletin: Roman Zadarov: Israel: Times of Israel story provides more information about the forensic issues in the case: "Much of the debate over the conviction focused on the type of knife used — the murder weapon was never found — and a bloody footprint found on Rada’s jeans. In his confession Zadorov said he cut Tada with a box cutter — which has a smooth blade — whereas a forensic expert testified that wounds on the victim’s chin were caused by a serrated blade. He maintains that his confession was coerced. In 2013 the Supreme Court instructed that the case be returned to the Nazareth District Court for review in order to hear two experts’ testimonies related to the evidence in the case, as requested by Zadorov’s lawyers. The first witness was William Bodziak, a world-renowned forensics expert, who testified that marks on the murdered girl’s jeans were not in fact a bloody footprint initially believed to have been left by Zadorov’s boot. Dr. Maya Forman-Reznik, a pathologist, testified the cuts on Rada’s neck and the trauma injuries to her head were likely caused by a serrated blade." Times of Israel;

"Rada’s gruesome murder shocked the country in 2006. The eighth-grade student was found dead in a bathroom stall in her school, with slashes to her neck, stab wounds across her body, and severe blows to her head. Zadorov, who worked as a maintenance man at the school at the time, was arrested and charged with the killing. In 2010, nearly four years after he was first arrested, the Nazareth District Court sentenced him to life in prison for the murder. Much of the debate over the conviction focused on the type of knife used — the murder weapon was never found — and a bloody footprint found on Rada’s jeans. In his confession Zadorov said he cut Tada with a box cutter — which has a smooth blade — whereas a forensic expert testified that wounds on the victim’s chin were caused by a serrated blade. He maintains that his confession was coerced. In 2013 the Supreme Court instructed that the case be returned to the Nazareth District Court for review in order to hear two experts’ testimonies related to the evidence in the case, as requested by Zadorov’s lawyers. The first witness was William Bodziak, a world-renowned forensics expert, who testified that marks on the murdered girl’s jeans were not in fact a bloody footprint initially believed to have been left by Zadorov’s boot. Dr. Maya Forman-Reznik, a pathologist, testified the cuts on Rada’s neck and the trauma injuries to her head were likely caused by a serrated blade. However, despite the expert opinions, the Nazareth District Court upheld the conviction at the time, after which Zadorov appealed to the Supreme Court. In their Wednesday ruling, Amit and Zilbertal both accepted that the blade used was likely serrated, but concluded that the discrepancy was not enough to overturn the conviction. Amit noted that Zadorov had a large collection of knives in his home and a computer disk full of videos on how to use them."

 http://www.timesofisrael.com/supreme-court-upholds-conviction-in-teens-murder/

Motherisk; (Aftermath 7); Probity of Hospital for Sick Children; Flashback to 2000; Juror accuses famed hospital of a "cover-up" and "a smokescreen" in a spontaneous outburst during the 2000 Lisa Shore inquest.

PUBLISHER'S VIEW: My reflections on the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children over the past few days - as prompted by revelations of the hospital's  'Motherisk' scandal  - have brought back to mind one of the most extraordinary moments I have ever experienced in a lifetime of journalism. It occurred during a session of the inquest into the death of Lisa Shore, who had been admitted to the world-famous hospital for treatment of non-life-threatening pain, while a "nursing educator" was on the witness stand. During the course of her testimony, a juror lashed out at the hospital. This was the first time in years of reporting that I have ever heard such a spontaneous condemnation of an institution by inquest juror  during the proceedings. "The testimony that we've heard by the nurses telling us what was done, what we find wasn't done, filling in flowsheets with parts of what should have been filled in...We've heard of instances supposedly where people have lied to one another, or errors being made in certain documents. And I'm not sure if I'm allowed to ask this but to me this sounds like a cover-up. We've been given a smokescreen. I realize  Sick Children's Hospital is well known  and unblemished, and I hope that this situation is just a isolated case and it covers the whole iceberg and not just the tip." As  Sharon Shore wrote in 'No Moral Conscience': "The next day's front page  headline read, "Sick Kids cover-up charged; Inquest juror points finger at Toronto hospital." February 4, 2000.

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

Harold Levy: Publisher;  The Charles Smith Blog.
 

Bulletin: Dennis Oland; New Brunswick; Richard Oland’s killer still at large, his mother and wife family warn in a statement; The Canadian Press. Published by The Globe and Mail.

"Dennis Oland’s mother and wife issued a joint statement Wednesday saying they are certain the person who killed Richard Oland is still on the loose. The statement from Connie and Lisa Oland says they wanted to respond to repeated media requests following the verdict in Dennis Oland’s murder trial. A jury found Dennis Oland guilty on Saturday of second-degree murder in the July 2011 death of his father, well-known New Brunswick businessman Richard Oland.........Richard Oland’s body was found face down in a pool of blood in his Saint John office on July 7, 2011. He had suffered 45 blunt and sharp force blows to his head, neck and hands, although no weapon was ever found."
 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/richard-olands-killer-still-at-large-family-members-warn-in-statement/article27933855/

Bulletin: Dennis Oland: New Brunswick; Provincial Police Commission to probe alleged police mishandling of the crime scene; "During his final instructions to the jury at the trial, Justice Jack Walsh reminding jurors that there was evidence that police didn't secure the scene from too many unncessary entries on July 7, 2011, as well, that officers used the washroom on the second-floor outside Richard Oland's office for two days, didn't make sure the back door to the alleyway was untouched until it was examined, and did not ask the pathologist if a drywall hammer could be the murder weapon." Also being investigated is an allegation that Deputy Chief Glen McCloskey - who has denied the allegation - suggested an officer lie about McCloskey being in the Far End Corporation office with the body of Richard Oland on July 7th 2011. The Bend.

UPDATED: Provincial Police Commission To Probe Oland Murder Investigation

Posted on Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:32 AM

   

The New Brunswick Police Commission will be probing the Saint John police's investigation into the murder of Richard Oland, whose bludgeoned body was discovered in his investment firm office in uptown Saint John on July 7, 2011.
The commission is going to be appointing an investigator to review the murder investigation at the request of the chair of the Saint John Board of Police Commisioners, Nicole Paquet.
Richard Oland's son, Dennis Oland, was convicted of second-degree murder in his death this weekend. During his final instructions to the jury at the trial, Justice Jack Walsh reminding jurors that there was evidence that police didn't secure the scene from too many unncessary entries on July 7, 2011, as well, that officers used the washroom on the second-floor outside Richard Oland's office for two days, didn't make sure the back door to the alleyway was untouched until it was examined, and did not ask the pathologist if a drywall hammer could be the murder weapon.
Any results and recommendations from this review will be passed along to the Minister of Public Safety, Stephen Horsman, for consideration.
As well, the NB Police Commission activating its Police Act investigation into the allegation made against Deputy Chief Glen McCloskey during the second-degree murder trial of Dennis Oland.
Police Chief John Bates ordered a Professional Standards Investigation to be carried out after allegations made by retired Saint John police officer Mike King against McCloskey.
King testified that the Deputy Chief suggested he lie about McCloskey being in the Far End Corporation office with the body of Richard Oland on July 7th 2011.
The investigator, Mr. Barry McKnight, now has less then 6 months to conclude his investigation and report to the Police Commission.
Deputy Chief Glen McCloskey has denied the allegation.

- See more at: http://919thebend.ca/news/1075804538/police-commission-investigation-deputy-chief-glen-mccloskey-underway#sthash.vzI28mOl.dpuf

UPDATED: Provincial Police Commission To Probe Oland Murder Investigation

Posted on Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:32 AM

   

The New Brunswick Police Commission will be probing the Saint John police's investigation into the murder of Richard Oland, whose bludgeoned body was discovered in his investment firm office in uptown Saint John on July 7, 2011.
The commission is going to be appointing an investigator to review the murder investigation at the request of the chair of the Saint John Board of Police Commisioners, Nicole Paquet.
Richard Oland's son, Dennis Oland, was convicted of second-degree murder in his death this weekend. During his final instructions to the jury at the trial, Justice Jack Walsh reminding jurors that there was evidence that police didn't secure the scene from too many unncessary entries on July 7, 2011, as well, that officers used the washroom on the second-floor outside Richard Oland's office for two days, didn't make sure the back door to the alleyway was untouched until it was examined, and did not ask the pathologist if a drywall hammer could be the murder weapon.
Any results and recommendations from this review will be passed along to the Minister of Public Safety, Stephen Horsman, for consideration.
As well, the NB Police Commission activating its Police Act investigation into the allegation made against Deputy Chief Glen McCloskey during the second-degree murder trial of Dennis Oland.
Police Chief John Bates ordered a Professional Standards Investigation to be carried out after allegations made by retired Saint John police officer Mike King against McCloskey.
King testified that the Deputy Chief suggested he lie about McCloskey being in the Far End Corporation office with the body of Richard Oland on July 7th 2011.
The investigator, Mr. Barry McKnight, now has less then 6 months to conclude his investigation and report to the Police Commission.
Deputy Chief Glen McCloskey has denied the allegation.

- See more at: http://919thebend.ca/news/1075804538/police-commission-investigation-deputy-chief-glen-mccloskey-underway#sthash.vzI28mOl.dpuf

--> "The New Brunswick Police Commission will be probing the Saint John police's investigation into the murder of Richard Oland, whose bludgeoned body was discovered in his investment firm office in uptown Saint John on July 7, 2011. The commission is going to be appointing an investigator to review the murder investigation at the request of the chair of the Saint John Board of Police Commisioners, Nicole Paquet.  Richard Oland's son, Dennis Oland, was convicted of second-degree murder in his death this weekend. During his final instructions to the jury at the trial, Justice Jack Walsh reminding jurors that there was evidence that police didn't secure the scene from too many unncessary entries on July 7, 2011, as well, that officers used the washroom on the second-floor outside Richard Oland's office for two days, didn't make sure the back door to the alleyway was untouched until it was examined, and did not ask the pathologist if a drywall hammer could be the murder weapon..........As well, the NB Police Commission activating its Police Act investigation into the allegation made against Deputy Chief Glen McCloskey during the second-degree murder trial of Dennis Oland. Police Chief John Bates ordered a Professional Standards Investigation to be carried out after allegations made by retired Saint John police officer Mike King against McCloskey. King testified that the Deputy Chief suggested he lie about McCloskey being in the Far End Corporation office with the body of Richard Oland on July 7th 2011. The investigator, Mr. Barry McKnight, now has less then 6 months to conclude his investigation and report to the Police Commission. Deputy Chief Glen McCloskey has denied the allegation."
http://919thebend.ca/news/1075804538/police-commission-investigation-deputy-chief-glen-mccloskey-underway

Bulletin: Roman Zadarov; Israel: Appeal rejected; Israeli Supreme Court: Roman Zadorov murdered Tair Rada Nine years after the murder that shocked the country, the case reached its peak when the judges announced that they are rejecting Zadarov’s appeal after he was already convicted twice, claiming that the proof that he committed the murder is beyond a reasonable doubt.

"The Israeli Supreme Court 2 to 1 decided to reject Roman Zadarov’s appeal, after he was convicted twice of murdering a little girl named Tair Rada nine years ago while she was studying in school.  The position of one of the judges is that it may be that Zadorov’s guilt is not proven after many of those present explained that Zadorov is right. Zadarov’s lawyers explained their logic for submitting the request: “Can we give someone a life prison sentence when a Supreme Court judge says there are doubts about his conviction? We were disappointed of course. We expected that Roman would be acquitted.” In contrast, the Northern District Prosecution welcomed the decision: “Tools for hope ended in the Israeli Supreme Court.”
http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/in-israel/local/israeli-supreme-court-roman-zadarov-murdered-tair-rada-17970

 From a recent post: "Forensic issues - and an allegation of interference with the independence of the Coroner's office - abound. "At the center of a long session that the Supreme Court held a little over a year ago on the appeal of Zadorov’s second conviction was the issue of footprints at the murder scene, a locked toilet stall in a second floor lavatory at the Nofei Golan school in Katzrin, including blood found on Rada’s jeans. According to an expert prosecution witness, there was a high probability that the footprints were those of Zadorov. For its part, however, the defense presented the opinion of a former employee of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation who claimed that the blood stains were not footprints at all. Recently, as disclosed by Haaretz, a complication arose in the case after the head of the commission that oversees the prosecutor’s office, retired Judge Hila Gerstl, issued a decision regarding an attempt to change an affidavit by the head of the coroner’s office, Dr. Chen Kugel, who expressed opposition to the state’s position in the Zadorov case. For her part, Gerstl said this constituted “apparent interference in the chief testimony of a witness” and ruled that the prosecutor’s office had mishandled the case.""
 http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2015/12/bulletin-roman-zadorov-israel-supreme.html

Junk science writs: Why Ohio should follow the example of Texas and legislate a junk science writ. Scott Piepho; "A 2013 Texas law – the first of its kind – specifically allows a defendant to petition a court to overturn a conviction based on changes in the science that convicted him. The Texas law allows a defendant to file a petition – lawyers have adopted the term “junk science writ” – when he can show that admissible scientific evidence that was not available at trial and not ascertainable through the reasonable diligence of the defendant, undermines the proof of guilt. The evidence may consist of new tests that offer affirmative proof of innocence, but also evidence that shows that the scientific theory underlying the forensics that convicted him are now believed to be false. The law calls on courts to overturn any conviction when, in light of new evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. The Texas legislature has since amended the law to make it clear that it applies when an individual expert witness changes his or her position regarding testimony given in the defendant’s case. A similar law took effect in California earlier this year." The Akron Legal News; (Must, Must Read. HL);

"Science is awesome. It’s also difficult and messy. Science will occasionally embrace false hypotheses, but science also corrects itself well. The scientific method can be short-circuited by basic human cognitive biases, but it also offers the best corrective for the resulting mistakes. When science is in the courtroom, the awesomeness and difficulty and messiness gets amplified, both because lives and livelihoods are on the line and because our adversarial system does not easily accommodate the open-mindedness and residue of uncertainty of science done well. The past few decades have seen a series of revolutions in forensic evidence in criminal trials. DNA evidence allows law enforcement to identify a suspect to near-certainty, but that same evidence has proven that a troubling number of people were wrongfully convicted. DNA evidence begat the Innocence Project which is now forcing reassessment of large swaths of forensic evidence. The cover story of this month’s ABA Journal examines arson investigation, one area where science has forced a drastic reassessment over the last few decades. The story also demonstrates the difficulty of overturning convictions when the science the prosecution relied on has changed. In most states, petitioning a court on new evidence is exceedingly difficult. Court rules favor letting verdicts stand. The ABA Journal story centered on the case of Han Tak Lee, convicted of murder for setting the 1989 fire that killed is mentally ill daughter. Lee was able to present evidence challenging the arson forensics that convicted him upon filing a successful habeas petition. The 3rd Circuit held that he had the right to discovery and an evidentiary hearing, finding that if the state’s fire experts testified based on incorrect science, admission of the evidence “undermined the fundamental fairness of Lee’s entire trial.” But it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court would endorse such a proposition. In part because of the toxic politics of capital punishment, several of the more conservative members of the court are increasingly hostile to considering new evidence post-conviction, even when that evidence demonstrates actual innocence. The ABA Journal story mentioned in passing one innovation that may ease that difficulty – the Texas junk science writ statute. A 2013 Texas law – the first of its kind – specifically allows a defendant to petition a court to overturn a conviction based on changes in the science that convicted him. The Texas law allows a defendant to file a petition – lawyers have adopted the term “junk science writ” – when he can show that admissible scientific evidence that was not available at trial and not ascertainable through the reasonable diligence of the defendant, undermines the proof of guilt. The evidence may consist of new tests that offer affirmative proof of innocence, but also evidence that shows that the scientific theory underlying the forensics that convicted him are now believed to be false. The law calls on courts to overturn any conviction when, in light of new evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. The Texas legislature has since amended the law to make it clear that it applies when an individual expert witness changes his or her position regarding testimony given in the defendant’s case. A similar law took effect in California earlier this year.  Texas passed the law as one of a set of reforms after the scandalous execution of Cameron Todd Willingham. Willingham was executed in 2004 for setting the 1991 fire that killed his three children. In 2009 a lengthy New Yorker exposé demonstrated that the fire almost certainly was accidental. The scientific evidence introduced at his trial was based on flawed beliefs among fire investigators....Science is reconsidering other areas of forensics beyond arson evidence. The last few decades have seen the rise and fall of recovered memories and the resultant ritual sexual abuse prosecutions. Recent advances in pediatrics have challenged the science around diagnoses of shaken baby syndrome. We have ample reason to believe that bite mark analysis will be the next field currently governed by educated guesswork that will be debunked. As scientists improve and refine forensic evidence, courts need to find ways to not only accommodate the new information, but also to reconsider those erroneously convicted. Hopefully, more states will adopt laws like Texas and California, affording defendants the opportunity to challenge bad science. Hopefully Ohio will be one of them."
http://www.akronlegalnews.com/editorial/14203

Motherisk; (Aftermath 6): Review of "No moral conscience: The Hospital for Sick Children and the death of Lisa Shore," by Sharon Shore; Reviewed by Prof. Howard A. Doughty; Seneca College; "Discerning a pattern in the three instances briefly outlined here, the Nelles, Olivieri and Shore cases, is not immediately easy. An inappropriate prosecution of an innocent nurse, a question of the interpretation of research contracts and the ineffective criminal prosecution of two nurses whom Sharon Shore accuses of gross incompetence and negligence in the death of her daughter do not seem to have a great deal in common. There is, however, at least one thread joining them—the tendency of corporate structures to consider institutional legal liability and public reputation to be more important than the truth. Sick Kids hospital had a material interest in all three cases and the truth has been at least the temporary victim. All would have been better handled if the hospital administration had stood firmly on the side of truth, admitted its mistakes, pressed for open disclosure of research results, refrained from concealing errors and refused to attempt to defend itself with malicious smear-campaigns against its accusers as it did with Sharon Shore. I said at the outset that Sick Kids deserves its reputation for excellence. Generally speaking, it does. But even the finest “world class” institutions can be guilty of reprehensible behaviour when revelations of isolated instances of misbehaviour are seen as greater threats than honesty and accountability."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  The now-defunct disastrous  'Motherisk' program at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children raises questions which go to the  heart and soul of the revered  institution - and those who run it. What motivated the hospital to initially defend the program so aggressively and  to  conceal its defects, and its nightmarish  consequences from the press?  Was it the the desire to  continue attracting famed practitioners and researchers (reputation),  to secure wealthy benefactors (prestige), and to raise  massive funds (money)? Why didn't the hospital play it straight with the public by telling the truth -  and closing the lab down  as soon as the defects became apparent. Similar questions were raised by the Charles Smith saga, where so many innocent parents and caregivers may have been  their spared nightmarish experiences if the hospital had removed Smith as head of the hospital's forensic pediatric pathology unit  at that early stage when his  incompetence began surfacing? As the late Peter Kormos, a wonderful, passionate, civic-minded veteran MPP told the legislature: "Smith didn't work in a vacuum. What about the coroner? Wasn't the coroner's office concerned? During the course of, if not the first or the second or third of those 24 years, at least well into the 15- and 20-year range, wasn't the coroner's office a little concerned about how effective Smith was at providing evidence that supported the crown's case and didn't support the defence argument? What about his colleagues? What about other pathologists? What about other people in the medical profession? What about the Hospital for Sick Kids, who kept him in their employ?"  These 'nature' of  Sick Kids was directly addressed by Toronto lawyer Sharon Shore  - long before the Motherisk scandal erupted - in her book "No Moral Conscience: The Hospital for Sick Children and the Death of Lisa Shore, published by  Trafford Publishing in 2004.  (As set out on the back cover to Shore's book: "Why did Lisa die? When her parents brought 10-year-old Lisa Shore to a world renowned children's hospital for treatment of non-life threatening pain, they expected as any parents would,  she would receive competent and compassionate care. Less than 12 hours later, Lisa was dead. The Hospital for Sick Children denied any responsibility, even after an inquest found that Lisa's death was a homicide. Unwilling to admit that two of its employees had been grossly negligent, the hospital and its lawyers instead tried to paint Lisa's mother as an obsessed fanatic intent on destroying the careers of two conscientious nurses.") As will be seen in his balanced, thoughtful and insightful review of Shore's book, professor  Howard A. Doughty of  Seneca College  touches on several other revealing controversies involving the hospital: it's treatment of researcher Dr. Nancy Olivieri  - and the events leading to the prosecution   of nurse Susan Nelles for the alleged murder of babies in the cardiac care unit of the Hospital for Sick Children.   Prof. Howard Doughty teaches cultural anthropology and political economy at Seneca College in Toronto, Ontario.  ( He can be reached at howarddoughty@post.com). His review of  "No Moral Conscience: The Hospital for Sick Children and the Death of Lisa Shore"  appeared in Issue 1 of Volume 9,  of Seneca's  "College Quarterly"  in the  Winter  2006 edition.  I can't help noticing with dismay  that the concerns about the hospital which  Professor Doughty  expressed a decade ago have been proven  by Motherisk and intervening events  - including the Charles Smith saga -  to be still valid. I am grateful to  the "College Quarterly" for permission to republish his cogent review.

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Toronto Hospital for Sick Children, known familiarly as “Sick Kids,” is an institution with a deservedly excellent reputation for patient care and for caring. It is one of the premier pediatric institutions in the world. It is also, on occasion, a site of controversy. Twenty-five years ago, the controversy centred on Nurse Susan Nelles. A suspicious number of infants had died in the cardiac care unit. Nurse Nelles was arrested and charged with four counts of murder, although the prosecution let it be known that as many as two dozen babies may have perished. The alleged victims were said to have died of a massive overdose of the heart medication, digoxin. Nurse Nelles, as I wrote in the Toronto Star at the time, was brought under suspicion because of her demeanor. When accused by police of the alleged murders, she immediately (as they say on “Law and Order”) “lawyered up.” Other nurses, when confronted, tended to react by weeping and protesting their innocence. Nurses Nelles, a pretty, petite blonde, calmly asked to speak to an attorney. That seemed to be all the evidence that was needed. Why would she need a lawyer if she were innocent? In time, a sensible judge dismissed all charges. Not only was there no evidence linking Nurse Nelles to the crime, there was scant evidence that a crime had been committed at all, for the test used to reveal the large quantities of digoxin was “experimental” and had a history of delivering false positives. It is notable that the nursing staff displayed extraordinary solidarity and blamed hospital policies for the entire mess. The hospital denied any responsibility. In the end, the only real victims may have been Nurse Nelles, her father (a physician who died during the ordeal, possibly of stress related to his daughter’s legal troubles), and the reputation of Sick Kids hospital. Ten years ago, the controversy centred on Dr. Nancy Olivieri. Her case has become a lightning rod for discussions about academic freedom. For those who are unfamiliar with the matter, Dr. Olivieri won a contract with the pharmaceutical firm, Apotex, to conduct clinical trials on a new product. The trials revealed some dangerous “side-effects.” Concerned that harm might be done, Dr. Olivieri published her findings, apparently contrary to a contractual stipulation that Apotex had the right to veto any such publication. Several years of disputation followed in which Dr. Olivieri suffered, among other things, the loss of her position at Sick Kids and at the University of Toronto. Academics and the public rallied to her cause insisting, on the one hand, that researchers should be free to publish their work and, on the other hand, that a doctor should not be punished for alerting the public to a dangerous drug. It was widely believed that Sick Kids had opted to protect its material interests and was prepared to sacrifice Dr. Olivieri’s career rather than run afoul of the powerful drug industry. In time, Dr. Olivieri was reinstated, but the damage done to Sick Kids’ reputation was considerable. The case discussed in No Moral Conscience is not yet eight years old. It concerns Lisa Shore, who would have been turned nineteen this year. The book was written by her mother. It does not pretend to objectivity, though it does claim to be accurate and fair. It cries out for justice. I shall not rehearse the agonies—both physical and emotional—that the child and her mother endured. It is enough to say that from her initial treatment for a broken leg to her eventual death, Lisa Shore experienced the worst a health care system can provide. From the outset, Sharon Shore is direct and unrepentant in her claims that over an eight-month period ending in death, the doctors and nurses kept up a record of “stupidity, mistakes, indifference, incompetence and outright negligence” made worse in some instances by “intentional and pointless cruelty”. Lest this appear (as the staff at Sick Kids tried to make it appear) to be an irrational lashing out by a grief-stricken mother who experienced the worst parental tragedy—the needless death of a child—it is important to add only that Sharon Shore’s allegations were upheld by a coroner’s inquest and jury finding of homicide, and led to charges laid by the Ontario College of Nurses. Throughout, says, Sharon Shore, Sick Kids hospital and its legal counsel “never stopped trying to conceal the truth.”.........Discerning a pattern in the three instances briefly outlined here, the Nelles, Olivieri and Shore cases, is not immediately easy. An inappropriate prosecution of an innocent nurse, a question of the interpretation of research contracts and the ineffective criminal prosecution of two nurses whom Sharon Shore accuses of gross incompetence and negligence in the death of her daughter do not seem to have a great deal in common. There is, however, at least one thread joining them—the tendency of corporate structures to consider institutional legal liability and public reputation to be more important than the truth. Sick Kids hospital had a material interest in all three cases and the truth has been at least the temporary victim. All would have been better handled if the hospital administration had stood firmly on the side of truth, admitted its mistakes, pressed for open disclosure of research results, refrained from concealing errors and refused to attempt to defend itself with malicious smear-campaigns against its accusers as it did with Sharon Shore. I said at the outset that Sick Kids deserves its reputation for excellence. Generally speaking, it does. But even the finest “world class” institutions can be guilty of reprehensible behaviour when revelations of isolated instances of misbehaviour are seen as greater threats than honesty and accountability." Prof. Howard Doughty.

The entire review can be found at: 

http://collegequarterly.ca/2006-vol09-num01-winter/reviews/doughty5.html

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
 
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
 
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
 
 http://www.thestar.com/topic/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

---