STORY: ""Bite mark" testimony questioned in 1982 rape and murder case," by reporter Frank Green, published by the Richmond Times-Dispatch on March 27 2016.
Now, the Innocence Project says recent DNA testing
proves Harward didn’t commit the brutal 1982 crimes, casting further
doubt on the validity of bite-mark comparison — a forensic technique
that two experts testified strongly linked Harward to the crimes. It was
their testimony that drew Garrett’s attention and concern in 2009. At the time, he was researching a law review article,
“Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions,” when he
began looking into non-innocence cases as well. “Sure enough, I found forensic testimony that had all
the same problems that I saw in the innocent people’s cases ... and I
found two bite-mark cases by accident, one of which was Harward,” he
said. Reached by telephone at his Roanoke-area home last
week, Dr. Alvin G. Kagey, one of the bite-mark experts called forensic
odontologists who testified in Harward’s trial, said it is possible
Harward is innocent, but he stands by his work in the case. “In my opinion, this was a very unique situation. At
that time, bite-mark analysis was new, relatively, and there was a lot
of publicity about it in the Tidewater area, and I think that people
were taking it and adding maybe some of their own twists to it — not
that they changed what we said — but their interpretation made it sound
like this was set in concrete and it’s just not,” Kagey said. According to Kagey, “I never say about a bite mark, ‘He or she is the only person that could have done this.’” Garrett, after reviewing the trial transcript, is not
persuaded the bite-mark testimony was valid and said that when he
learned a petition for a writ of actual innocence was filed by Harward
earlier this month, “It was really, really, really disturbing to think
you can just come across innocent people’s cases by accident like that.” Harward, 59, has not been exonerated. Lawyers with
the Innocence Project and the Washington law firm of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP filed the innocence petition on March 4......... Proceedings have been stayed by the Virginia Supreme
Court so that more DNA test results — said by Harward’s lawyers to
further support innocence — can be submitted to the court.........The Harward case was one of nine
Virginia non-exoneration rape and murder cases to which Garrett and
Neufeld refer in their 2009 law review article, and the case is listed
with others on the law school’s website. Concerning Kagey and Levine’s testimony, Garrett
said, “There was and is no scientific research to support making such
aggressive claims about bite mark evidence.” He said, “Not only are the
conclusions overstated, but there’s no criteria for how you reach them.” “Even apart from making unscientific and invalid
claims, the technique of bite-mark comparison is quite unreliable. We
have seen case after case of exonerations where the marks were not made
by the convicted person and some where they were not even human bite
marks but rather insect bites or bruises,” he said. Garrett said he was not suggesting the odontologists
were attempting to commit an injustice. “They were probably testifying
the way they always testify,” Garrett said. Harward’s innocence petition contends, “these
forensic scientists ... presented to the jury what appeared at the time
to be conclusive evidence of my guilt, but modern objective scientific
scrutiny has more recently shown that this evidence entirely lacks
reliability.”"
The entire story can be found at:
http://m.richmond.com/news/article_66b9e47f-a917-5413-b7dc-ff5f8b432764.html?mode=jqm
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
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.
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
