PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I understand that Derek Bromley's appeal under the new right of appeal in South Australia will open its first public hearing in the Supreme Court in Adelaide on Monday 12 December, and that a number of psychological experts are being called to give evidence concerning the reliability of eye witness evidence called at Mr Bromley's trial in 1984. The hearing is expected to continue until Tuesday or Wednesday. Details concerning the background to this case can be found here: The case is all the more important because Mr Bromley has been incarcerated for 33 years, some 10 years over his non-parole period. (He has not been allowed to proceed with his application for parole because, being innocent, he will not apologise for the crime for which he was convicted);
Harold Levy; Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
----------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: See earlier post of this Blog at the link below:
"QUOTE OF THE DAY: "The forensic evidence was given at his trial by Dr Colin Manock. The state of South Australia in 1976 gave sworn evidence to a court to the effect that Dr Manock was not qualified to complete an autopsy on his own. The state also said he was not qualified as an expert – which means that he was not entitled to give expert opinion evidence in any court proceedings. Even if his evidence had been correct (which it wasn’t) it would still have been inadmissible."
RELEASE: "Aboriginal Incarceration Rates in Australia The case of Derek Bromley," by Dr. Bob Moles, published by 'Networked Knowledge' on October 27, 2016.
GIST: "Networked Knowledge welcomes the announcement today by the Federal Attorney-General that the Australian Law Reform Commission will conduct an inquiry into the incarceration rate of Indigenous Australians. The Australia Bar association has described the current figures as a "national disgrace". In this context it is important to note that Mr Derek Bromley, an aboriginal man in South Australia, is still in prison having served some 33 years. He is more than 10 years past his non-parole period of 22 years. He is told that he cannot apply for parole because he will not say that he is sorry for the crime for which he was convicted. Being innocent of this crime he maintains that an apology would be inappropriate. The cost of his incarceration over the last ten years is in excess of $800,000. If he had been guilty he would have been sent home 10 years ago. His claim to be wrongfully convicted is well-founded. The forensic evidence was given at his trial by Dr Colin Manock. The state of South Australia in 1976 gave sworn evidence to a court to the effect that Dr Manock was not qualified to complete an autopsy on his own. The state also said he was not qualified as an expert – which means that he was not entitled to give expert opinion evidence in any court proceedings. Even if his evidence had been correct (which it wasn’t) it would still have been inadmissible. In addition, it was acknowledged in Mr Bromley’s previous appeal that one of the eye-witnesses at Mr Bromley’s trial was suffering from a mental condition and was experiencing hallucinations on the night of the incident. There is a strong argument to say that his evidence also should have been inadmissible. Mr Bromley is pursuing an application for leave to appeal under the new statutory right of appeal which is now available in South Australia. The ethical response to that would be for the Crown to concede that appealable error has occurred and to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the conviction is set aside and that Mr Bromley is released from custody."
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2016/10/derek-bromley-australia-discredited.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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/
