Levon Brooks; Kennedy Brewer; Jeffrey Havard: Their nemesis: Discredited medical examiner Steven Hayne and his sidekick, the “bite mark” and “tool mark” specialist Michael West." Another great Radley Balko post: "Why should taxpayers subsidize Joe Arpaio’s legal defense? Balko describes the nefarious role of a shadowy police lobby group - Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) - "I first learned about the LEAA through its involvement in Mississippi Supreme Court elections. I’ve been covering the state’s death investigation system for over 10 years now, in particular the tenure of discredited medical examiner Steven Hayne and his sidekick, the “bite mark” and “tool mark” specialist Michael West. One of the first Mississippi Supreme Court justices to question West’s credibility was former justice Charles McRae. He did so in a lonely dissenting opinion in the case of Levon Brooks, who had been convicted of raping and killing a 3-year-old girl. Brooks was convicted almost entirely due to West’s bite-mark testimony, which McRae found dubious. When McRae was up for reelection, the LEAA took out ominous ads noting that McRae “was the only judge to reverse the conviction of the murderer of a 3-year-old.” McRae lost. In 2007, Levon Brooks was exonerated and released from prison. Kennedy Brewer was also exonerated and released. He had been convicted and sentenced to death for a remarkably similar crime. It would turn out that the same man committed both murders. In 2008, the LEAA ran more vicious attack ads against Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, one of the few members of that court to question the credibility of Hayne, who even a federal appeals court now concedes has been “discredited.” The LEAA ad accused Diaz of siding with “baby killers.” One of the cases mentioned was that of Jeffrey Havard, who still sits on Mississippi’s death row. But in Havard’s case, even Hayne now concedes that his testimony was in error. He also claims the little girl in the case was never sexually assaulted, as prosecutors claimed at trial. Havard will have an evidentiary hearing later this summer. The LEAA ads were condemned by a judicial integrity committee but eventually pulled by local TV stations for being unfair. Diaz lost, too."

POST: "Why should taxpayers subsidize Joe Arpaio’s legal defense?"  by Radley Balko, published by The Washington Post on Juy 27, 2017. (Radley Balko blogs about criminal justice, the drug war and civil liberties for The Washington Post. He is the author of the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces.)

GIST: "The man formerly known as “America’s toughest sheriff” is facing federal criminal contempt charges for allegedly continuing with his racially profiling “immigration patrols” and detentions in defiance of a federal order. The trial ended last month, and the judge is expected to issue a ruling soon. This week, I received two unsolicited emails purporting to be from Arpaio’s wife — one from “Mrs. Joe Arpaio,” and another from “Ava Arpaio.” Both — with the same text — were fundraising emails for Arpaio’s legal defense......... I don’t doubt that Ava Arpaio loves her husband and that she intended this as a compliment. And I suppose that if you think it is commendable for a man to treat animals better than he treats the human beings entrusted to his care, then you’re free to donate. I suspect, however, that most people won’t see this particular passage in a light as complimentary to Joe Arpaio as Ava Arpaio seems to see it. But I was also drawn to another phrase in the email. Apparently, Arpaio’s defense fund is being handled by a group called the National Center for Police Defense (NCPD), a nonprofit organization. That means that donations to Arpaio’s defense are, as the email put it, “100 percent tax-deductible.”......... The only listed staff member on the NCPD website is James Fotis, listed as the president. Prior to his current gig, Fotis was the longtime head of a group called the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA). That, too, was a pretty shadowy group. For more than 15 years, the LEAA ran exploitative, often misleading ads in state attorney general, state supreme court and other state races across the country. But the group never disclosed its donors and rarely talked to the press about its funding. ........ According to the Time report, written by the Center for Public Integrity, the LEAA was created in the 1990s by the National Rifle Association in an effort to get police officers and law enforcement groups on board with the gun rights movement. The NRA stopped funding LEAA in 2010. Sometime in the early 2000s, the LEAA began to focus more on pushing law-and-order candidates in state elections. Despite its name, the Time/CPI report points out that police organizations have distanced themselves from the LEAA. Even the head of the nation’s largest police union told the author of the report, “If we have ever agreed with them, it’s been totally coincidental.” Though the LEAA never disclosed its donors, it has also apparently received funding from fiscally conservative groups such as Americans for Tax Reform and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — presumably on the assumption that tough-on-crime candidates also tend to be fiscally conservative. I first learned about the LEAA through its involvement in Mississippi Supreme Court elections. I’ve been covering the state’s death investigation system for over 10 years now, in particular the tenure of discredited medical examiner Steven Hayne and his sidekick, the “bite mark” and “tool mark” specialist Michael West. One of the first Mississippi Supreme Court justices to question West’s credibility was former justice Charles McRae. He did so in a lonely dissenting opinion in the case of Levon Brooks, who had been convicted of raping and killing a 3-year-old girl. Brooks was convicted almost entirely due to West’s bite-mark testimony, which McRae found dubious. When McRae was up for reelection, the LEAA took out ominous ads noting that McRae “was the only judge to reverse the conviction of the murderer of a 3-year-old.” McRae lost. In 2007, Levon Brooks was exonerated and released from prison. Kennedy Brewer was also exonerated and released. He had been convicted and sentenced to death for a remarkably similar crime. It would turn out that the same man committed both murders. In 2008, the LEAA ran more vicious attack ads against Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, one of the few members of that court to question the credibility of Hayne, who even a federal appeals court now concedes has been “discredited.” The LEAA ad accused Diaz of siding with “baby killers.” One of the cases mentioned was that of Jeffrey Havard, who still sits on Mississippi’s death row. But in Havard’s case, even Hayne now concedes that his testimony was in error. He also claims the little girl in the case was never sexually assaulted, as prosecutors claimed at trial. Havard will have an evidentiary hearing later this summer. The LEAA ads were condemned by a judicial integrity committee but eventually pulled by local TV stations for being unfair. Diaz lost, too."

The entire story can be found at:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/07/27/why-should-taxpayers-subsidize-joe-arpaios-legal-defense/?utm_term=.fd3231b71ea4

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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.

Tonya Lucas: Maryland; Bulletin: Arson 'science'. On-going trial; "Deliberations will continue next week in retrial of mother accused of killing 6 children in fire in 1992," the Baltimore Sun reports...Reporter Jessica Anderson. July 28, 2017... "During a four-week retrial, prosecutors again sought to show jurors that Lucas intentionally set fire to her East Baltimore home, in the 2400 block of E. Eager St., in hopes of receiving rental assistance from the Red Cross. They also allege she set the fire to cover up her abuse of her 2-year-old son, Gregory Cook, who weighed just 10 pounds. But Lucas’ attorneys have argued the state’s case was weak because prosecutors did not back up the alleged motive that she burned the house to receive assistance. They said their client was receiving other government assistance to support her family, and did not need help from the Red Cross. Lucas’ conviction was overturned over concerns to the fire science involved in the case. Her attorneys have said the original investigators did not consider all possible accidental causes." Lucas’ conviction was overturned over concerns to the fire science involved in the case. Her attorneys have said the original investigators did not consider all possible accidental causes."

 

"Jurors will continue deliberations next week in the trial of a woman accused of intentionally setting a fire to her East Baltimore home 25 years ago, killing her six children. The case was sent to the panel on Monday in the trial of Tonya Lucas, 54, who was previously convicted in 1993 of six counts of first-degree felony murder and was serving six consecutive life terms. But that conviction was overturned in December 2015 due to discredited arson investigation methods. During a four-week retrial, prosecutors again sought to show jurors that Lucas intentionally set fire to her East Baltimore home, in the 2400 block of E. Eager St., in hopes of receiving rental assistance from the Red Cross. They also allege she set the fire to cover up her abuse of her 2-year-old son, Gregory Cook, who weighed just 10 pounds. But Lucas’ attorneys have argued the state’s case was weak because prosecutors did not back up the alleged motive that she burned the house to receive assistance. They said their client was receiving other government assistance to support her family, and did not need help from the Red Cross. Lucas’ conviction was overturned over concerns to the fire science involved in the case. Her attorneys have said the original investigators did not consider all possible accidental causes."  Lucas’ conviction was overturned over concerns to the fire science involved in the case. Her attorneys have said the original investigators did not consider all possible accidental causes."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-lucas-trial-deliberations-20170728-story.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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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.

Major Development: Arson investigations: (Cameron Todd Willingham; Adam Gray); Recent report (link provided) by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) examines some of the shortcomings of current forensic fire investigation practices, both on the scene and in the lab in cases which may include suspected arson, and offers several suggestions for bridging the gaps that have led to wrongful convictions, and possibly some overlooked cases of intentional arson..."The report mentions the impact that faulty fire science has had, pointing out that 63 individuals have been exonerated of arson convictions since 1991, according to the National Registry of Exonerations. It adds that the number of arsonists who have gotten away with their crimes due to faulty fire science cannot be known. One of the most infamous cases to raise questions about accuracy in arson investigations was that of Cameron Todd Willingham, a Texas man who was convicted of murder after investigators said the fire that killed his three young children was intentionally set by him. Following his conviction, Willingham was executed in 2004. Doubts about Willingham’s guilt and the accuracy of the forensic science argued in the case have been widely raised since his conviction and death, although he has never been formerly exonerated. In 2010, a panel of the Texas Forensic Science Commission concluded that “flawed science” had been used in the case, but that the investigators in the case could not be considered negligent, as they were following the accepted standards in place at the time, the Houston Chronicle reported. The most recent arson exoneree, according to the National Registry of Exonerations, is Adam Gray, who was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated arson at the age of 14 after two of his neighbors died in a fire at his two-flat apartment building. During his trial, fire experts argued that burn patterns found in the apartment indicated the use of an accelerant, and a lab analyst testified that a “high-boiling petroleum distillate” was found in a milk jug allegedly used to distribute the accelerant. Gray was sentenced to life in prison, but released on May 3, 2017 after two witnesses recanted their testimony, and a review of the case found that the science used to convict him had since been debunked."

STORY: "American Association for the Advancement of Science report points out flaws in forensic fire science, offers suggestions for improvement," by Associate Editor Laura French, published by Forensic Magazine, on July 21, 2107.

GIST: "A recent report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science examines some of the shortcomings of current forensic fire investigation practices, both on the scene and in the lab in cases which may include suspected arson, and offers several suggestions for bridging the gaps that have led to wrongful convictions, and possibly some overlooked cases of intentional arson. One major finding of the report, published last week, was the unreliability of fire investigators to determine the origin of a fire in rooms where the fire had reached flashover—a point at which extreme temperatures of about 500-600 degrees Celsius (932-1112 degrees Fahrenheit) cause every ignitable surface in a room to immediately burst into flames. The report describes this as the point at which “a fire in a room becomes a room on fire.”........Suggestions for improving the state of modern forensic fire investigation included conducting research to study burn patterns, including full-scale and reduced scale tests in realistic conditions; comparing computer-based fire models with the results of physical fire tests; refining the use of canine units at fire scenes, which are considered more efficient than technological counterparts such as electronic “noses”; and reducing the likelihood of bias-tainted judgments by fire experts through cognitive training, “blinded” procedures and separation of scientific investigative roles from case management roles. The report concluded that lab analysis of debris from fires was not plagued with as many problems as on-the-scene analysis, but that “the chemical evidence found at the scene of a fire can still be confusing and misleading.” The report pointed out that some materials, when burned, can produce chemicals that can be mistaken for ignitable liquid residues (ILRs) often used as accelerants. This can make it difficult to distinguish whether chemicals detected in fire debris are the result of an arsonist’s use of an accelerant or the result of furniture and other materials combusting.........The report mentions the impact that faulty fire science has had, pointing out that 63 individuals have been exonerated of arson convictions since 1991, according to the National Registry of Exonerations. It adds that the number of arsonists who have gotten away with their crimes due to faulty fire science cannot be known. One of the most infamous cases to raise questions about accuracy in arson investigations was that of Cameron Todd Willingham, a Texas man who was convicted of murder after investigators said the fire that killed his three young children was intentionally set by him. Following his conviction, Willingham was executed in 2004. Doubts about Willingham’s guilt and the accuracy of the forensic science argued in the case have been widely raised since his conviction and death, although he has never been formerly exonerated. In 2010, a panel of the Texas Forensic Science Commission concluded that “flawed science” had been used in the case, but that the investigators in the case could not be considered negligent, as they were following the accepted standards in place at the time, the Houston Chronicle reported. The most recent arson exoneree, according to the National Registry of Exonerations, is Adam Gray, who was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated arson at the age of 14 after two of his neighbors died in a fire at his two-flat apartment building. During his trial, fire experts argued that burn patterns found in the apartment indicated the use of an accelerant, and a lab analyst testified that a “high-boiling petroleum distillate” was found in a milk jug allegedly used to distribute the accelerant. Gray was sentenced to life in prison, but released on May 3, 2017 after two witnesses recanted their testimony, and a review of the case found that the science used to convict him had since been debunked. The full AAAS report is available here: https://www.aaas.org/report/fire-investigation A plain language version of the report is available here: https://www.aaas.org/report/fire-investigation-plain-language-summary..."

The entire story can be found at:

https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/07/aaas-report-points-out-flaws-forensic-fire-science-offers-suggestions-improvement?et_cid=6031463&et_rid=979655504&type=headline&et_cid=6031463&et_rid=979655504&linkid=https%3a%2f%2fwww.forensicmag.com%2fnews%2f2017%2f07%2faaas-report-points-out-flaws-forensic-fire-science-offers-suggestions-improvement%3fet_cid%3d6031463%26et_rid%3d%%subscriberid%%%26type%3dheadline

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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.

(Part 30): U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session's war on forensics/crime: Context: A brief survey of Pres. Donald Trump's assault on science (and scientists) in America. (Author Jimmy Tobias: PSMag)..." In a new report, "Sidelining Science From Day One," released on July 20th, the Union of Concerned Scientists attempts to document this "war on science" in detail. The report contains, among other things, a timeline of all the actions the administration has undertaken since inauguration day to ignore or intimidate scientists and undermine their important work. "By our measure," says Gretchen Goldman, a UCS research director with a Ph.D. in environmental engineering and one of the report's co-authors, "the administration has averaged one major attack on science every four days."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: In numerous posts, I have lamented the assault on science launched by 'beleaguered' U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. This assault was aptly set out by reporter Spencer S. Hsu in the Washington Post, on April 10, 2017, as follows. "Attorney General Jeff Sessions will end a Justice Department partnership with independent scientists to raise forensic science standards and has suspended an expanded review of FBI testimony across several techniques that have come under question, saying a new strategy will be set by an in-house team of law enforcement advisers.
In a statement Monday, Sessions said he would not renew the National Commission on Forensic Science, a roughly 30-member advisory panel of scientists, judges, crime lab leaders, prosecutors and defense lawyers chartered by the Obama administration in 2013. A path to meet needs of overburdened crime labs will be set by a yet-to-be-named senior forensic adviser and an internal department crime task force, Sessions’s statement said." The following article, "A brief survey of Trump's assault on science,'  by Jimmy Tobias, allows readers to see how Session's (Trumps's) assault on science in the context of America's criminal justice system, fits in with Trumps overall assault on science (and scientists)  in America.

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

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

STORY: "A Brief Survey of Trump's Assault on Science," by Jimmy Tobias, published by PSMag  on July 24, 2017.

SUB-HEADING: "In a new report, the Union of Concerned Scientists strives to document and detail all of the Trump administration's anti-science actions." "In a recent Washington Post op-ed, a scientist and federal civil servant named Joel Clement blew the whistle on a White House that he says "chooses silence over science." Until recently, Clement was the director of the Department of the Interior's Office of Policy Analysis, a top-level position where his duties included helping native Alaskan communities prepare for the effects of climate change. He was a bureaucratic advocate of sorts, using his scientific knowledge and policy expertise to press the Trump administration and the United Nations, among other parties, to protect Alaska's coastal villages from melting permafrost, rising seas, and dangerous storm surges. He was laboring to prevent native peoples from becoming internally displaced refugees. His work, however, was brought to a sudden halt on June 15th, when departmental brass demoted and involuntarily reassigned him to a job in an "accounting office that collects royalty checks from fossil fuel companies." Clement believes that his reassignment was retaliation. "It is clear to me that the administration was so uncomfortable with this work, and my disclosures, that I was reassigned with the intent to coerce me into leaving the federal government," he writes. He goes on to call the move "an abuse of power." Clement's story is about the Trump administration's attempt to purge and silence a scientific expert. It's sad, it's unfair, but it isn't unique. In fact, it is just one more entry in the president's record of anti-science actions and activities during his first six months in office.

The entire story can be found at:
https://psmag.com/environment/a-brief-survey-of-trumps-assault-on-science

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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.

Part 29: U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions war on crime/forensics: Part 29: (Anthony Hinton); Biologist Steven Austad discusses, "Another day, another preventable crime lab scandal."..." Certainly most of the people who work in crime labs are doing their best. They are typically overworked, overstressed, and underpaid. They want to get things right. Anything we can do to help them get things right, we should do. But we also need to weed out the few who do not care about getting things right. Application of proven procedures from other scientific fields can help with both of these things. The 2009 report on the state of forensic science by the National Academy of Sciences led to the formation of the National Commission on Forensic Science, a group of independent scientists tasked with raising the standards of rigor and accuracy in crime labs. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently announced that he will disband this Commission. Politics aside, this is a tremendous mistake. If we are to have confidence in our justice system, it needs more science, not less."

COMMENTARY: "Another day, another preventable crime lab scandal," by Steven Austad, published on AL.com on July 22, 2017. ( Steven Austad is Chair of the Biology Department at UAB. Before becoming a research scientist, he had various lives as an English major, a newspaper reporter, a New York City taxi driver, and a Hollywood wild animal trainer.  Living now in Birmingham with his veterinarian wife, 6 dogs, 2 parrots, and a cat, he enjoys nothing more than communicating how science works to the general public.)

GIST: "In April 2015, not long after I moved to Alabama, a man named Anthony Hinton was freed from prison after serving 30 years for two Birmingham murders he didn't commit. The only evidence linking him to the 1985 crimes was a so-called "match" by a state forensic examiner of bullets used in the murders to a pistol found in Mr. Hinton's mother's home. Thirty years later, independent ballistics experts could neither match that gun to those bullets nor even be sure that the bullets were all fired from the same gun. In the same year that Anthony Hinton was freed, there were 149 exonerations in the United States, 4 in Alabama including Hinton. Three of the Alabama exonerations were for murder convictions. What these numbers show - although you wouldn't guess it from the popularity of science fiction television shows like the various CSI series - is that American crime labs have been, and still are, in a sorry state. That was the bottom line of a 328 page report done by the National Academy of Sciences - our most prestigious scientific organization -- in 2009. Since then, as if to emphasize this point, scandal after scandal has erupted in crime labs across the country. For instance, earlier this year, prosecutors in Massachusetts threw out more than 20,000 drug convictions, because a single crime lab technician admitted that she had been fabricating drug test results for years. A year earlier, a lab technician for the New Jersey State Police admitted to a similar crime which could affect almost 15,000 cases. Other crime lab scandals of various sorts have cropped up in Texas, North Carolina, California, Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and on and on. There are too many reasons for these scandals to cover them all here, but several are worth noting. Sometimes the underlying science is flawed, meaning that test results are never really conclusive, but are open to wildly subjective interpretation. Not surprisingly, subjective interpretation by law enforcement units typically favors the prosecution. This was behind the recent scandal at the FBI laboratory for misleading testimony their laboratory staff gave for years about hair and bite mark comparisons. That scandal has led to review of more than a thousand cases so far. Sometimes errors are the consequence of simple incompetence. Technicians run the tests incorrectly. Incompetence is the most charitable interpretation of the false ballistics match that sent Anthony Hinton to prison.
Sometimes errors are the consequence of innocent mistakes. Humans make mistakes. That's what we do. One goal of science is to develop procedures that minimize human mistakes and reduce their impact when they occur. Other times like the Massachusetts and New Jersey cases above, it is purposeful technician misconduct. In a number of states, including Alabama, crime labs can receive extra money for helping get convictions. If that incentive structure does not exactly encourage laboratory misconduct, it certainly does nothing to discourage it either. If we assume that our criminal justice system values getting the right result as distinct from getting the desired result, then we should be working to make the system better because laboratory sciences will become even more important in the justice system in the future. Errors in criminal justice have many effects - all of them bad. False convictions as well as false acquittals allow criminals to walk free. For instance, whoever committed the murders that sent Anthony Hinton to prison were never brought to justice. Errors also destroy people's faith that the criminal justice system is fair. For those of us in the daily business of science research, it is quite clear that a number of the problems I mentioned could be remedied simply by taking advantage of a standard laboratory practice - one which ironically resembles an old advance in policing. In the lab, we call it using blind controls. In police work it is the difference between a line-up and a show-up. A show-up is when the police arrest a suspect, show the suspect to a witness and ask if this is the person they saw pull the trigger. Even in the 19^th century, it was realized that given only one choice, witnesses often made false identifications.  Out of these errors was born the police line-up, or as the British call it, an identity parade. In a line-up as everyone knows, a witness is shown 5 or 6 people among which is the suspect and asked to identify which if any is the perpetrator. Line-ups are certainly an improvement over show-ups, but they are susceptible to their own potential biases. Recently there has been a pile of research into the best way to perform them. That's a topic for another column. The procedure I'm talking about which would fix a number of the crime lab problems is another type of line-up that avoids these problems. Its use is the essence of simplicity. Instead of giving the lab technician a single sample of, say, blood, possible drugs, or bullets used in a crime, the technician is given several samples, let's say three samples, only one of which comes from the current suspect or crime scene. The others are blind controls. They technician is not told which is which and is expected to produce a report on all three. What does this simple procedural change accomplish? First, it prevents "dry-labbing," producing reports on work that was never done. If the technician does not know which is the real sample, she would not know which report to fabricate.  Dry-labbing was the problem in the Massachusetts and New Jersey scandals mentioned at the beginning. Second, if the blind controls are blanks or contain a known amount of the substance of interest or are from a different crime scene, then this procedure should also catch procedural errors and innocent mistakes. So it serves as a quality control measure, allowing laboratories to determine how often such mistakes occur so they can decide if new procedures need to be developed to reduce the error rate. Certainly most of the people who work in crime labs are doing their best. They are typically overworked, overstressed, and underpaid. They want to get things right. Anything we can do to help them get things right, we should do. But we also need to weed out the few who do not care about getting things right. Application of proven procedures from other scientific fields can help with both of these things. The 2009 report on the state of forensic science by the National Academy of Sciences led to the formation of the National Commission on Forensic Science, a group of independent scientists tasked with raising the standards of rigor and accuracy in crime labs. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently announced that he will disband this Commission. Politics aside, this is a tremendous mistake.  If we are to have confidence in our justice system, it needs more science, not less."

The entire commentary can be found at:
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/07/another_day_another_preventabl.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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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.

Charles Smith: Canada: Smith for the defence! A 'Charles Smith' case emerges from the past: The fascinating story unearthed by Hamilton Spectator columnist Susan Clairmont, asks: "What if disgraced doctor caused wrongful acquittal in 1999 murder case?"..."It is well known that the bogus evidence of disgraced pediatric pathologist Charles Smith led to people being wrongfully convicted of killing children. But what if he also caused a killer to be wrongfully acquitted? The troubling question is raised now as Shelly Kuzyk, 45, faces an aggravated assault charge after an infant she was babysitting was brought to McMaster Children's Hospital with multiple broken bones. In a Hamilton courtroom 18 years ago, a jury found Kuzyk not guilty of second-degree murder in the death of another child in her care, 15-month-old Tristin Tooke. During that trial Smith was called as a powerful expert witness by the defence and his testimony may have been the key to the jury's decision to find Kuzyk not guilty. Though the 1999 trial was carefully covered by media at the time, what was never reported was that Smith's testimony was so shockingly out of whack with what the Crown's medical experts testified to that the discrepancy prompted the Hamilton police to write a letter to the regional coroner. The police asked that "this matter be reviewed with the intent to reduce the opportunity for experts from the same office providing wildly conflicting opinions about the timing of injuries during criminal investigations."..."An appeal must be done on the basis of an error in law occurring, and in 1999 the Ministry of the Attorney General said there were no appealable errors. In hindsight though, there is a flaw that wasn't apparent. And that is the credibility of Smith. First, Justice Crane, in his charge to the jury, said Smith had "a speciality in forensic pediatric pathology." In fact, Smith did not qualify as a specialist in forensics at all." (Bravo to columnist Clairmont. HL);

COMMENTARY: "What if disgraced doctor caused wrongful acquittal in 1999 murder case?" by Susan Clairmont, published by The Hamilton Spectator on July 20, 2017. (Susan Clairmont is the crime, court and social justice columnist at the Spectator.)

GIST: "It is well known that the bogus evidence of disgraced pediatric pathologist Charles Smith led to people being wrongfully convicted of killing children. But what if he also caused a killer to be wrongfully acquitted? The troubling question is raised now as Shelly Kuzyk, 45, faces an aggravated assault charge after an infant she was babysitting was brought to McMaster Children's Hospital with multiple broken bones. In a Hamilton courtroom 18 years ago, a jury found Kuzyk not guilty of second-degree murder in the death of another child in her care, 15-month-old Tristin Tooke. During that trial Smith was called as a powerful expert witness by the defence and his testimony may have been the key to the jury's decision to find Kuzyk not guilty. Though the 1999 trial was carefully covered by media at the time, what was never reported was that Smith's testimony was so shockingly out of whack with what the Crown's medical experts testified to that the discrepancy prompted the Hamilton police to write a letter to the regional coroner. The police asked that "this matter be reviewed with the intent to reduce the opportunity for experts from the same office providing wildly conflicting opinions about the timing of injuries during criminal investigations." The police never received a response to that letter, says Staff Sgt. Steve Hrab. Hrab was the homicide detective in charge of investigating Tristan's 1997 homicide. He arrested Kuzyk for murder. His name is on the letter sent to the coroner's office. By fluke, he is now in charge of the current aggravated assault case against Kuzyk. All the doctors who testified at the murder trial, including Smith, agreed Kuzyk's version of events was impossible. She claimed Tristan received his fatal head injuries by rolling off a waterbed onto a carpeted floor. But the issue at stake was the timing of Tristin's fatal injuries. Dr. Chitra Rao, a world renowned expert in forensic pediatric pathology, did the autopsy. She told the trial the boy sustained his injuries in a four- to six-hour period when Kuzyk was known to be alone with the child. Doctors who tried to save Tristan's life agreed with that time frame. Smith, however, expanded the window of opportunity by several more hours, opening up the possibility Kuzyk's ex-fiancé had caused the injuries during a brief visit with the child. The ex-fiancé was never charged and denied hurting the baby boy. It was, that jury heard, the first time Smith had ever testified on behalf of the defence. He was lauded as the ultimate expert in his field by defence lawyer Roger Yachetti (who told The Spec this week he has no concerns with his client's acquittal), by Justice David Crane and by himself. "You will forgive me for boasting," Smith said at one point. "I do more pediatric forensic work than anyone else in the country." The problem is, he did it very, very badly. Smith's fall from grace is one of the biggest medical and legal scandals in Canadian history. His career began unravelling in about 2003 (four years after Hamilton police raised concerns) when peers uncovered serious and prolific flaws in his work. Eventually, at least a dozen people would have their child murder convictions overturned, the Ontario government would financially compensate the wrongfully convicted and their families, Smith would be stripped of his medical licence and a massive public inquiry would examine Smith's failures and the state of forensic pathology in Canada. (The inquiry revealed Smith had no special training in forensics, unlike Hamilton's Rao who did.) The College of Physicians and Surgeons said Smith's opinions were "either contrary to, or not supported by the evidence," were "misleading" and that he acted "as an advocate" rather than offering unbiased opinions. Soon after the not-guilty verdict and years before the Smith scandal, the Crown began an appeal of Kuzyk's acquittal on the murder charge, but then abandoned the process, saying there were no solid grounds. Lawyer Asgar Manek, who is representing Kuzyk on her current charge, says his client's legal history "should rest in peace." "It's not relevant for this trial," he says, adding he is leaning toward a jury trial. While the Crown would legally be able to argue that "similar fact evidence" should be presented to the jury if Kuzyk had been convicted on the previous murder charge, that cannot be done when there is an acquittal. Any attempt to introduce evidence about the murder charge at a new trial could cause a mistrial, Manek says. An appeal must be done on the basis of an error in law occurring, and in 1999 the Ministry of the Attorney General said there were no appealable errors. In hindsight though, there is a flaw that wasn't apparent. And that is the credibility of Smith. First, Justice Crane, in his charge to the jury, said Smith had "a speciality in forensic pediatric pathology." In fact, Smith did not qualify as a specialist in forensics at all. The judge also said: "Dr. Smith has outstanding credentials, and it is his opinion that Tristan's injuries could have possibly been inflicted as early as 6 p.m." This gave jurors permission to consider the possibility Kuzyk's ex-fiancé caused the fatal injuries. Whether Smith's evidence was the key to the acquittal, only the six men and six women of that jury will ever know. "

The entire commentary can be found at:

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/7461691-clairmont-what-if-disgraced-doctor-caused-wrongful-acquittal-in-1999-murder-case-/

 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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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.

Field tests for drugs: Grits for Breakfast notes that, "Cheap and unreliable field tests for drugs have caused hundreds of false convictions in Houston and elsewhere."..But the venerable site adds that it's unclear if eliminating the tests will result in better outcomes - and predicts that officer discretion will likely be even more problematic and discriminatory...Grit's bottom line: "Don't eliminate field tests without tracking outcomes from officer discretion."..."It will be some time before we know whether officers make errors identifying drugs more often than the field tests. Until then, the Texas Forensic Science Commission has been charged with studying the field test issue and reporting back to the legislature by Dec. 1, 2018 with recommendations. That's a welcome development. The FSC should specifically examine whether officer discretion makes more errors than field tests, to the extent possible. And if they can't tell, they should propose experimentation that would determine the question."

POST: "Don't eliminate field tests without tracking outcomes from officer discretion, " published by Grits for Breakfast on July 19, 2017.

GIST: "Cheap and unreliable field tests for drugs have caused hundreds of false convictions in Houston and elsewhere. But it's unclear if eliminating the tests will result in better outcomes. Officer discretion will likely be even more problematic and discriminatory. The department decided to end the tests not because they're notoriously unreliable but because they fear an officer will come into contact with the drug fentanyl and overdose. So the policy is reactionary and rather spur-of-the-moment, not taking into account the possible effects on wrongful convictions. It will be some time before we know whether officers make errors identifying drugs more often than the field tests. Until then, the Texas Forensic Science Commission has been charged with studying the field test issue and reporting back to the legislature by Dec. 1, 2018 with recommendations. That's a welcome development. The FSC should specifically examine whether officer discretion makes more errors than field tests, to the extent possible. And if they can't tell, they should propose experimentation that would determine the question. It would have been nice had such research occurred before changing policies, but instead, once again, law enforcement is leaping before looking."

The entire story can be found at:
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.ca/2017/07/dont-eliminate-field-tests-without.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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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.

Tonya Lucas: Maryland: Bulletin: Arson (science?); Jury deliberating in retrial of mother accused of killing 6 children in fire in 1992, the Baltimore Sun reports......... "Lucas' attorney, Michele Nethercott, also attacked prosecutors for attempting to play to the sympathy of jurors. Several times during closing arguments, the jury was shown photos of Gregory’s body. Some flinched, while others looked away until the picture was removed from a stand in front of the jury box. Lucas has maintained her innocence, saying she was framed. The University of Baltimore's Innocence Project took up the case in 2015, questioning the credibility of the fire investigation. Since Lucas’ original case, questions in fire science have raised doubt in numerous cases and led to dozens of arson exonerations across the country. The defense has argued that the original investigators did not consider all possible accidental causes." Reporter Jessica Anderson; July 24, 2017.

"Jurors began deliberations Monday in the retrial of a Baltimore woman accused of intentionally setting her home on fire, killing her six children, 25 years ago. Tonya Lucas, 54, was convicted by a jury in 1993 of six counts of first-degree felony murder and was serving six consecutive life terms. But that conviction was overturned in December 2015 due to discredited arson investigation methods. During a four-week retrial, prosecutors again sought to show jurors that Lucas intentionally set fire to her East Baltimore home, in the 2400 block of E. Eager St., in hopes of receiving rental assistance from the Red Cross. They also allege she set the fire to cover up her abuse of her 2-year-old son, Gregory Cook, who weighed just 10 pounds. “The defendant was about to be evicted. How was she going to cover up Gregory?” Assistant State's Attorney Rita Wisthoff-Ito said in closing arguments ......... Lucas’ attorneys argued the state’s case was weak because prosecutors did not back up the alleged motive that she burned the house to receive assistance. They said their client was receiving other government assistance to support her family, and did not need help from the Red Cross.........Lucas' attorney, Michele Nethercott, also attacked prosecutors for attempting to play to the sympathy of jurors. Several times during closing arguments, the jury was shown photos of Gregory’s body. Some flinched, while others looked away until the picture was removed from a stand in front of the jury box. Lucas has maintained her innocence, saying she was framed. The University of Baltimore's Innocence Project took up the case in 2015, questioning the credibility of the fire investigation. Since Lucas’ original case, questions in fire science have raised doubt in numerous cases and led to dozens of arson exonerations across the country. The defense has argued that the original investigators did not consider all possible accidental causes. Lucas appeared in court on Monday in a black suit with her ankle monitor visible. She has been free on home detention and GPS monitoring since March 2016 after she was diagnosed with stage four breast cancer. She missed part of the trial proceedings to undergo chemotherapy treatment. Several family members and supporters who watched the proceedings wore pink breast cancer ribbons. Jurors were dismissed for the day around 5 p.m. Monday, and are to resume deliberations Tuesday morning."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-tonya-lucas-closings-20170724-story.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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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.

Rodney Reed; Texas Hearing Set for October: "Rodney Reed, the Bastrop man living for nearly two decades on death row for the murder of Stacey Stites, will get another chance to prove he’s not a murderer beginning Oct. 10," the Austin Chronicle reports. (Exculpatory evidence at issue). ..." In May, the state’s Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the case to the trial court and ordered a hearing on the grounds that Reed and his attorneys say they have evidence that points to Jimmy Fennell Jr., Stites’ fiancé at the time, being her killer. Reed's attorneys had filed a motion last June that argues their client deserves a rehearing on the grounds that information obtained by CNN during interviews for an episode of the network’s show Death Row Stories points to a conflicting detail in the timeline Fennell provided to investigators after Stites’ murder. The former Giddings police officer, who’s now serving a 10-year prison sentence for raping a woman he held in custody, had said in his official statement two days after Stites’ body was found (and later in court during Reed’s capital murder trial) that he spent the entire evening with her on April 22, 1996, and slept through her departure for an early-morning shift at a Bastrop H-E-B. But what CNN had learned and passed on to Reed's legal team via a dictation of a portion of an interview transcript with former Bastrop County sheriff’s deputy and Fennell’s old best friend Curtis L. Davis, was that Fennell had told Davis that he actually spent the night of April 22 drinking beer with fellow police officers by his truck after a Little League baseball practice. Davis allegedly revealed to CNN that Fennell told him the next morning that he didn’t return home to Stites until 10 or 11 o’clock that night.".

STORY: "Rodney Reed Hearing Set for October," by reporter Chase Hoffberger, published by The Austin Chronicle on July 9,  2017.

SUB-HEADING: "Exculpatory evidence at issue in four-day hearing."

GIST: "Rodney Reed, the Bastrop man living for nearly two decades on death row for the murder of Stacey Stites, will get another chance to prove he’s not a murderer beginning Oct. 10. Bastrop County’s online court database notes that a three-day hearing is set for Oct. 10-13 in Judge Carson Campbell’s 21st District court in Bastrop.  In May, the state’s Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the case to the trial court and ordered a hearing on the grounds that Reed and his attorneys say they have evidence that points to Jimmy Fennell Jr., Stites’ fiancé at the time, being her killer. Reed's attorneys had filed a motion last June that argues their client deserves a rehearing on the grounds that information obtained by CNN during interviews for an episode of the network’s show Death Row Stories points to a conflicting detail in the timeline Fennell provided to investigators after Stites’ murder. The former Giddings police officer, who’s now serving a 10-year prison sentence for raping a woman he held in custody, had said in his official statement two days after Stites’ body was found (and later in court during Reed’s capital murder trial) that he spent the entire evening with her on April 22, 1996, and slept through her departure for an early-morning shift at a Bastrop H-E-B. But what CNN had learned and passed on to Reed's legal team via a dictation of a portion of an interview transcript with former Bastrop County sheriff’s deputy and Fennell’s old best friend Curtis L. Davis, was that Fennell had told Davis that he actually spent the night of April 22 drinking beer with fellow police officers by his truck after a Little League baseball practice. Davis allegedly revealed to CNN that Fennell told him the next morning that he didn’t return home to Stites until 10 or 11 o’clock that night. That’s not the first time that such a discrepancy has come up. The former cop has long provided conflicting chronologies of his actions around the time of the murder (Bryce Benjet, Reed's lead attorney, lists six different instances in a February 2015 motion for a rehearing), and previously untested evidence is mounting that indicates Fennell was present at many points during the full timetable relevant to Stites’ murder – though the state has, to date, stonewalled Reed’s team from getting that evidence analyzed."

The entire story can be found at

https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2017-07-09/rodney-reed-hearing-set-for-october/

 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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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.

Susan Neill-Fraser: Australia: Reporter who has followed the case closely (Charles Wooley) says the 'evidence hype' by TV investigative program 'Sunday Night' "fails to deliver."..." The fact that none of this is new and yet nothing has progressed for Neill-Fraser in the intervening three years is the real “explosive evidence” that the legal process stubbornly refuses to concede fallibility even at the expense of pursuing justice.......... Certainly it was early in reporting this case that I began to suspect that more dangerous than putting Neill-Fraser back on the streets (now in a wheelchair) was the alarming possibility that if it is possible to be convicted on such scant evidence then no one is safe. “Worse than scant evidence, Sue Neill-Fraser was convicted on the total absence of evidence,” Bob Moles told me last week. “If the forensic evidence were to be reviewed by any competent and independent expert it would be deemed unacceptable.”.........Neill-Fraser has enough trouble right now without the public apprehension that her story has been marketed and is now owned by a television network. Understandably she has no friends in the judiciary or the police but also not a lot of public sympathy beyond her dedicated band of supporters. It would be unfortunate if the impression that some kind of financial deal has been done should denigrate the legal campaign to exonerate her."

STORY: "Neill-Fraser evidence hype fails to deliver," by reporter Charles Wooley, published by The Sunday Tasmanian on July 22, 2017.

GIST: "Channel Seven’s Sunday Night investigation of the Susan Neill-Fraser case promised “explosive new evidence” but, as is so often the case with television programs, the content failed to measure up to the hype. This is in part because the people who make the gravel-voiced urgent promo are never the same journalists who make the news story. Hence the kind of embarrassing dissonance between promise and delivery we saw with Seven’s coverage last weekend. There was in fact no explosive new evidence and what ran was virtually a repeat of the 60 Minutes story from 2014. I reported that story and at the time became convinced that Neill-Fraser was either innocent or had managed to commit the perfect crime and might well have expected to get away with it for lack of material evidence. Australia’s leading expert on miscarriages of justice Dr Bob Moles told me three years ago, much as he reiterated in Seven’s story last week, that “Susan Neill-Fraser’s conviction is Australia’s worst miscarriage of justice since Lindy Chamberlain”. In my time I have reported on a number of murders, but never one like this, right here in my home town. A woman had been locked up and the key thrown away but where was the evidence? Where was the weapon, the witness, the motive and the proof of death? Seven’s “explosive new evidence” concerned the DNA of homeless girl Megan Vass found on the deck of the yacht Four Winds from which Neill-Fraser’s partner Bob Chappell so mysteriously vanished on Australia Day 2009.  This was also reported way back in 2014 when Ms Vass had denied ever having been on the yacht. The police had disregarded the significance of the DNA, suggesting it had been transferred on the boots of investigators. Didn’t they watch CSI? Meanwhile, the evidence of copious amounts of blood in the yacht’s dinghy, supposedly proof of foul play, is also most likely a forensic error. The testing agent used, luminol, is known to produce false positives. In Lindy Chamberlain’s case the foetal blood supposedly found in her car was much later determined to be a sound deadener sprayed in the wheel arch by the manufacturer. It took a quarter of a century for the Northern Territory Government to apologise to the Chamberlains. Neill-Fraser is in jail for 23 years. The fact that none of this is new and yet nothing has progressed for Neill-Fraser in the intervening three years is the real “explosive evidence” that the legal process stubbornly refuses to concede fallibility even at the expense of pursuing justice.......... Certainly it was early in reporting this case that I began to suspect that more dangerous than putting Neill-Fraser back on the streets (now in a wheelchair) was the alarming possibility that if it is possible to be convicted on such scant evidence then no one is safe. “Worse than scant evidence, Sue Neill-Fraser was convicted on the total absence of evidence,” Bob Moles told me last week. “If the forensic evidence were to be reviewed by any competent and independent expert it would be deemed unacceptable.”.........Neill-Fraser has enough trouble right now without the public apprehension that her story has been marketed and is now owned by a television network. Understandably she has no friends in the judiciary or the police but also not a lot of public sympathy beyond her dedicated band of supporters. It would be unfortunate if the impression that some kind of financial deal has been done should denigrate the legal campaign to exonerate her. As I’ve said before, I think it is more likely that Bob Chappell is whooping it up in Rio than it is that Susan Neill-Fraser whacked him over the head with a wrench and tossed him overboard. But as we know from her conviction, in the absence of evidence perception is everything. Her family and legal team must move quickly to assure the public that the issues at stake in the Neill-Fraser case are too important to be bought or sold."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/neillfraser-evidence-hype-fails-to-deliver/news-story/bc7f2f6aa6dd8f8e596d69b14f8fa323

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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.

Shaken Baby Syndrome: Jesus Flores; James Lee Saltmarshall; Eugene Anthony Wright; Jovannee Reynolds; (Up-dates: Jennifer Del Prete; Stephanie Spurgeon); Shaking accusations gone wrong: Another excellent post by Sue Luttner (On SBS); It details a series of legal developments in the past few weeks highlights the devastating effects of misguided abuse diagnoses on innocent families.

POST: "Shaking accusations gone wrong," by Sue Luttner, published by 'On SBS' on July 21, 2107.

GIST:  A series of legal developments in the past few weeks highlights the devastating effects of misguided abuse diagnoses on innocent families: In Sacramento, California, father Jesus Flores was found innocent in June of shaking his son Mason, but despite the verdict, Mason is being adopted by another family. Flores lost parental rights during the years he spent in jail awaiting trial.........Another disturbing video was released last week in Detroit, showing a father’s pain at learning that his daughter had died—information he heard in open court when he was charged with her rape and murder. (On the page with the print coverage, scroll down to the second large graphic for the video.) James Lee Saltmarshall, 22, has now been released, after an autopsy disproved the medical findings that had triggered the charges against him.........In South Carolina, meanwhile, Wayne County dropped charges against an accused father who’d been in jail for two years—and indicted the babysitter instead. As summarized by reporter Angie Jackson in The Post and Courier: Eugene Anthony Wright, 49, was initially charged with homicide by child abuse. At the time of his daughter’s death, he was accused of slamming her to the floor in his Dorchester Gardens apartment in North Charleston. The Attorney General’s Office said after further investigation, it was determined that Wright could not have committed the crime and the charge has been dismissed..........In a long-lingering case in California, foster mother Jovannee Reynolds has been sentenced to four years of probation, after a plea bargain in which she “took responsibility” for the death seven years ago of a days-old baby named Mikayla who quit breathing in her care............(Up-dates:  The Medill Justice Project has published a poignant look at the effects of his mother’s incarceration on the son of child care provider Jennifer Del Prete, released in 2014, after a successful appeal of her 2005 conviction. A Florida court has agreed to hear an appeal by the Innocence Project of Florida on behalf of child care provider Stephanie Spurgeon, in prison on a manslaughter conviction in a shaking case. See the Tampa Bay Times coverage.) The above is but a summary. It is well worth reading  every word of Sue Luttner's description of each of these cases. (HL);

The entire post can be found at:
https://onsbs.com/2017/07/21/shaking-accusations-gone-wrong/

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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.

Legal experts to judges: Be be more skeptical of forensic methods that don’t pass scientific muster: Courthouse News reports on judicial conference..."Trial judges should be more skeptical of forensic methods that don’t pass scientific muster, a panel of legal experts told judges at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference on Tuesday. Jennifer Mnookin, dean of the UCLA School of Law, said Tuesday that popular culture, particularly TV shows like “CSI,” have led juries to believe forensic evidence is authoritative and almost always reliable. That simply isn’t true, she said. “Faulty forensic science is the second most frequently found contributing cause [of DNA exonerations], second only to eyewitness identifications that turn out to be erroneous,” she said. Forensic techniques like fingerprint identification, bite marks, ballistics, hair and footprint analysis were all called into question in a Barack Obama administration report last year by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. It debunked decades of forensic practices, saying evidence needs to be empirically and independently tested multiple times in order to determine its scientific validity. “It must take scientific study to make a field scientifically reliable,” Mnookin said. “Experience, no matter how extensive, could not be a substitute for scientific study.”

STORY: "Skepticism of Forensic Methods Urged at 9th Circuit Conference," published by Courthouse News on July 18, 2017. Thanks to Dr. Mike Bowers (CSIDDS Forensics in Focus)  for bringing this to our attention:

GIST: "Trial judges should be more skeptical of forensic methods that don’t pass scientific muster, a panel of legal experts told judges at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference on Tuesday. Jennifer Mnookin, dean of the UCLA School of Law, said Tuesday that popular culture, particularly TV shows like “CSI,” have led juries to believe forensic evidence is authoritative and almost always reliable. That simply isn’t true, she said. “Faulty forensic science is the second most frequently found contributing cause [of DNA exonerations], second only to eyewitness identifications that turn out to be erroneous,” she said. Forensic techniques like fingerprint identification, bite marks, ballistics, hair and footprint analysis were all called into question in a Barack Obama administration report last year by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. It debunked decades of forensic practices, saying evidence needs to be empirically and independently tested multiple times in order to determine its scientific validity. “It must take scientific study to make a field scientifically reliable,” Mnookin said. “Experience, no matter how extensive, could not be a substitute for scientific study.”
Law enforcement agencies were quick to challenge the PCAST report when it was released this past September, but Tuesday’s panel urged judges to strongly consider the report when deciding whether to admit forensic evidence in criminal trials. “PCAST was truly directed at the courts,” Los Angeles Deputy Public Defender Jennifer Friedman said. “It was not intended to tell the people in this room how to decide cases, but to discuss and explain the intersection of scientific validity and legal reliability.” Friedman said a real tension has developed between science and the courts. While science is always looking forward, questioning hypotheses and retesting methods, the courts tend to look backwards at precedent to ensure fairness. “But we have an opportunity in the courts to drive the science in a direction that many scientists really do want to go,” Friedman said.........Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski said like many judges and others in the legal community, he had long accepted the idea that certain forensic methods were virtually infallible. But he said a 2005 article in Science Magazine made him question his long-held beliefs. “It went through, step by step, various methods of forensic evidence used in criminal cases and just showed that when you subject them to tests of scientific validity they turn to be doubtful and all the way down to completely useless,” he said. “Bite marks turn out to be completely useless, bullet fragments tend to be highly unreliable. Fingerprints, which I thought were the standard of validity, turn out to have a significant error rate when you test them against unknown samples.” He added, “The PCAST report addresses some of these issues and I thought it was a step forward in bringing all of us to a conclusion that maybe we need to do a better job, because after all this is not a situation where we’re dealing with just technicalities but we’re dealing with the question of whether people are guilty or innocent.” Meanwhile, defense lawyers need to start raising concerns about forensic evidence with judges, Kozinski said. “I think there’s a reluctance to put to the test scientific evidence put on by the prosecution. Many defense lawyers, like the rest of us, grew up with fingerprints, bite marks and footprint evidence and simply accept it as being inherently valid and not worth challenging,” he said. “And if judges don’t have the issue presented, it’s difficult for a judge. Many judges are reluctant to say – if the lawyers don’t raise the issue – have you thought about the scientific validity of this.” An even bigger problem, Friedman added, was that there aren’t a lot of scientific experts out there who are available or willing to testify. “It’s challenging to find experts,” she said. “And we don’t always represent the most enviable clients.”"

The entire story can be found at:

https://www.courthousenews.com/skepticism-forensic-methods-urged-9th-circuit-conference/

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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.

David Bain: New Zealand; 10-part Podcast - 'Black Hands' - examining the Bain family murders, by journalist Martin van Beynen, to be launched July 24, Stuff reports...(Link to first installment); Why the David Bain story needed to be told one more time..." He wasn't a podcast listener before, but he's listened to many now, and reckons this one's pretty good. He doesn't want to give too much away, but there's some fascinating new material from the diaries of Bain's mother Margaret and new interviews from people who knew David well........."This is New Zealand's most talked-about case, maybe its most sensational case and yet I'm not sure that people really understand what the facts are. That was one of the reasons – to make sure there was a balanced account out there somewhere."

STORY:  "Why the David Bain story needed to be told one more time,"  by reporter Adam Dudding, published by Stuff on July 22, 2017.

GIST: "Black Hands, a 10-part podcast series examining the complex and controversial Bain family murders by award-winning Stuff journalist Martin van Beynen is launching on July 24. The slaughter at Every St, Dunedin, was 23 years ago. There have been two trials, numerous reviews, half a dozen books, a guilty verdict and a not-guilty verdict, millions of dollars spent and millions of litres of newspaper ink spilt since then. Seriously, is there anything left to say about the Bain family murders?

Actually, says veteran journalist Martin van Beynen, there is. Loads. So much in fact that on Monday, Stuff will release a 10-part podcast series, written and narrated by van Beynen, which will tell the strange story of the Bain family murders and their aftermath once again, starting with that disturbing 111 call of June 20 1994, when David Bain announced that his family – father Robin, mother Margaret and siblings Arawa, Laniet and Stephen – were "all dead". The series is called Black Hands, a reference to something Bain said to his aunt and uncle soon after the murders, when he read a news report and grew distressed, putting his head in his hands and repeatedly talking about "black hands taking them away". The Bain case, says van Beynen, is just one of those stories that is so complex and so unusual that the public fascination never ends, even after all those books and the wall-to-wall trial coverage including a famous TV fist-pump, and the sequels concerning judges who disagreed, a payout that wasn't a payout and, most recently, a name-change and emigration. He's been following the Bain case in one way or another for two decades, and the podcast in particular has consumed a phenomenal amount of his time and attention. But he says it's wrong to assume he's obsessed with the case. People don't believe him when he says it, but "it's never been under my skin".

Martin van Beynen, veteran print journo and now a podcaster, has been following the Bain case for 20 years. This is just something that sometimes happens in journalism: you follow a case, and you develop some understanding of it so you keep getting asked to follow it, and then one day, without really meaning to, you discover you've become some kind of expert. Van Beynen's home is in Diamond Harbour on the south shore of Lyttelton Harbour, 45 winding minutes' drive south of central Christchurch.  Upstairs, the bedroom that used to belong to van Beynen's oldest son Jack (himself a Stuff journalist) is now Bain HQ. The single bed is covered in ringbinders of court transcripts and evidence files. A bookshelf contains five Bain-related titles, including three by Bain's longtime supporter Joe Karam. A pinboard by the bed holds a diagram of 65 Every Street complete with body outlines, an aerial photo of suburban Dunedin, and a blown-up photo of the Bain victims' joint headstone. Pinned alongside are van Beynen's scribbled notes to himself: "Why the keys in the red anorak?"; "Alibi – out on my round as normal"; "wash hands, clean up, 111". Van Beynen was aware, of course, of the sensational 1994 murder and the 1995 trial that found David guilty of killing his family. He was working at the Press in Christchurch and knew Dunedin from his days at the Otago Daily Times. But he didn't engage with the case journalistically until 1997, after former All Black Karam published David and Goliath, laying out the case for Bain's innocence. Van Beynen says he was assigned the Karam interview mainly because he happened to have a law degree, which meant he often got the justice-related yarns. The pair had a drink at the Crowne Plaza and at one point went to Karam's room so he could change. "I remember seeing him in his underpants in his hotel room, and I thought, this guy is really quite confident. No qualms about that at all." He was also impressed with Karam's book, but he did his own research and talked to reporters who'd covered the trial and were convinced of Bain's guilt, "so I balanced that against what Joe was saying." After the piece ran, Karam "said I was the 'most conscientious journalist in New Zealand'. He wouldn't say that now." Then in 2009, the Bain retrial came to Christchurch, and van Beynen was sent to cover all 12 weeks. It was a national obsession, and feeding the demand was a hard slog: online updates six times a day, something fresh for the daily print story, plus a weekend feature wrap-up. He wasn't the only reporter there for the entire retrial, but once it was over, and Bain was found not guilty, he did something out of the ordinary. He'd been chatting with Fairfax's then-executive editor Paul Thompson about how the jury seemed to get it wrong second time around. Van Beynen had gone in with a reasonably open mind; he'd listened to all the same evidence as the jury, and as far as he was concerned, the evidence clearly pointed to Bain's guilt. "And Paul said, 'Why don't you write something for us?' So he did, and the response, says van Beynen, was amazing: hundreds of emails and phone calls and letters, mostly along the lines of: "This needed to be said." Van Beynen says he is in no way a campaigner or a crusader. "I was just a journalist who tried to cover the case in an honest way, and I came up with some conclusions.".........Because that's how this podcast began its life: from 2014 to 2016 van Beynen researched and wrote a 100,000 word manuscript that contained significant new research and told, for the first time, the entire Bain story. When a publishing deal fell through van Beynen thought it was destined for a bottom drawer, but Fairfax's South Island editor-in-chief Joanna Norris reckoned it might make a great podcast. Van Beynen said yes, and the rest – including a horrifying realisation that podcasts are totally different from books, a 50,000-word trim, a total rewrite, many hours in a recording studio, battles with Bain's legal team over access to the courtroom audio from the trials, more edits and fresh interviews with sources – is history. He wasn't a podcast listener before, but he's listened to many now, and reckons this one's pretty good. He doesn't want to give too much away, but there's some fascinating new material from the diaries of Bain's mother Margaret and new interviews from people who knew David well........."This is New Zealand's most talked-about case, maybe its most sensational case and yet I'm not sure that people really understand what the facts are. That was one of the reasons – to make sure there was a balanced account out there somewhere."

The story can be found at:'

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/93827727/martin-van-beynen-why-the-david-bain-story-needed-to-be-told-one-more-time

 

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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.

Annie Dookhan: Sonja Farak: Massachusetts: Misconduct complaints filed against two former state prosecutors (Anne Kaczmarek and Kris Foster) who worked on the Farak case, after a judge ruled that they had committed egregious misconduct; Kaczmarek, now a Suffolk County assistant clerk magistrate, led the prosecution of former forensic chemist Sonja Farak, who pleaded guilty in 2014 to stealing from the evidence locker to feed her addiction to narcotics. Kaczmarek also directed the state’s prosecution of chemist Annie Dookhan. Foster, now general counsel for the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, fielded motions from defendants whose cases involved drug samples that were analyzed by Farak. At hearings held in December, Foster admitted to writing a “vague” letter to another judge about reviewing evidence seized from a search of Farak’s car. Carey found that both prosecutors withheld key evidence “through deception,” such that another judge incorrectly ruled that Farak’s on-the-job drug use extended back just a few months. Many defendants in cases in which Farak analyzed evidence outside that time frame were denied the opportunity to appeal their cases. But materials obtained by state troopers indicated Farak had used drugs in the lab for at least a year before her arrest. These documents were not disclosed to the court or defendants until several months after Farak went to prison. Farak later testified that her substance abuse stretched back several years earlier. "..."

STORY: "Misconduct complaints filed against former state prosecutors, by reporter Shawn Musgrave, published by The Boston Globe on July 21, 2017.

PHOTO CAPTION: "Sonja Farak stood during her arraignment in 2013. A Springfield judge determined that two former state prosecutors who worked on her case committed egregious misconduct."

GIST:  "The state bar has been asked to investigate two former state prosecutors who worked on the case of a former state chemist at the Amherst drug lab, a month after a Springfield judge determined that the lawyers committed egregious misconduct. In a decision that resulted in dismissal of drug charges against several defendants, Judge Richard J. Carey of Hampden County Superior Court ruled that the two former prosecutors, Anne Kaczmarek and Kris Foster, deliberately concealed documents and made misrepresentations to another judge. Carey found their conduct “constitutes a fraud upon the court.” “Their intentional and deceptive actions ensured that justice would certainly be delayed, if not outright denied, and in the process, they violated their oaths as assistant attorneys general and officers of the court,” Carey wrote. Complaint letters that cite Carey’s ruling were written by Nina Morrison, an attorney with the Innocence Project, a legal services and criminal justice reform group based in New York, and Daniel Medwed, a professor at the Northeastern University School of Law. The complaints were filed with the Office of Bar Counsel, which investigates claims of misconduct by Massachusetts attorneys. The letters ask the state bar to conduct an investigation into whether the former prosecutors violated ethical rules for attorneys and warrant some kind of sanction. “No lawyer, especially one with the power and responsibility of an assistant attorney general, should be immune from investigation for ethical violations,” Morrison and Medwed wrote. The accused attorneys, who no longer work for the state attorney general’s office, did not respond to requests for comment. The attorney general’s office declined to comment. Kaczmarek, now a Suffolk County assistant clerk magistrate, led the prosecution of former forensic chemist Sonja Farak, who pleaded guilty in 2014 to stealing from the evidence locker to feed her addiction to narcotics. Kaczmarek also directed the state’s prosecution of chemist Annie Dookhan. Foster, now general counsel for the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, fielded motions from defendants whose cases involved drug samples that were analyzed by Farak. At hearings held in December, Foster admitted to writing a “vague” letter to another judge about reviewing evidence seized from a search of Farak’s car. Carey found that both prosecutors withheld key evidence “through deception,” such that another judge incorrectly ruled that Farak’s on-the-job drug use extended back just a few months. Many defendants in cases in which Farak analyzed evidence outside that time frame were denied the opportunity to appeal their cases. But materials obtained by state troopers indicated Farak had used drugs in the lab for at least a year before her arrest. These documents were not disclosed to the court or defendants until several months after Farak went to prison. Farak later testified that her substance abuse stretched back several years earlier. Kaczmarek acknowledged that she made mistakes in handling the evidence, while Foster defended her actions as stemming from her supervisors’ directions."

The entire story can be found at:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/07/21/misconduct-complaints-filed-against-former-state-prosecutors/7Z0nswU64coUDTrNgkDzSP/story.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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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.

Arson 'science': David Lee Gavitt; Cameron Todd Willingham; California Innocence Project discusses the role of innocence projects in reviewing fire investigation, shattered 'myths' and some of the cases in which innocence projects have found convictions based on the unscientific methods of fire investigators..." Until recently, arson cases often relied on now widely discredited methods of fire cause analysis. Early fire investigations were based on apprentice based teaching passed down through generations of investigators experienced in fire analysis or firefighting. This knowledge was largely based on observation and intuition, not actual science. Many indicators of an intentional fire (e.g., burn patterns, presence of an accelerant, windown cracking, etc.) were never questioned. The problem with this approach is that it could lead a fire investigator to the wrong conclusion and wrongfully accuse a person. In addition, there were no consistent requirements for what types of science background or educational background an investigator was required to have. New forms of fire investigation are now based on laboratory science to determine whether the prior myths about the causes of fire are valid. Scientists are now conducting experiments and studying the fire patterns. The findings has shattered dozens of arson myths as the science improves."

POST: "Fire Investigation," currently posted  by The California Innocence Project on its website.

GIST:  "Fire investigation is the analysis of fire-related incidents.  Investigators need to determine whether a fire was accidental or intentional.  If an intentional arson fire was set, the investigator’s findings will lead to criminal charges.  If the fire resulted in deaths, then a person will be charged with murder.  Until recently, arson cases often relied on now widely discredited methods of fire cause analysis.  Early fire investigations were based on apprentice based teaching passed down through generations of investigators experienced in fire analysis or firefighting.  This knowledge was largely based on observation and intuition, not actual science.  Many indicators of an intentional fire (e.g., burn patterns, presence of an accelerant, windown cracking, etc.) were never questioned.  The problem with this approach is that it could lead a fire investigator to the wrong conclusion and wrongfully accuse a person. In addition, there were no consistent requirements for what types of science background or educational background an investigator was required to have. New forms of fire investigation are now based on laboratory science to determine whether the prior myths about the causes of fire are valid.  Scientists are now conducting experiments and studying the fire patterns.  The findings has shattered dozens of arson myths as the science improves.  Many are also pushing for higher standards for arson investigators, such as having a chemistry or physics background  Also, in 2000, a publication of the National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 921 (“Guide for Fire and Explosive Investigations”), became widely accepted as providing the standards and knowledge needed to be a competent fire investigator. Innocence projects have reviewed numerous arson convictions and found many of these convictions to be based on the unscientific methods of fire investigators.  Investigators have come to their conclusions based on arson “indicators” which are now disputed after laboratory experiments. A 2012 case from Michigan illlustrates the use of new scientific research in an exoneration.  David Lee Gavitt was released on June 5, 2012 after spending 26 years in prison after being convicted of arson and three counts of the first degree murder of his wife and children.  His conviction was overturned based on new analysis of the 1985 fire that engulfed Gavitt’s home.  The experts concluded that a flashover (a phenomenon where a fire burns to eventually explode and engulf an entire room) occurred.  The flashover phenomenon had not yet been discovered in 1985 when the Gavitt’s home caught fire.  Moreover, the 1985 forensic fire technician misread reports, and the assertion of the presence of gasoline was wrong.  John Lentini, one of the nation’s leading arson scientists, said in an affidavit that the experts “bundled [arson] myths together” and “in light of modern fire science, there is simply not one shred of credible evidence that the fire. . . was intentionally set.” In Texas, the application of new science was not as well-received. Cameron Todd Willingham was found guilty of the murder of his three daughters in a house fire he allegedly set in 1991 and sentenced to death.  Prosecutors insisted Willingham intentionally set fire to his own home in order to kill his three daughters because fire investigators at the time determined the fire was arson.  Willingham consistently declared his innocence.  Based on expert testimony and a jailhouse informant who said Willingham had confessed, Willingham was found guilty.  In 2004, after fire analysis techniques were developed with scientific investigation, nationally recognized expert Gerald Hurst reanalyzed Willingham’s case and determined the prior expert forensic fire testimony was incorrect.  State officials did not act on the new reports and Willingham was executed in 2004. Each year, more arson cases are being re-examined by innocence projects and the application of the new scientific research should lead to more exonerations."

The entire post can be found at:

https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/fire-investigation/

See also "Simple fire science for arson investigators and courts by John Lentini  at the link below: (Thanks to Dr. Mike Bowers of CSIDDS (Forensics in Focus) for bringing this article to our attention);
https://csidds.com/2017/07/13/simple-fire-science-for-arson-investigators-and-courts-by-john-lentini/

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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.