Radley Balko: A memorable column on the late Robert O'Block: "The emperor of junk science forensics has died."..." Once again, Radley Balko has written a column that defies reduction and must be read word by word...This is Radley Balko in top form. It's the real thing!" HL);

COMMENTARY: "The emperor of junk science forensics has died," by Radley Balko, published in his column 'The Watch' by the Washington Post, on August 31, 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:  Once again, Radley Balko has written a column that defies reduction and must be read word by word. However, to give you a taste, the first two paragraphs read:  "According to local news reports, 66-year-old Robert O’Block died late last month in an apparent murder-suicide. It appears that O’Block shot himself after shooting and killing his 27-year-old girlfriend. It is a strange, tragic and violent end to a truly bizarre life. O’Block was the founder and chief executive of the American College of Forensic Examiners Institute (ACFEI), which claims to be the largest forensics organization in the world. It may well be. But the group’s impressive size is as much a warning for the rest of us as it was an accomplishment for O’Block — because the rise of O’Block and the ACFEI embodies everything that’s wrong with how forensics is used in the American criminal-justice system." This story of the narcissistic founder of a dubious credentials certification  program  - which was enabled by a flaw in America's justice system that Balko describes in detail - even contains a timely reference to President Donald Trump. (I can't  resist throwing in this paragraph: "According to O’Block’s Facebook account, he was a vocal supporter of Donald Trump. That makes some sense. One of the first policies of the Trump Justice Department was to end its partnership with the National Commission on Forensic Science, a group whose aim was to bring scientific scrutiny to forensics." So read on dear readers. This is Radley Balko in top form. It's the real thing!!"

The entire commentary can be found at:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/08/31/the-emperor-of-junk-science-forensics-has-died/?utm_term=.c4b933433968

See CSI DDS (Forensics in Focus)  related post, headed:  "A forensic fraudster personfied: In depth look at the ACFE. (American College of Forensic Examiners)."..."Back in the 90’s I got into it with the American College of Forensic Examiners Inc regarding its ‘diplomate mill’ of certifying dentists as being forensics qualified. Past AAFS President Mary Fran Ernst led the battle to track and counter-act the meandering path of this group’s attempt to self-certify itself as acceptable expertise in US courts." Dr. Michael Bowers.

 https://csidds.com/2017/08/31/a-forensic-fraudster-personified-in-depth-look-at-acfe-founder/

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;

Fran and Dan Keller: Texas: Excellent contextual piece by reporter Avi Salk (Washington Post: "Falsely accused of satanic horrors, a couple spent 21 years in prison. Now they’re owed millions."..."The “satanic panic,” some call it now. It began some time in the 1980s, when newscasters and fundamentalist Christian cartoons warned of the evils of the role-playing game “Dungeons and Dragons,” and stretched into the 1990s, when police and psychiatrists saw thousands of unfounded accusations of ritualistic sex abuse and children were seized from British parents accused of devil worship. One case still stands out. “This country hasn’t seen anything like it since the Salem witch trials,” Texas Monthly wrote in 1994, in a profile of Austin day-care operators Dan and Fran Keller, who had been thrown in prison two years earlier. The Kellers had been convicted of sexual assault in 1992. Children from their day-care center accused them — variously — of serving blood-laced Kool Aid; wearing white robes; cutting the heart out of a baby; flying children to Mexico to be raped by soldiers; using Satan’s arm as a paintbrush; burying children alive with animals; throwing them in a swimming pool with sharks; shooting them; and resurrecting them after they had been shot. They were hardly the only people to be accused by children during the panic. Many were exonerated long ago — like the 20 people wrongly convicted in the infamous Kern County sex abuse cases. Some now blame the phenomenon on “a quack cadre of psychotherapists who were convinced that they could dig up buried memories through hypnosis,” as Radley Balko wrote in a column for The Washington Post. But the Kellers suffered for decades."

STORY: "Falsely accused of satanic horrors, a couple spent 21 years in prison. Now they’re owed millions," by reporter Avi Salk, published by The Wasington Post on August 26, 2017. (Avi Selk is an American-Canadian nomad. He reported for the Dallas Morning News from 2009 until December 2016, when he joined the general assignment desk.)

PHOTO CAPTION: "Dan and Fran Keller were wrongfully accused of child sexual assault and accused of practicing satanism in 1992.

GIST: Long before the age of the Internet and the fleeting spasms of mass hysteria that came with it (Remember Jade Helm? Pizzagate?), and going back to the late 20th century, when irrational fears moved slower and lasted longer, there was Satan. The “satanic panic,” some call it now. It began some time in the 1980s, when newscasters and fundamentalist Christian cartoons warned of the evils of the role-playing game “Dungeons and Dragons,” and stretched into the 1990s, when police and psychiatrists saw thousands of unfounded accusations of ritualistic sex abuse and children were seized from British parents accused of devil worship. One case still stands out.
“This country hasn’t seen anything like it since the Salem witch trials,” Texas Monthly wrote in 1994, in a profile of Austin day-care operators Dan and Fran Keller, who had been thrown in prison two years earlier. The Kellers had been convicted of sexual assault in 1992. Children from their day-care center accused them — variously — of serving blood-laced Kool Aid; wearing white robes; cutting the heart out of a baby; flying children to Mexico to be raped by soldiers; using Satan’s arm as a paintbrush; burying children alive with animals; throwing them in a swimming pool with sharks; shooting them; and resurrecting them after they had been shot. They were hardly the only people to be accused by children during the panic. Many were exonerated long ago — like the 20 people wrongly convicted in the infamous Kern County sex abuse cases. Some now blame the phenomenon on “a quack cadre of psychotherapists who were convinced that they could dig up buried memories through hypnosis,” as Radley Balko wrote in a column for The Washington Post. But the Kellers suffered for decades. They served nearly 22 years in prison before a court released them in 2013, after years of work by journalists and lawyers to expose what proved to be a baseless case against them. And only now — when Fran Keller is 67 and Dan is 75 — has the couple been fully exonerated. Their 1992 case was finally dismissed in June after a district attorney declared them innocent. This week, the Austin American-Statesman reported, they were awarded $3.4 million from a state fund — a belated attempt to refund a quarter-century that they lost to the delusions of other people. “We can start living,” Fran Keller told the newspaper after learning of the award Tuesday. “No more nightmares.” Read on - at the link below - for Selk's superb account of the incredible (in every sense of the word) evidence which led to the convictions - and for the Keller's struggle for redemption)."

The entire story can be found at:

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/08/24/accused-of-satanism-they-spent-21-years-in-prison-they-were-just-declared-innocent-and-were-paid-millions/?utm_term=.fff7b5ffdedc

 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;

Independent criminal case review: (3): Stephen Simmons. U.K. An example of the British Criminal Cases Review Commission in action - in a disturbing case where a 'bent' police officer could be key to clearing a man's name '40 years on. - 'How a ‘bent’ policeman could be key to clearing a man’s name, 40 years on. - "Having learned all this, Simmons approached the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which examined his case and has now referred it to the court of appeal. A CCRC spokesman has described the case as “highly unusual” because of the timescale. “I have never even been able to tell my two daughters about this,” says Simmons, “but I saw a psychiatrist who said that I should pursue it or I would never get over it. “That man Ridgewell ruined three lives for no reason and I am sure many, many more, and if this can help someone else who was also arrested by him then at least something will have been achieved. Trew, who still lives in south London, also hopes that Simmons’s story will remind people of the damage that one rogue police officer can cause to people’s lives. “I was elated when I was contacted by the CCRC about the case,” says Trew, who became a university lecturer in sociology. “It has been a long time coming.”

STORY: "How a ‘bent’ policeman could be key to clearing a man’s name, 40 years on," by reporter Duncan Campbell, published by The Guardian on August 28, 2017.

SUB-HEADING: "Stephen Simmons says he was wrongly jailed for mailbag theft in 1976. He was advised to Google the arresting officer, and discovered a disturbing history"

GIST: "Even Stephen Simmons’s own parents did not believe him when he told them he was completely innocent of a mailbag theft for which he was convicted and jailed back in 1976. But now, more than four decades later in a landmark case, he is hopeful that his name will finally be cleared after it emerged that the police officer who arrested him was not only a mailbag thief himself but also notorious for a series of high-profile cases that had major ramifications for race relations. Simmons, now 62 and a businessman living outside Dorking in Surrey, was out with a couple of friends in Clapham, south London, just after midnight in June 1975. They were in his car when DS Derek Ridgewell of the British Transport Police (BTP) and two colleagues approached out of the blue. They were taken in for questioning about stolen mailbags. “We knew nothing at all about it,” says Simmons, reliving the arrest at the home he shares with his wife, Sue. “But when I was being questioned, Ridgewell threw a trophy – something like a football cup – at me. It hit me on the chest and it dropped to the ground and he said: ‘Pick it up.’ I almost did but for some reason I stopped and he said: ‘Very clever.’” But not clever enough. Although there were no stolen goods in the car, Ridgewell would claim in court that Simmons had said: “We hadn’t got a chance to load it in the motor so don’t plant fuck all in it.” They were given a duty solicitor. “He told us that if we called the police liars the judge would send us to prison for a very long time.” Nonetheless, they pleaded not guilty but were all convicted. Simmons was sent to Hollesley Bay borstal in Suffolk and served eight months. He lost his job at a laundry and his flat, but over the years since has managed to build up a successful business in audio and phone equipment for cars. However, the conviction has haunted him ever since. “Throughout my whole life I carried the shame for my imprisonment. One of the hardest things was that my parents – my father was disabled during the war and my mother worked six days a week as a cleaner in the hospital to bring up six children – didn’t believe that the police could lie and one of my own brothers still taunts me as a ‘train robber’,” says Simmons, who has suffered from ill-health ever since. One of his co-defendants, also damaged by the case, became an alcoholic and is now dead. Then one evening four years ago Simmons was listening to an LBC radio programme on legal matters in which the barrister Daniel Barnett answers questions. He rang in and asked for advice about trying to clear his name. “He said: ‘Have you ever thought of Googling the name of the officer?’ I did and was gobsmacked by what I discovered.” What emerged was that Ridgewell had himself been convicted of conspiracy to rob mailbags from the Royal Mail, was jailed for seven years in 1980 and had died in prison in 1982. What also emerged was that Ridgewell was responsible for a series of notorious cases in which young black men were falsely accused of robbery on the London underground. One of his victims was Winston Trew, who along with three others became known as the Oval Four and was jailed for two years at the Old Bailey in 1972. Trew has recently written a book about the case, Black for a Cause, in which he investigated Ridgewell’s extraordinary career. Using the Freedom of Information Act, Trew uncovered Ridgewell’s strange life, which turned out to be a cross between Life on Mars and a Joe Orton play. He had worked both for the BTP and in what was then southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). In London, he made a name for himself by arresting dozens of young black men for “mugging” on the underground, a high-profile issue in the 1970s. His technique was, dressed in plain clothes, to confront young black men, accuse them of robbing people on the tube, beat them up if they resisted arrest, make up a semi-confession and see the men convicted at the Old Bailey. His behaviour led to a series of causes célèbres. Along with the Oval Four, he arrested those known as the Stockwell Six, the Waterloo Four and the Tottenham Court Road Two. It was during the last of these cases that the courts finally realised something very odd was happening. The two young men arrested at Tottenham Court Road underground station were devout Jesuit students from Oxford University and the judge, Gwyn Morris, halted their trial in 1973 and said: “I find it terrible that here in London people using public transport should be pounced upon by police officers without a word.” In the wake of this bad publicity, Ridgewell was quietly moved off the undergound squad and given the job of investigating mail theft. He joined forces with a couple of career criminals with whom he split the proceeds from stolen mailbags before finally being arrested and jailed for seven years. Asked by the governor at Ford prison what had happened to him, his response was: “I just went bent.” At the age of 37, he suffered a heart attack in jail and died. Having learned all this, Simmons approached the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which examined his case and has now referred it to the court of appeal. A CCRC spokesman has described the case as “highly unusual” because of the timescale. “I have never even been able to tell my two daughters about this,” says Simmons, “but I saw a psychiatrist who said that I should pursue it or I would never get over it. “That man Ridgewell ruined three lives for no reason and I am sure many, many more, and if this can help someone else who was also arrested by him then at least something will have been achieved.” Trew, who still lives in south London, also hopes that Simmons’s story will remind people of the damage that one rogue police officer can cause to people’s lives. “I was elated when I was contacted by the CCRC about the case,” says Trew, who became a university lecturer in sociology. “It has been a long time coming.”

The entire story can be found at:

        https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/28/stephen-simmons-arrested-mailbag-theft-1976-hopes-clear-his-name
 

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;

Editorial; Independent criminal case review: (2): David Milgaard: (Saskatchewan): Donald Marshall; (Nova Scotia): Ivan Henry. (British Columbia); The Times Colonist calls for "closer scrutiny" of miscarriages of justice through independent criminal case review..." Part of the problem is that the same agencies that investigate and prosecute offenders must later be convinced they made a mistake. But law-enforcement officials and Crown prosecutors are only human. No one likes to admit an error, particularly if the implication is that an innocent victim was sent to prison. In 1995, after a series of such errors made headlines in Britain, the government there established a Criminal Cases Review Commission. Operating at arm’s length, the commission investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and can, when warranted, file an appeal. Last year, of 14 cases sent to the courts for reconsideration, half resulted in the original conviction being overturned. Might something of that sort work here?"

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Yesterday's post, on the Susan Neill-Fraser case, also stresses the need to establish an independent criminal cases review system in Australia - as a solution to the lack of political will when it comes to allegations of wrongful conviction:  "The reluctance of the political establishment to question the justice system in cases where wrongful conviction is alleged is common.........In South Australia, Henry Keogh, convicted of the murder of his girlfriend, spent two decades in prison despite his legal team presenting the South Australian government with compelling evidence, eventually accepted by the state’s highest court in 2014, of serious flaws in the forensic evidence used to convict him. The government of Labor Premier Mike Rann refused to allow Keogh justice because it was too busy burnishing its attacks on criminal defence lawyers and sounding tough on law and order. The solution to the lack of political will when it comes to allegations of wrongful conviction is to establish an independent criminal cases review commission. These bodies — one exists in Scotland and others in England and Wales — are at arm’s length from politics and enable a dispassionate, fair analysis of the claim. Such a commission process does not exist in Australia and the result is messy and political in cases such as Neill-Fraser’s. The legal system in a democratic society should not be afraid to say it got it wrong, or at least be open to scrutiny when such as claim is made."

EDITORIAL: Miscarriages of justice need closer scrutiny," by The Times Colonist, published  on August 26, 2017.

GIST: "Parole boards in Canada set great store on offenders admitting guilt before granting them release. Within reason, the policy makes good sense. Prisoners who are in denial about their actions, or who cannot discern right from wrong, are a threat to re-offend. Facing facts, in particular uncomfortable facts, is an important step toward rehabilitation. However, there are grounds for concern if the policy is taken too far. Our courts do a good job of sorting out the innocent from the guilty, but they are not infallible. In recent decades, more than a dozen Canadians have been convicted of high-profile crimes they did not commit, and these are just the cases we know of. Most, like David Milgaard, Donald Marshall and a Vancouver man, Ivan Henry, maintained their innocence throughout. Milgaard spent 23 years behind bars, Marshall 11 and Henry 27. Yet none were granted parole. Rather, they were released because new evidence came to light, or serious questions were raised about police or prosecutorial conduct. Had they relied on parole boards for their freedom, who can say how long they might have waited?...........This is only one aspect of a larger issue. Our justice system is heavily stacked against prisoners who wish to appeal. Again, there are good reasons for that. We are entitled to place confidence in the outcome of criminal trials. The defendants have every opportunity to establish their innocence; indeed, the benefit of the doubt is in their favour. But when a miscarriage of justice does occur, proving it is an uphill battle. Long before Milgaard was finally exonerated, serious doubts had been raised as to his guilt. But getting a hearing for those doubts proved to be a formidable task. Part of the problem is that the same agencies that investigate and prosecute offenders must later be convinced they made a mistake. But law-enforcement officials and Crown prosecutors are only human. No one likes to admit an error, particularly if the implication is that an innocent victim was sent to prison. In 1995, after a series of such errors made headlines in Britain, the government there established a Criminal Cases Review Commission. Operating at arm’s length, the commission investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and can, when warranted, file an appeal. Last year, of 14 cases sent to the courts for reconsideration, half resulted in the original conviction being overturned. Might something of that sort work here? Following Milgaard’s exoneration, the province of Saskatchewan set up a royal commission to look into the case. The commission recommended that the federal government create an independent body to review allegations of wrongful conviction, along the lines that Britain followed. To date, however, no such agency has been created. Parliament, it appears, is unwilling to entertain doubts on this subject. Yet our courts operate as much on a foundation of public trust as upon due process. And nothing shakes confidence more thoroughly than the suspicion that errors are being brushed under the carpet.

Then again, if our trial process cannot stand external scrutiny, just how robust is it? Milgaard, Marshall and Henry, collectively, spent 61 years in prison for crimes they did not commit. Some would say that’s reason enough to take a second look at the way we investigate miscarriages of justice."

The entire editorial can be found at:

• OBITUARIES
• Classifieds
• Autos
• Homes
• Jobs
• CELEBRATIONS
• Place An Ad
• Newspaper Ads

OBITUARIES Classifieds Autos Homes Jobs CELEBRATIONS Place An Ad Newspaper Ads Times Colonist Subscribe Manage Subscriptions News Canada 150 Opinion Business Sports Entertainment Life Driving Flyers E-edition WEB SIGN-IN Blogs Letters Editorial: Miscarriages of justice need closer scrutiny Times Colonist August 26, 2017 12:45 AM [Share via Email] [Print Article] Parole boards in Canada set great store on offenders admitting guilt before granting them release. Within reason, the policy makes good sense. Prisoners who are in denial about their actions, or who cannot discern right from wrong, are a threat to re-offend. Facing facts, in particular uncomfortable facts, is an important step toward rehabilitation. However, there are grounds for concern if the policy is taken too far. Our courts do a good job of sorting out the innocent from the guilty, but they are not infallible. In recent decades, more than a dozen Canadians have been convicted of high-profile crimes they did not commit, and these are just the cases we know of. Most, like David Milgaard, Donald Marshall and a Vancouver man, Ivan Henry, maintained their innocence throughout. Milgaard spent 23 years behind bars, Marshall 11 and Henry 27. Yet none were granted parole. Rather, they were released because new evidence came to light, or serious questions were raised about police or prosecutorial conduct. Had they relied on parole boards for their freedom, who can say how long they might have waited? Of course, cell blocks are full of prisoners who proclaim their innocence. No one suggests taking them at their word. Yet it’s unclear whether demanding confessions as a condition of parole is necessary in every case. Researchers in Britain found that prisoners who refused to admit guilt and were released anyway were less likely to re-offend than those who owned up. It’s possible the latter were simply gaming a system that some have learned to exploit. This is only one aspect of a larger issue. Our justice system is heavily stacked against prisoners who wish to appeal. Again, there are good reasons for that. We are entitled to place confidence in the outcome of criminal trials. The defendants have every opportunity to establish their innocence; indeed, the benefit of the doubt is in their favour. But when a miscarriage of justice does occur, proving it is an uphill battle. Long before Milgaard was finally exonerated, serious doubts had been raised as to his guilt. But getting a hearing for those doubts proved to be a formidable task. Part of the problem is that the same agencies that investigate and prosecute offenders must later be convinced they made a mistake. But law-enforcement officials and Crown prosecutors are only human. No one likes to admit an error, particularly if the implication is that an innocent victim was sent to prison. In 1995, after a series of such errors made headlines in Britain, the government there established a Criminal Cases Review Commission. Operating at arm’s length, the commission investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and can, when warranted, file an appeal. Last year, of 14 cases sent to the courts for reconsideration, half resulted in the original conviction being overturned. Might something of that sort work here? Following Milgaard’s exoneration, the province of Saskatchewan set up a royal commission to look into the case. The commission recommended that the federal government create an independent body to review allegations of wrongful conviction, along the lines that Britain followed. To date, however, no such agency has been created. Parliament, it appears, is unwilling to entertain doubts on this subject. Yet our courts operate as much on a foundation of public trust as upon due process. And nothing shakes confidence more thoroughly than the suspicion that errors are being brushed under the carpet. Then again, if our trial process cannot stand external scrutiny, just how robust is it? Milgaard, Marshall and Henry, collectively, spent 61 years in prison for crimes they did not commit. Some would say that’s reason enough to take a second look at the way we investigate miscarriages of justice. © Copyright Times Colonist by Taboola Sponsored Links You May Like The Last Wallet You'll Ever Use.RidgeWallet.com Car Cleaning Tricks Local Dealers Don't Want You To KnowKiwiReport This Game Will Keep You Up All Night!Vikings: Free Online Game Jo Polniaczek Was Gorgeous In The 80s, But What She Looks Like Today Is IncredibleOyDad Single in North York? See Who’s on MatchMatch.com Brinkley: Trump is 'unfit for command'CNN Money Community Event Calendar Find out what's happening in your community and submit your own local events. Add an event See all community events Popular Editorials Most Read Most Recent Editorial: Miscarriages of justice need closer scrutiny Editorial: Amalgamation page left blank Editorial: B.C. needs new vision for ferries Editorial: Better garbage attitude needed ICBC office photo Editorial: Stop siphoning off ICBC money Times Colonist News And Tools Life News Obituaries Newspaper Ads Job Listings Car Listings Properties For Sale Place An Ad Infomart Other myLOCALFLYERS.ca About Us Subscribe Victoria Early Years Contact Us Advertise With Us Terms and Conditions Sponsorship Information Connect Facebook image Twitter image LinkedIn image RSS image Back to top Glacier Community Media © Copyright 2013-2017 TC Publication Limited Partnership. All rights reserved. Unauthorized distribution, transmission or republication strictly prohibited. OBITUARIES Classifieds Autos Homes Jobs CELEBRATIONS Place An Ad Newspaper Ads

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-miscarriages-of-justice-need-closer-scrutiny-1.22176205

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: Independent criminal case review: (1): Human rights lawyer Greg Barns (Hobart) says the appeal of her conviction puts the Tasmanian legal system on trial..."The importance of the case cannot be overestimated. It has attracted the likes of eminent journalists such as Charles Wooley, who revealed last Saturday week that Premier Will Hodgman refused to entertain a compelling argument from one of Australia’s best criminal barristers, Robert Richter QC, for an independent inquiry into the case. Several days after Wooley and the Mercury’s Patrick Billings reported on the case, it got front page billing in The Age. Nick McKenzie, who has broken many stories of consequence over the years, often with the ABC’s Four Corners program, set out the machinations of the case, including the recent development of Tasmania Police charging individuals who could be said to be supportive of Neill-Fraser, prior to the forthcoming hearing on the case in the Supreme Court. Wooley reported that, when Richter presented Hodgman, Acting Attorney-General Matthew Groom and their advisers with a request for an independent investigation into the case to be undertaken by an eminent lawyer from outside this small state, one of Richter’s team observed that the politicians and their advisers “looked like they had consumed sour milk”. “They were very dismissive,” Wooley relayed that this unnamed person had said. Richter presented a report to the politicians that dealt with, in detail, an alternative scenario about how Neill-Fraser’s husband died. The reluctance of the political establishment to question the justice system in cases where wrongful conviction is alleged is common."

 

COMMENTARY:  "The appeal of Sue Neill-Fraser’s murder conviction puts the Tasmanian legal system on trial," by Greg Barns, published by The Mercury on August 27, 2017. (Barrister Greg Barns is a Hobart-based human rights lawyer. He was previously an adviser to state and federal Liberal governments.)

GIST: The case of Sue Neill-Fraser is a hard one for the legal system in Tasmania. To date, the political reaction to it has been all too predictable and disappointing. For the record, this columnist was once a member of the Neill-Fraser legal team and has stayed in touch with the case and its advisers. Whether Neill-Fraser’s conviction should be overturned is a matter for the Supreme Court to determine and therefore not the subject of this column. What is a legitimate focus for broader community discussion is how society deals with cases where there is an allegation of wrongful conviction and, particularly, the political response. It is fair to say politicians and those who advise them are generally not enamoured of upsetting the criminal justice process on behalf of persons who allege they have been wrongfully convicted. Neill-Fraser was convicted in 2010 of the murder of her husband. She maintained her innocence at her trial and she, along with a strong supporter group and legal team, are seeking to have her conviction overturned. The case is inherently controversial because it is what we call a wrongful conviction case. That is, it is a case where the argument is that the legal process was flawed. If Neill-Fraser has her conviction overturned — and to reiterate, that is a matter for another forum — the conclusion that must be drawn is that in this case justice was not done and a woman lost her liberty for a number of years (she has been in prison since 2010) on the basis of a flawed verdict. The importance of the case cannot be overestimated. It has attracted the likes of eminent journalists such as Charles Wooley, who revealed last Saturday week that Premier Will Hodgman refused to entertain a compelling argument from one of Australia’s best criminal barristers, Robert Richter QC, for an independent inquiry into the case. Several days after Wooley and the Mercury’s Patrick Billings reported on the case, it got front page billing in The Age. Nick McKenzie, who has broken many stories of consequence over the years, often with the ABC’s Four Corners program, set out the machinations of the case, including the recent development of Tasmania Police charging individuals who could be said to be supportive of Neill-Fraser, prior to the forthcoming hearing on the case in the Supreme Court. Wooley reported that, when Richter presented Hodgman, Acting Attorney-General Matthew Groom and their advisers with a request for an independent investigation into the case to be undertaken by an eminent lawyer from outside this small state, one of Richter’s team observed that the politicians and their advisers “looked like they had consumed sour milk”. “They were very dismissive,” Wooley relayed that this unnamed person had said. Richter presented a report to the politicians that dealt with, in detail, an alternative scenario about how Neill-Fraser’s husband died. The reluctance of the political establishment to question the justice system in cases where wrongful conviction is alleged is common.........In South Australia, Henry Keogh, convicted of the murder of his girlfriend, spent two decades in prison despite his legal team presenting the South Australian government with compelling evidence, eventually accepted by the state’s highest court in 2014, of serious flaws in the forensic evidence used to convict him. The government of Labor Premier Mike Rann refused to allow Keogh justice because it was too busy burnishing its attacks on criminal defence lawyers and sounding tough on law and order. The solution to the lack of political will when it comes to allegations of wrongful conviction is to establish an independent criminal cases review commission. These bodies — one exists in Scotland and others in England and Wales — are at arm’s length from politics and enable a dispassionate, fair analysis of the claim. Such a commission process does not exist in Australia and the result is messy and political in cases such as Neill-Fraser’s. The legal system in a democratic society should not be afraid to say it got it wrong, or at least be open to scrutiny when such as claim is made."

The entire commentary can be found at:

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/the-appeal-of-sue-neillfrasers-murder-conviction-puts-the-tasmanian-legal-system-on-trial/news-story/1809d4e3fea050dfae860a96a5a05cec

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;

Radley Balko; Kennedy Brewer Levon Brooks: Mississippi; Robert Lee Stinson; Wisconsin; Conflicting federal court decisions on issue as to whether bite-mark experts can be granted qualified immunity in civil lawsuits..."."And yet, all this time later, four things remain true. 1: It remains nearly impossible for wrongly convicted people to hold junk science practitioners accountable in court. 2:T o this day, prosecutors still use and defend bite-mark evidence, and courts still allow it into evidence. 3:To this day, no court in the United States has upheld a challenge to the validity of bite-mark evidence. 4: When it comes to the controlling case law on whether bite-mark evidence should be allowed in court, the Stinson decision is still the authority in Wisconsin, and Brewer is still the authority in Mississippi......"When an innocent person is convicted, the legal system seems to bend itself into contortions to shield the expert witnesses who helped convict that person from liability. That’s understandable. If expert witnesses are subjected to real liability for their opinions, they’ll be reluctant to testify. Some should be reluctant. But it might discourage more legitimate experts, too. So instead, the system also feels obligated to shield obvious quacks from the extremely sympathetic people they’ve harmed. Here, there was a rare win for a wrongly convicted man. But he’ll still need to convince a jury. And for every Robert Lee Stinson, there are many more Kennedy Brewers and Levon Brookses. The odd thing is, all of this could be prevented, or at least diminished. If the courts diverted half the time and energy they spend cleaning up after these charlatans toward preventing them from testifying in the first place, there would be far fewer sympathetic exonorees to file lawsuits. Unfortunately, that’s a lesson the courts seem incapable of learning."

COMMENTARY:  "Federal appeals court refuses qualified immunity for bite-mark experts," by Radley Balko, published by The Washington Post on August 23, 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: A couple months ago, I wrote about a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which held that expert witnesses Steven Hayne and Michael West, while perhaps grossly negligent, could not be sued by the two innocent men their testimony wrongly put in prison, because they were protected by qualified immunity. The wrongly convicted men had to show either recklessness or intentional misconduct, and the court found that what Hayne and West did in those cases didn’t meet that standard. Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit issued its own ruling in a lawsuit against two bite-mark experts. This one turned out differently.The case is from Wisconsin, and the wrongly convicted man is Robert Lee Stinson. I wrote about the case in a 2015 series on bite mark evidence. Here’s a summary.......(The rest of this  incisive commentary deserves to be read word by word. But I will direct the reader to Balko's illuminating conclusion. HL).........."And yet, all this time later, four things remain true. 1: It remains nearly impossible for wrongly convicted people to hold junk science practitioners accountable in court. 2:To this day, prosecutors still use and defend bite-mark evidence, and courts still allow it into evidence. 3:To this day, no court in the United States has upheld a challenge to the validity of bite-mark evidence. 4: When it comes to the controlling case law on whether bite-mark evidence should be allowed in court, the Stinson decision is still the authority in Wisconsin, and Brewer is still the authority in Mississippi.
When an innocent person is convicted, the legal system seems to bend itself into contortions to shield the expert witnesses who helped convict that person from liability. That’s understandable. If expert witnesses are subjected to real liability for their opinions, they’ll be reluctant to testify. Some should be reluctant. But it might discourage more legitimate experts, too. So instead, the system also feels obligated to shield obvious quacks from the extremely sympathetic people they’ve harmed. Here, there was a rare win for a wrongly convicted man. But he’ll still need to convince a jury. And for every Robert Lee Stinson, there are many more Kennedy Brewers and Levon Brookses. The odd thing is, all of this could be prevented, or at least diminished. If the courts diverted half the time and energy they spend cleaning up after these charlatans toward preventing them from testifying in the first place, there would be far fewer sympathetic exonorees to file lawsuits. Unfortunately, that’s a lesson the courts seem incapable of learning."

The entire commentary can be found at: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/08/23/federal-appeals-court-refuses-qualified-immunity-for-bite-mark-experts/?utm_term=.2e2ab3433d90

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;

Jeffrey Havard: Judge to decide if Mississippi should put Havard to death for a crime that never happened. A commentary by Bruce Fischer..."The truth in this case shows that the state of Mississippi is trying to put an innocent man to death for a crime that never happened. Current evidence, which goes far beyond the topic of SBS alone, shows that there is no longer any viable case against Jeff Havard. The original theory of the crime has been disproven. There is no evidence to suggest that the death of Chloe Britt was anything other than a tragic accident. If Judge Johnson rules in favor of a new trial, the State will most likely decide not to retry the case due to lack of evidence. Knowing this should give people pause. If justice is truly the goal, why is the state of Mississippi trying so hard to uphold a faulty verdict in a death penalty case?"

  

COMMENTARY: "Judge to decide if Mississippi should put Jeffrey Havard to death for a crime that never happened," by Bruce Fischer, published by Wrongful Conviction News on August 26, 2017.

GIST: "Jeffrey “Jeff” Havard currently sits wrongfully convicted on death row in Mississippi for the sexual assault and murder of his girlfriend’s six-month-old daughter, Chloe Britt. Havard has stated from the beginning that the infant slipped from his arms while lifting her from the tub, causing her head to hit a nearby toilet. There is no evidence whatsoever to support a sexual assault charge. Multiple experts currently support Havard’s claims that Chloe’s death was the result of an accident. In May of 2016, the Mississippi Supreme Court ordered an evidentiary hearing for Havard’s case based on defense claims of new evidence due to changes in the science behind Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). Last week, after nearly 15 years of incarceration on death row, Havard finally had the opportunity to return to the courtroom of Adams County Circuit Court Judge Forrest Johnson, with renewed hope that the truth would finally be heard. Judge Johnson presided over Havard’s trial in 2002. The trial was speedy to say the least. Within a matter of two days, the court selected a jury, tried the case, received the jury’s verdict, and sentenced Havard to death. The jury heard from only one expert who testified for the prosecution. Havard asked for an expert of his own but the request was denied by Judge Johnson based on financial restraints of the county. At the time, indigent defendants were expected to rely on the prosecution’s expert if they could not personally afford their own. Havard’s 2002 trial was a sham. It is not possible to properly try a death penalty case in two days. To put things into perspective, last week’s evidentiary hearing took three days. The judge listened to testimony from four experts who testified for the defense, and also heard testimony from a pediatrician who testified for the prosecution. Havard’s evidentiary hearing, which was dedicated to a single topic, and provided no immediate decision, took longer than the entire trial which landed Havard on death row in 2002. Havard’s evidentiary hearing began on August 14, 2017 and concluded on August 16, 2017. The Adams County Courthouse where the hearing took place is in Natchez, Mississippi, a historic Mississippi River town bordering Louisiana. I was intrigued by the small town feel of Natchez. Entering the courthouse for the first time gave me the sense that I had somehow stepped back in time. The courthouse is listed as the oldest in Mississippi, and is no doubt rich in history. A history which the building now struggles to contain.........The hearing began with instructions from Judge Johnson, laying out the guidelines set by the Mississippi Supreme Court. The high court recognized that the cause of death in Havard’s case warranted review but the high court did not grant the defense’s additional request to review the charge of sexual assault, keeping on par with their previous rulings on past appeals. The high court’s orders that Havard’s evidentiary hearing could only review the charge of SBS, provided for unique circumstances, because Havard sits on death row solely due to the combination of charges. Without the charge of sexual assault being tacked on, Havard’s case would have never been a death penalty case in the first place. Havard’s lawyers refused to be deterred. The defense made sure throughout the hearing to highlight on the record that there are currently no experts who support the claim of sexual abuse. Every expert who testified, as well as the prosecution’s pediatrician, all stated under oath that there was no evidence of a sexual assault. The prosecution’s case in 2002 was built primarily on the testimony provided by Dr. Steven Hayne and the ER staff that was present on the night Chloe died. Hayne conducted the autopsy on the infant. Hayne did not find evidence of sexual assault while conducting the autopsy, even though he was told to look for it. Hayne helped the prosecution when he testified that a contusion in the infant’s anus could have resulted from penetration with an object. Hayne also testified that the death was the result of SBS. Hayne has now retracted those statements. There is not one single shred of evidence that Chloe Britt was ever sexually assaulted, by Jeff Havard or by anyone else. The sexual assault allegation was based on observations of the ER staff that the infant’s anus was dilated. The ER staff was not qualified to give an opinion regarding sexual abuse. Every single staff member who provided a statement to police, made the same mistake when misdiagnosing the condition of the infant’s anus. The court furthered the damage when wrongly allowing the ER staff to testify as experts at trial. Anal dilation has given rise to suspicion of sexual abuse in other cases, and a clinical study was done to clarify the subject. Researchers found that anal dilation is a common artifact in accidental deaths involving severe brain injury. Havard’s defense filed several appeals over the years citing expert evidence that no sexual assault had occurred, but those appeals were all denied. After Havard’s conviction, Mississippi’s post-conviction relief office obtained the services of former Alabama state medical examiner Dr. James Lauridson to review the autopsy findings of Hayne. Lauridson concluded that the evidence failed to confirm that a sexual assault of any kind had taken place. There was no sign of any tears or lacerations in the infant’s anus and it was not out of the ordinary for dilation to occur naturally. Lauridson noted that there was no trace of Havard’s DNA found on or inside the infant. He also noted that a thermometer inserted into the infant’s anus at the emergency room could have caused the small one centimeter bruise noted by Hayne. Lauridson’s report refuted the prosecution’s claim of a sexual assault. Interestingly, Lauridson’s expert opinion had no bearing on appeal. After Judge Johnson finished addressing the court, the defense called Dr. Steven Hayne to the stand. Hayne poses many problems for the state of Mississippi. Hayne has a shady past that involves thousands of autopsies, and countless legal cases. Hayne was presented by prosecutors as a primary expert in criminal trials for a period of decades in Mississippi. Investigative journalist Radley Balko has been reporting on Hayne’s questionable conduct for years. The SBS issue may open the door for the state of Mississippi to resolve their issues with Hayne in this case, and may explain why the evidentiary hearing was limited to the discussion of SBS. Challenges against the sexual assault charge work to directly attack Hayne’s credibility. If Hayne is fully discredited, that revelation could open a can of worms which could impact countless other cases in Mississippi. If Havard’s innocence is determined based on changes in science, then everyone is off the hook. The State could claim that it was merely following the science available in 2002 when they convicted Havard. No blame for anyone. Simply an advance in science. Of course, those who have closely followed this case may have a far different outlook on who deserves blame. Hayne’s history shows that he has been willing to provide testimony favorable to the prosecution regardless of the facts. Havard’s case is no exception. Hayne testified in 2002 that he saw a one-inch contusion in the infant’s anus during autopsy. It was discovered after trial that the contusion was only one centimeter, which is quite different than one inch. Hayne claimed in an affidavit that he misspoke during the trial when providing the measurement. At trial, regardless of the size, Hayne testified that the contusion was most likely the result of penetration of an object. On the surface, Hayne’s description must have sounded a lot like sexual assault to the jury. Fast forward to 2014. Hayne stated in a 2014 affidavit that he specifically told prosecutors on more than one occasion prior to trial that he could not support a finding a sexual abuse. This information was withheld from the defense, which is a Brady violation. Most shockingly, the defense learned in January of 2014, 12 years after the conviction, that Hayne had looked at tissue sections under a microscope and found definitively that there was no evidence of sexual assault. In a case where suspicion of sexual assault only arose when ER doctors and nurses noticed what they believed to be physical evidence of sexual abuse. Hayne’s microscopic findings were clearly exculpatory, and would have positively shown that the doctors and nurses had misinterpreted what they saw. The state withheld this evidence from the defense as well and failed to tell the doctors and nurses about it before they testified. Why didn’t Hayne testify at trial in 2002 that there was no evidence of a sexual assault? Because no one asked him. Prosecutors stood before the court during opening statements and told the jury that Hayne had, “confirmed the nurses and doctors worst fear, that this child had been sexually abused.” The prosecution knew that Hayne had done no such thing; in fact, he had done just the opposite. The prosecution lied to the jury. When Hayne took the stand, they were careful not to ask specific questions about sexual abuse, and Hayne was sure to only respond directly to questions asked. The defense had their hands tied. They could not possibly ask a question they did not know the answer to. If they had asked Hayne if the infant had been sexually assaulted and his answer was anything other than no, they would have instantly buried their client. The prosecution knew the defense would never take the chance. The lies told during opening and closing arguments by the prosecution were left unchallenged, and a wrongful conviction was the result. Hayne’s statements in his affidavits which were reiterated during the evidentiary hearing state that he does not support a claim of sexual assault and that he no longer believes that Chloe died by shaking alone. He now believes that impact had to be a factor. Meaning that the infant could have died from a short fall. Hayne bases his current beliefs on changes in science related to SBS. Hayne attempted to save face by saying that he still believes the death was the result of a homicide, but he offered not valid theory to support that belief. Hayne’s demeanor in court was a bit questionable. During breaks, he appeared to wander about, willing to chat with anyone who would provide an ear. At one point, he sat down next to Havard’s stepfather, engaging him with stick figure drawings he had sketched on a pad in an apparent attempt to form new theories. After Hayne’s testimony was concluded, the defense called Dr. Michael Baden to the stand. Baden is a physician and board-certified forensic pathologist. Baden is the former Chief Medical Examiner of New York City and is the former chief forensic pathologist for the New York State Police. Baden is well respected worldwide for his work in this field. Baden testified that he believed Chloe’s death had nothing to do with shaking. Per Baden, it is no longer accepted in the field of science that shaking alone is enough to cause fatal injury in children. Impact is now considered a requirement to produce fatal injuries, if other factors such as neck or rib injuries are not observed. Baden went on further to say that caution needs to be used to assure that injuries which were once thought to be caused from shaking alone, are not currently being automatically re-categorized as shaking with impact simply to meet the new criteria. In cases of head injuries from short falls, shaking is not required and should be eliminated if there is no supportive evidence of shaking. Baden stated that the injuries observed during autopsy were entirely consistent with a blunt force impact which would have resulted from a short fall as described by Havard. Baden stated that the infant had no signs of injury to the neck or ribs, which would have been present had the infant been violently shaken. He went on to say that autopsy findings which are found to be consistent with early statements given from a person who was present show that those statements carry more weight. He said it is difficult to tell a story that later matches up with an autopsy report if you are not telling the truth. The ER staff testified at trial in 2002 that retinal hemorrhages were present when Chloe arrived to the ER. The jury was told that retinal hemorrhages could only be caused by shaking. Meaning that the jury was told that the only possible cause of death was SBS. Baden stated that there are multiple causes of retinal hemorrhages. Any suggestion that retinal hemorrhages are only caused by SBS is false. Baden stated that short falls were a cause of retinal hemorrhages. Everyone who testified after Baden agreed with his assessment, including the pediatrician who testified for the prosecution. Unfortunately, this expert evidence was not available at Havard’s trial, leaving the jury to decide his fate based on unqualified witness testimony. Baden told the court that pathologists are more qualified than other specialties to diagnose cause of death. Per Baden, ER doctors and pediatricians specialize in the treatment of living patients. Pathologists have the task of looking beneath the surface of non-living bodies to properly determine cause of death. Evidence exists after death that his not available to doctors who are treating living patients. Dr. Janice Ophoven was next to testify for the defense. Ophoven is a pediatric forensic pathologist with over 30 years of clinical, administrative and quality improvement experience. Ophoven is trained in pediatrics and is board certified in pathology and forensic pathology. Ophoven’s practice is focused on understanding child abuse and injury to children. Ophoven stated that no evidence exists to show that Chloe’s death was the result of child abuse. She reiterated Baden’s testimony that violent shaking alone was no longer an accepted cause of death in infants. Ophoven told the court that it was a common belief in the scientific world back in 2002 that short falls could not cause fatal injuries in children. She went on to say that the scientific community no longer believes that to be true. She made it clear that there have been significant changes in science regarding infant head injuries and SBS since the time of Havard’s trial. She also refuted the 2002 retinal hemorrhage trial testimony, stating that it is well known in the medical community that retinal hemorrhages can be caused by short falls. Ophoven concluded that the infant’s death was the result of a short fall as described by Havard. She also reiterated Baden’s statement that pathologists are more qualified to determine cause of death than ER doctors and pediatricians. Dr. Chris Van Ee was the final expert called by the defense. Van Ee holds a Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering from Duke University and is a licensed Professional Engineer. Van Ee has specific expertise in the analysis and risk assessment of head injury in the infant and adult populations. Van Ee testified that a short fall was the most logical scientific reason for the death of Chloe Britt. Van Ee told the court that short falls are now known to cause injuries which were once thought to be caused only by violent shaking. Per Van Ee, a one-foot fall onto a carpeted surface head first has a higher chance of producing a head injury to a child than violent shaking. Van Ee testified that he reviewed photographs of the bathroom in Havard’s trailer and determined that the fall described by Havard could have caused fatal head trauma. Tests conducted by Van Ee using crash-test-dummies, concluded that a short fall from three-feet onto a hard surface such as a porcelain toilet could generate forces similar to a car accident which could lead to the death of a six-month-old infant. On the final day of the hearing, the prosecution called Dr. Scott Benton to the stand. Benton is the medical director of the Children’s Justice Center and chief of the division of forensic medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center. Benton’s qualifications as an expert on issues of infant death were challenged by the defense because Benton is a pediatrician, not a pathologist. Both Baden and Ophoven provided clear reasoning in their testimony as to why pathologists are uniquely qualified to analyze cause of death. Judge Johnson noted the defense objection and said that he would take it into consideration when ruling on the case. During questioning, Benton argued that shaking alone could prove fatal for an infant. His testimony ignored current scientific literature which states that shaking alone without other signs of injury is not enough to cause fatal injuries in children. Benton also attempted to exaggerate the severity of the small contusions found on the infant’s face, discounting testimony from both Baden and Ophoven who said that the small bruises were likely caused from the fall or during resuscitation attempts in the ER. Per Ophoven, resuscitation attempts are not a gentle process and are often frantic.  She described the situations as a time of organized chaos. On cross examination, it was discovered that Benton was not contacted by the State to evaluate the case. Benton’s participation was the result of his own eagerness to get involved. Benton contacted Jerry Mitchell from the Clarion Ledger because he had read a single article of Mitchell’s and had determined that the case was a homicide. After an email exchange with Mitchell, Benton’s further inquiries led to his eventual work on behalf of the prosecution. It was also discovered on cross examination that the Children’s Justice Center where Benton works is experiencing financial difficulties due to a mismanagement of funds that were received from grants. The medical center now looks to benefit upwards of fifty thousand dollars for Benton’s testimony in this case. Benton told the court that his involvement was in no way an attempt to make money, and that his medical center was seeking private donations to sustain their efforts to care for children. In closing, the defense argued that they had met the burden of proof put forth by the Mississippi Supreme Court. The defense was required by the high court to prove that new evidence was available to show that the science behind SBS has changed since the time of Havard’s trial. After hearing from the defense experts who testified, and after witnessing the exhibits being entered, which included up to date medical literature, there is no doubt that the requirements for a new trial have been fully satisfied by the defense. In a perfect world, we would see prosecutors who were willing to admit past errors. But we live in a far different reality. In our current justice system, the clear majority of prosecutors protect their office relentlessly at all costs. Sadly, the prosecution in this case fits the typical mold. The prosecution’s main argument during closing was not directed at challenging the legitimacy of claims made by the defense. The Prosecution’s argument was that the evidence presented was available at the time of Havard’s trial in 2002, so it should not be allowed. Appellate laws are complicated and vary depending on the type of case. In layman’s terms, for purposes of describing the requirements for this case, the current laws state that evidence based requests for new trials can only be made by use of new evidence which was not available at trial. These laws may have good intentions but in the end, they can have a devastating impact on indigent defendants. If you are poor and you do not have the means to hire experts at trial, you are in trouble. Once convicted, if there is evidence to exonerate you that was available at the time of your first trial, it is currently inadmissible because it is technically not new. Meaning that details in medical journals that can possibly exonerate defendants that are not found by public defenders, with extremely limited budgets and no expert assistance, cannot be used in future hearings because they were technically available at time of trial. Let that sink in. Do these criteria work to assure fair trials? Do these criteria show that prosecutors are working to seek proper justice? Does suppression of exonerating evidence simply because an indigent defendant’s public defender failed to find it in the first trial truly work to seek real justice? Now, to be clear, the prosecution’s argument is absurd because new evidence has clearly been proven to have become available after Havard’s trial. Evidence which absolutely meets the current requirements. This is irrefutable. The judge has no reason to disagree based on current law. But I find it disturbing that any state in our country would ever attempt to suppress valid evidence based on the current criteria. Valid evidence should never be suppressed. Our goal should always be to seek the truth. The truth in this case shows that the state of Mississippi is trying to put an innocent man to death for a crime that never happened. Current evidence, which goes far beyond the topic of SBS alone, shows that there is no longer any viable case against Jeff Havard. The original theory of the crime has been disproven. There is no evidence to suggest that the death of Chloe Britt was anything other than a tragic accident. If Judge Johnson rules in favor of a new trial, the State will most likely decide not to retry the case due to lack of evidence. Knowing this should give people pause. If justice is truly the goal, why is the state of Mississippi trying so hard to uphold a faulty verdict in a death penalty case? A ruling from Judge Johnson is expected to take 60 to 90 days. Injustice Anywhere advocates for Jeffrey Havard. Please visit www.freejeffreyhavard.org to keep up to date with updates on the case."

The entire commentary can be found at:

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/judge-decide-mississippi-put-jeffrey-havard-death-crime-never-happened/

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: The Cootamundra Herald (Reporter Nino Bucci) fleshes out the extraordinary developments in this case..."Privately, senior police are smarting that her supporters have used the conspiracy charges to back a conspiracy of their own: that the Tasmania Police were motivated by vindictiveness about the never-ending scrutiny of their investigation, and had vowed to strangle Neill-Fraser's last bid for freedom."..."A brisk half-hour walk down the hill from the prison garden is the Derwent River, and somewhere within its depths likely lie the remains of Bob Chappell. It may have been a month of explosive developments in a murder case that has had no shortage of drama in the past eight years, but one thing hasn't changed: Sue Neill-Fraser is still tending the garden. Police have no evidence she is involved in the alleged conspiracy to pervert the course of justice to clear her. On October 30, she will leave the garden and her four-day appeal will begin. And a case as deep and murky as the Derwent will be dredged for the final time."

STORY: 'Death on the Derwent: in search of truth," by reporter Nino Bucci, published by the Cootamundra Herald on August 27, 2017.

GIST: "In the gardens of a Hobart prison, away from the cinder blocks and corrugated iron and the prying of guards and inmates, an alleged plan to free murderer Sue Neill-Fraser was born. As she wandered between the raised beds last November, police suspect Neill-Fraser spoke to a fellow inmate. The suspected contents of these conversations would, months later, lead to one of the most controversial Tasmanian police investigations in recent history. Phones were tapped. Prison conversations were bugged. And the woman Neill-Fraser spoke to in the prison garden was charged amid police allegations the inmate had conjured up a plan with an outlaw bikie boss and others to shift blame for a murder from Neill-Fraser to a young, innocent woman. Neill-Fraser, 62, had been convicted of murdering her partner, Bob Chappell, who disappeared from the couple's yacht when it was moored off the Hobart suburb of Sandy Bay on January 26, 2009. She is into the seventh year of a minimum 13-year prison term, which could stretch for a decade longer than that if she is denied parole. It is a matter of great dispute whether Neill-Fraser - a woman convicted despite no body or murder weapon being found - is innocent. But there is no dispute that as she stood in the Mary Hutchinson Women's Prison gardens, she was desperate. Either she tended the garden as a cunning murderer, barely halfway through her minimum sentence, who wanted out. Or she did so as a woman wrongly convicted, who had been denied justice by the Court of Appeal and the High Court, and had only one roll of the dice left. Phones tapped:  Tasmania Police were aware that Neill-Fraser's legal team had been busy. But as eminent barrister Robert Richter, QC, and Colin McLaren, a former detective who had investigated the deaths of John F. Kennedy and Princess Diana, set about their task in earnest, detectives in Hobart were far from idle. The police had received information that the inmate who Neill-Fraser had been speaking to was involved in firearms trafficking. Since the conversation in the prison garden, this inmate had been released. Police started monitoring her phone conversations. Before long, they allegedly heard evidence relating to another crime, far more sensational than selling guns to crooks: a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice to free Neill-Fraser. Police allege that the inmate developed a plan to coerce evidence from the only person who it appeared could set Neill-Fraser free: a troubled young woman named Meaghan Vass. In the web of circumstantial evidence that had led to Neill-Fraser's conviction for murder - and was, in no small part, woven with lies she had proffered during police interviews - there was one significant hole: why was the DNA of Vass, a homeless 15-year-old at the time of Chappell's disappearance, found on the deck of the couple's yacht, the Four Winds? Police offered an unlikely and later discredited explanation; someone had stood on Vass's DNA and then stepped onto the yacht's deck. Vass had claimed at trial that she had never set foot on the boat, and did not know how the DNA got there. But, according to police, the inmate schemed to get Vass to offer a new explanation: she had been on the yacht that night, in the company of known criminals, and had planned to steal from it, before Chappell disturbed them, a fight ensued, and he was killed. Police could have waited to see if Vass would offer up this testimony to Neill-Fraser's pending court appeal and whether it would be backed up by evidence or demolished via cross-examination. Instead, in a move many lawyers believe was highly controversial, police decided to act immediately. Detectives applied for warrants to monitor the conversations of Vass and others. Vass, at this stage, was sharing a boyfriend with the inmate, a Devil's Henchman bikie boss called "Sharkie". As the conversations started to flow, police who listened believed they were recording evidence of a plot to pervert the course of justice and set Neill-Fraser free. And it got even murkier. Within weeks, allegations emerged that "Sharkie" may be involved in the plan. Police suspected Vass was under increasing pressure to admit to being on the yacht, clearing Neill-Fraser. The former inmate was allegedly heard describing Vass to Sharkie as her "little mate". Meanwhile, Vass allegedly confided in her mother that she was under intense pressure to help clear Neill-Fraser. She seemed scared and erratic. As police built their case, they allege other evidence emerged: the former inmate was allegedly going to be paid $3000 cash, a $40,000 reward and a $50,000 education fund for herself and her children. It seemed money was being sought to pay a drug debt. It is alleged discussions of cash were intertwined with discussions about making sure it appeared the evidence was legitimate and untainted. Two other men vital to Neill-Fraser's bid to clear her name were also soon ensnared: lawyer Jeffrey Thompson had, police alleged, pressured another jail inmate to support her case. On August 9, the police swooped. The inmate who had met Neill-Fraser in the prison garden months earlier was charged with perverting the course of justice and corrupting a witness, with police alleging she would be paid almost $100,000 "in consideration for an understanding that Meaghan Vass be called as a witness, in a judicial proceeding, to provide false evidence". She was also charged with unlawful trafficking in firearms. A week later, Mr Thompson and the other inmate were also charged; both men were alleged to have perverted justice. It is unclear whether "Sharkie" or Vass will be next, or whether they have been assisting police, but the investigation is ongoing, and further charges are likely. Clubmates of Sharkie either declined to comment or did not return calls, and Vass could not be contacted. 'We simply want the truth' The charges were seen as a blow to Neill-Fraser's chances of a successful appeal. Privately, senior police are smarting that her supporters have used the conspiracy charges to back a conspiracy of their own: that the Tasmania Police were motivated by vindictiveness about the never-ending scrutiny of their investigation, and had vowed to strangle Neill-Fraser's last bid for freedom. The truth, as the force saw it, was far simpler: they were investigating one crime - gun trafficking - and came across evidence of another. Police say privately they have no concerns that Neill-Fraser was wrongly convicted. That the witnesses Neill-Fraser was relying on have been charged before they ever had a chance to front her appeal is merely coincidental, police insist. "We simply want the truth here, because there is a lot at stake for some very vulnerable people," one officer said. But Neill-Fraser's supporters don't buy this. They say police have effectively scared any future witness from helping Neill-Fraser. While the evidence of Vass was seen as the strongest element of Neill-Fraser's appeal, it was also considered shaky; she was far from a reliable witness. Still, there is other information that suggests the police case against Neill-Fraser should not be immune from scrutiny. Some of it has been gleaned from an interview McLaren conducted with another former detective - Detective Inspector Peter Powell, who had led the Neill-Fraser investigation. During the two-hour interview last October, a transcript of which was leaked to Fairfax Media, Powell makes several seemingly telling remarks, including being shocked at Neill-Fraser's sentence and admitting Vass was probably on the yacht, but that he did not know when. Powell says he discounted that two violent companions of Vass may be involved in Chappell's death because they were drunks. He said if he was running Neill-Fraser's defence during the trial, he would have raised why she was not cautioned as a suspect during her first police interview. "I mean, I'm the first to say if I was running that defence, I might have run it differently," Powell says. He agrees that at the time of her first interview, even though police did not consider Neill-Fraser a suspect, her house had been bugged. And he agrees it is remarkable there was no body, no eyewitness, no known cause of death, no murder weapon, no confession and yet Neill-Fraser was convicted. He confirms that a man who had lived on the yacht moored closest to the Four Winds, who had a serious criminal history, was not interviewed until after Neill-Fraser was convicted. Police did not formally interview for weeks - or in some cases at all - several people who were on the banks near where the Four Winds was found sabotaged. Powell says this was because the investigation did not start as a murder probe, and, by the time it was clear Chappell had been killed, Neill-Fraser was the only suspect. But he says he remains convinced of her guilt, and that she was sunk by her second interview, when the lies she had told in the first were uncovered, and she could not explain them. Leaving the garden: A brisk half-hour walk down the hill from the prison garden is the Derwent River, and somewhere within its depths likely lie the remains of Bob Chappell.

It may have been a month of explosive developments in a murder case that has had no shortage of drama in the past eight years, but one thing hasn't changed: Sue Neill-Fraser is still tending the garden. Police have no evidence she is involved in the alleged conspiracy to pervert the course of justice to clear her. On October 30, she will leave the garden and her four-day appeal will begin. And a case as deep and murky as the Derwent will be dredged for the final time.

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.cootamundraherald.com.au/story/4880903/death-on-the-derwent-in-search-of-the-truth/?cs=7

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-Smith: Australia: Neill-Fraser witness Karen Keefe denies providing false evidence, the Sydney Morning Herald reports..." Karen Patricia Nancy Keefe, 41, fronted Hobart Magistrates Court on Thursday and pleaded not guilty to two charges of perverting the course of justice and one of corrupting a witness. Police allege she provided false evidence in an affidavit as part of Neill-Fraser's appeal. They say Keefe agreed to accept nearly $100,000 - made up of cash and a $50,000 education fund for herself and two children - in return for an understanding another witness would give false evidence. Keefe was remanded in custody and will face trial on November 20."..." Fairfax Media revealed on Tuesday that Neill-Fraser's last bid for freedom would rely heavily on information in a "white paper", a confidential dossier that her supporters believe contains enough fresh evidence to support her appeal. Melbourne barrister Robert Richter had presented new evidence in the dossier to Tasmanian Premier Will Hodgman and acting-Attorney General Matthew Groom that questioned the murder conviction, Fairfax Media reported. A statutory declaration in the dossier signed by Tasmanian woman Meaghan Vass states that she was on the yacht on the night of the disappearance but that Neill-Fraser was not there. Jeffrey Ian Thompson, 51, a former member of Neill-Fraser's legal team, is before court charged with conspiring to pervert the course of justice. He is accused of deliberately influencing a witness and prejudicing photographic evidence. Another 57-year-old man has also been arrested and charged with perverting justice in relation to the appeal."

STORY: "Susan Neill-Fraser witness Karen Keefe denies providing false evidence," the Sydney Morning Herald reports.

GIST: "A witness crucial to the last-ditch freedom bid of convicted killer Susan Neill-Fraser has denied she gave false evidence and corrupted another to do the same. Neill-Fraser is serving 23 years behind bars for the murder of partner Bob Chappell, who disappeared from the couple's yacht moored off Hobart in 2009.The 62-year-old has maintained her innocence, with her latest appeal against the conviction set to be heard in October. But the case has been rocked by a police investigation which in August charged three people with interfering in the case. Karen Patricia Nancy Keefe, 41, fronted Hobart Magistrates Court on Thursday and pleaded not guilty to two charges of perverting the course of justice and one of corrupting a witness. Police allege she provided false evidence in an affidavit as part of Neill-Fraser's appeal. They say Keefe agreed to accept nearly $100,000 - made up of cash and a $50,000 education fund for herself and two children - in return for an understanding another witness would give false evidence. Keefe was remanded in custody and will face trial on November 20. Neill-Fraser's two previous appeals have failed but state legislation, enacted two years ago, allows for another if there is "fresh and compelling evidence". Fairfax Media revealed on Tuesday that Neill-Fraser's last bid for freedom would rely heavily on information in a "white paper", a confidential dossier that  her supporters believe contains enough fresh evidence to support her appeal. Melbourne barrister Robert Richter had presented new evidence in the dossier to Tasmanian Premier Will Hodgman and acting-Attorney General Matthew Groom that questioned the murder conviction, Fairfax Media reported. A statutory declaration in the dossier signed by Tasmanian woman Meaghan Vass states that she was on the yacht on the night of the disappearance but that Neill-Fraser was not there. Jeffrey Ian Thompson, 51, a former member of Neill-Fraser's legal team, is before court charged with conspiring to pervert the course of justice. He is accused of deliberately influencing a witness and prejudicing photographic evidence. Another 57-year-old man has also been arrested and charged with perverting justice in relation to the appeal."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/susan-neillfraser-witness-karen-keefe-denies-providing-false-evidence-20170824-gy33l9.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;