Susan Neill-Fraser on-going murder appeal: Defence to call another witness: A serial killer; The Mercury.." A man accused of a litany of crimes — from being a violent crook to a serial killer — during a sensational Hobart murder appeal will get the chance to respond. Former Sandy Bay seafarer Paul Wroe arrived in the state on Tuesday to appear on Wednesday at Susan Neill-Fraser’s last-chance appeal."..."At the time Mr Wroe was living aboard his yacht near where Neill-Fraser and Mr Chappell kept the Four Winds off Sandy Bay. Several witnesses have told Hobart’s Supreme Court that Mr Wroe was known to row his dinghy into shore from his yacht. In the days after Mr Chappell’s disappearance from the Four Winds, and before Neill-Fraser was charged with murder, Mr Wroe was interviewed by the Mercury. “It has all the mystery and intrigue of a book, but it doesn’t make me afraid,” he said about the incident.".

STORY: "Susan Neill-Fraser murder appeal: Accused ‘serial killer’ to have his say in court," by reporter Patrick Billings, published by The Mercury on October 31, 2017.

Ads by Kiosked

GIST: A man accused of a litany of crimes — from being a violent crook to a serial killer — during a sensational Hobart murder appeal will get the chance to respond. Former Sandy Bay seafarer Paul Wroe arrived in the state on Tuesday to appear on Wednesday at Susan Neill-Fraser’s last-chance appeal. Neill-Fraser, 62, is attempting to overturn a conviction for murdering partner Bob Chappell in 2009 aboard their yacht in the River Derwent. The convicted killer’s landmark application has been enabled by new legislation that allows an appeal if “fresh and compelling” evidence emerges and other legal avenues have been exhausted.  It is the first time the legislation has been used. At the time Mr Wroe was living aboard his yacht near where Neill-Fraser and Mr Chappell kept the Four Winds off Sandy Bay. Several witnesses have told Hobart’s Supreme Court that Mr Wroe was known to row his dinghy into shore from his yacht. In the days after Mr Chappell’s disappearance from the Four Winds, and before Neill-Fraser was charged with murder, Mr Wroe was interviewed by the Mercury. “It has all the mystery and intrigue of a book, but it doesn’t make me afraid,” he said about the incident.........In his opening address this week Neill-Fraser barrister Tom Percy, QC, said there was additional evidence not known at the time of the murder trial that “may well have changed” the outcome. This involved the presence of multiple people, including Mr Wroe, on the foreshore the night Mr Chappell disappeared. Mr Percy said Mr Wroe had a substantial criminal record for violence dating back 40 years but did not go into details. The hearing continues before Justice Michael Brett."

The entire story can be found at:
www.themercury.com.au/

 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: On-going appeal: Bulletin: ABC News reports prosecution attack on the freshness of evidence being presented by defence witness Maxwell Jones, a forensic specialist from Victoria Police..." "An expert witness in convicted killer Susan Neill-Fraser's bid to win an appeal has said he would not disagree with the findings of forensic expert Deb McHoul, who gave evidence in the 2010 trial.".

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Yesterday, Mr Jones was questioned by Neill-Fraser's lawyer Tom Percy QC and said he believed the DNA was transferred there directly. But he told the court today he could not rule out the possibility the DNA got onto the boat indirectly. Coates: You said yesterday that if you'd known nothing of the case that it's likely that it would be a direct transfer. However, you know Ms Vass claims she's never been on the boat. But you don't rule out the possibility of a direct transfer? Jones: I can't entirely rule that possibility out but there would need to be specific circumstances for that to occur. There is a possibility of someone transferring it onto the deck. You can't rule it out."

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

STORY: "Sue Neill-Fraser: Freshness of forensic DNA evidence questioned by prosecutor," by reporter Aneeta Bhole, published by ABC News on October 31, 2017.

GIST: "An expert witness in convicted killer Susan Neill-Fraser's bid to win an appeal has said he would not disagree with the findings of forensic expert Deb McHoul, who gave evidence in the 2010 trial. Neill-Fraser, 62, was jailed in 2010 after a jury unanimously found her guilty of murdering her partner, radiation physicist Bob Chappell, on board their yacht the Four Winds on Australia Day 2009 but she has always maintained her innocence. Her last-ditch attempt for freedom resumed today with her supporters packing into Hobart Supreme Court. She had exhausted all avenues of appeal until new legislation gave her another chance provided her lawyers could provide fresh and compelling evidence. Today the issue returned to whether or not DNA evidence indicated Meaghan Vass, a homeless teenager at the time, had boarded Four Winds. Ms Vass denied ever being aboard the boat in her testimony yesterday. Today, Tasmania's Director of Public Prosecutions Daryl Coates questioned the freshness of evidence being presented by defence witness Maxwell Jones, a forensic specialist from Victoria Police. He queried Mr Jones on how Ms McHoul's reading of the DNA evidence in 2010 differed from his own. Coates: You're not critical of what Ms McHoul said in those answers? Jones: Nothing clear sticks out that I would disagree with. I'm not critical I would have said a similar thing. There's nothing there that I can disagree with. Mr Jones also said because the DNA sampling was done four days after Mr Chappell's disappearance it was possible Ms Vass's DNA was actually deposited after the night in question. Yesterday, Mr Jones was questioned by Neill-Fraser's lawyer Tom Percy QC and said he believed the DNA was transferred there directly. But he told the court today he could not rule out the possibility the DNA got onto the boat indirectly. Coates: You said yesterday that if you'd known nothing of the case that it's likely that it would be a direct transfer. However, you know Ms Vass claims she's never been on the boat. But you don't rule out the possibility of a direct transfer? Jones: I can't entirely rule that possibility out but there would need to be specific circumstances for that to occur. There is a possibility of someone transferring it onto the deck. You can't rule it out. Neill-Fraser's hope of winning an appeal will rest on the decision of Justice Michael Brett with hearings continuing until Thursday."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-31/tas-tuesday-hearing-of-neill-fraser-conviction-appeal/9102198

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.

Grits for Breakfast: False confessions; The notorious Reid Technique; Grits for Breakfast says false confessions and coercive interrogations are hardly an new problem - with pointed refernece to the beleagured Reid Technique..."This sort of coercive questioning of vulnerable suspects matches the story of dozens of documented false convictions from the DNA era. It's a brand of interrogation nearly unique to American law enforcement known as the Reid technique (see here, here, here, here, and here), which earlier this year was finally abandoned by the company that had originated and popularized it. Because interrogations happen in secret - meaning abusive tactics taught by the Reid method were almost never documented (particularly in the 1960s before recording equipment was cheap and common), much less made public and rectified - they also represent thousands of additional false convictions we'll never know about."

POST: "False confessions, coercive interrogations, hardly a new problem," published by 'Grits for Breakfast, on October 8, 2017.

GIST: "Not a Texas topic, but until this NY Times obituary, I'd never heard the story of how the late, great Connie Hawkins - an ABA, Globetrotter, and NBA star in the '60s and '70s - was banned from pro ball in his prime based on false and unproven allegations of game fixing...He was a suspect in a game fixing scandal, so he got the same treatment as every other young black suspected criminal might have received in the 1960s. (Shudder)... As has been the case with so many modern exoneration stories, his problems arose from the use of coercive interrogation tactics, and his name was cleared thanks to an exceptional act of journalism: Hawkins’s path to the N.B.A. was buoyed in part by a 1969 article in Life magazine by David Wolf. “Evidence recently uncovered,” Mr. Wolf wrote, “indicates that Connie Hawkins never knowingly associated with gamblers, that he never introduced a player to a fixer, and that the only damaging statements about his involvement were made by Hawkins himself — as a terrified, semiliterate teenager who thought he’d go to jail unless he said what the D.A.’s detectives pressed him to say.” This sort of coercive questioning of vulnerable suspects matches the story of dozens of documented false convictions from the DNA era. It's a brand of interrogation nearly unique to American law enforcement known as the Reid technique (see here, here, here, here, and here), which earlier this year was finally abandoned by the company that had originated and popularized it. Because interrogations happen in secret - meaning abusive tactics taught by the Reid method were almost never documented (particularly in the 1960s before recording equipment was cheap and common), much less made public and rectified - they also represent thousands of additional false convictions we'll never know about...To recap: 50+ years ago a black kid was questioned intensely by authorities without an attorney, and like so many others before and after him, he told them what they wanted to hear. He didn't do so because he was guilty, just to get out of the room and make the pressure relent. But it was a false confession which matched no other evidence the investigators had uncovered, so in this case he was never prosecuted. Still, the professional damage lingered for a decade. And others similarly situated likely suffered their fates in silent ignominy, with no obituary featured in the Grey Lady to set the record straight on history's behalf. These are not new problems, for the most part; the broader public has only become newly aware of them."

The entire post can be found at:

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.ca/2017/10/false-confessions-coercive.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.

Susan Neill-Fraser; Australia; On-going appeal: Bulletin: ABC News reports: "Key defence witness tells court he is willing to lie for her." Reporter Aneeta Bhole. October 30, 2017..."Today, Stephen John Gleeson, who has been in Risdon Prison for about three years, offered a different account of events to what he told police at the time of Mr Chappell's disappearance, telling the court he had lied to police during a number of interviews. In January 2009, Gleeson was living in a car parked at the Sandy Bay rowing sheds. He said he knew Neill-Fraser and Mr Chappell because he would help them get their dinghy out of the water. When questioned by police the day after Mr Chappell vanished, Gleeson said he had not seen anyone. But today he told the court two young homeless people had come to his car on the night of January 26 — he named Adam Yaxley and described a girl he thought was under the age of 18. "They were talking about knocking stuff off from yachts," he said. "I thought that's what homeless young people do. I didn't think much of it at the time." Gleeson also told the court he knew a man named Paul Wroe, who had a boat moored at Sandy Bay and who he believed was a serial killer. He said in the weeks leading up to January 26, 2009, Mr Wroe was invited aboard Four Winds by Mr Chappell and Neill-Fraser. He said afterwards Mr Wroe expressed contempt towards Mr Chappell. "He called him a condescending old c*** and then said 'I'd like to rip his teeth out with old pliers'," he said. Gleeson said he did not see Mr Wroe on Australia Day night. The court heard Gleeson had picked out photos of Ms Vass and one of her male friends when he was visited in jail by lawyer Jeff Thompson a member of Neill Fraser's team. Under cross examination Gleeson admitted he would be prepared to lie to free Neill Fraser."

"A key defence witness in the appeal bid of convicted murderer Sue Neill-Fraser has told the Hobart Supreme Court he was prepared to lie for her. Neill-Fraser, 62, was jailed in 2010 for 23 years for murdering her partner, radiation physicist Bob Chappell, on board their yacht the Four Winds on Australia Day 2009. After seven years and multiple appeals, Neill-Fraser launched her last-ditch legal bid for freedom today. She must convince Justice Michael Brett that there is fresh and compelling evidence to warrant a retrial. Today, Stephen John Gleeson, who has been in Risdon Prison for about three years, offered a different account of events to what he told police at the time of Mr Chappell's disappearance, telling the court he had lied to police during a number of interviews. In January 2009, Gleeson was living in a car parked at the Sandy Bay rowing sheds. He said he knew Neill-Fraser and Mr Chappell because he would help them get their dinghy out of the water. When questioned by police the day after Mr Chappell vanished, Gleeson said he had not seen anyone. But today he told the court two young homeless people had come to his car on the night of January 26 — he named Adam Yaxley and described a girl he thought was under the age of 18. "They were talking about knocking stuff off from yachts," he said. "I thought that's what homeless young people do. I didn't think much of it at the time." Gleeson also told the court he knew a man named Paul Wroe, who had a boat moored at Sandy Bay and who he believed was a serial killer. He said in the weeks leading up to January 26, 2009, Mr Wroe was invited aboard Four Winds by Mr Chappell and Neill-Fraser. He said afterwards Mr Wroe expressed contempt towards Mr Chappell. "He called him a condescending old c*** and then said 'I'd like to rip his teeth out with old pliers'," he said. Gleeson said he did not see Mr Wroe on Australia Day night. The court heard Gleeson had picked out photos of Ms Vass and one of her male friends when he was visited in jail by lawyer Jeff Thompson a member of Neill Fraser's team. Under cross examination Gleeson admitted he would be prepared to lie to free Neill Fraser. Coates: Well, didn't you say to Mr Thompson when he was asking you to identify some photos and you couldn't, didn't you say to him you would if it helps Susan Neill Fraser. Gleeson: That's correct Coates: So you'd be prepared to lie to help her out? Gleeson: Yes; Gleeson, who has been in prison for more than three years, told the court he did not receive many visitors, but between July 2016 and July 2017 he was visited 27 times by people connected to Neill-Fraser, including her former lawyer Barbra Etter. Witness says she was coerced into giving false statement. Earlier, the appeal bid's first witness, Meaghan Vass, said she was threatened into making a statement that cast doubt over Neill-Fraser's guilt. Ms Vass — who was a homeless teenager at the time of the murder — said a statement she made, that appeared to be helpful to Neill-Fraser's case, was false. In April this year, Ms Vass, 24, signed a statutory declaration saying she was on the boat co-owned by Neill-Fraser and Mr Chappell in 2009. Her statement said Neill-Fraser was not aboard the boat. Also, the court heard Ms Vass's statement read: "I was on the Four Winds yacht and I was with people."Today, she said the entire statement was made up and she signed it out of fear.".........No body or weapon have ever been found.

Neill-Fraser has always maintained her innocence and the case has attracted a high level of public interest, the story featuring as a documentary, a play and a book. One prominent lawyer has likened Neill-Fraser's plight to that of Lindy Chamberlain. Neill-Fraser has exhausted all regular avenues of appeal but has a final chance under new fresh and compelling evidence legislation."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-30/susan-neill-fraser-last-ditch-appeal-bob-chappell/9098224

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.

James Duckett: Florida: Commentary: (Case involves discredited FBI hair matching 'expert' Michael Malone); Orlando Sentinel asks prosecutors to "test the DNA" in order to settle questions on Duckett's murder conviction..." "An important piece of evidence that helped win a death sentence for rookie Mascotte Police Officer James Duckett in 1988 has since fallen apart. Yet, the Florida Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that Duckett, convicted of raping and killing an 11-year-old school girl while on duty, shouldn't get a new trial. That's too bad because questions have swirled around the case since the day the jury came back with a guilty verdict. Still, Duckett has a way to save himself from a lethal injection, but so far he hasn't taken it: DNA."...". An "expert" FBI senior agent who provided a damning piece of testimony at the trial later was discredited. Michael Malone swore that a sample of more than 20 of Duckett's hairs had "exactly the same characteristics" and were "completely indistinguishable" from the lone hair found in Teresa's panties. Later, the Justice Department's inspector general and a 2014 FBI report both declared that Malone's testimony "exceeded the limits of science and were, therefore, invalid." The inspector general report stated that Malone didn't just stretch the truth but "falsely testified" in some cases. The Supreme Court, however, concluded in its Oct. 12 opinion that jurors would not have felt the "reasonable doubt" needed to acquit Duckett even if they'd known the hair evidence wasn't on the square. Wells disagrees, and she plans to file a motion for a rehearing. "Juries listen to experts. It's the FBI — the preeminent law enforcement agency — and that's going to carry the day," she said."

COMMENTARY: "Settle questions on Duckett murder conviction: Test the DNA," by reporter Lauren Ritchie, published by The Orlando Sentinel on October 27, 2017.

SUB-HEADING: "Rookie Mascotte Police Office James Duckett is on death row for the rape and murder of 11-year-old Teresa Mae McAbee, a schoolgirl who went to buy a pencil at a convenience store in 1987 and was found dead the next morning."

GIST: "An important piece of evidence that helped win a death sentence for rookie Mascotte Police Officer James Duckett in 1988 has since fallen apart. Yet, the Florida Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that Duckett, convicted of raping and killing an 11-year-old school girl while on duty, shouldn't get a new trial. That's too bad because questions have swirled around the case since the day the jury came back with a guilty verdict. Still, Duckett has a way to save himself from a lethal injection, but so far he hasn't taken it: DNA. At one point, Duckett demanded DNA testing but backed off when he realized that the tiny samples of evidence would be destroyed in the test. And don't look for prosecutors to do it."If you test, it's destroyed, or if you don't get valid profile, then the defense will say you've destroyed the evidence that would have acquitted him," said Ric Ridgway, chief assistant state attorney. Duckett's attorney, Mary Elizabeth Wells of Atlanta, said she intends to discuss the matter with her client. The case began when the body of Teresa McAbee, a fifth-grader at Mascotte Elementary, surfaced in the shallows of Knight Lake on the morning of May 12, 1987. The child walked to a convenience store near her home to buy a pencil to do her homework about 10 p.m. the previous evening, and she never returned. Her mother had reported her missing about midnight. The key pieces of evidence that convicted Duckett were his squad car's tire tracks at the scene, testimony of an expert about the single hair found in the Teresa's panties and the girl's fingerprints on Duckett's cruiser. Duckett had an explanation for Teresa's palm print on his hood: He said he saw and talked with the girl at the store and urged her to go home. Later, he said, he drove around Knight Lake looking for her after her mother summoned police, and that's why his tire tracks — distinctive snow treads — were found there. An "expert" FBI senior agent who provided a damning piece of testimony at the trial later was discredited. Michael Malone swore that a sample of more than 20 of Duckett's hairs had "exactly the same characteristics" and were "completely indistinguishable" from the lone hair found in Teresa's panties. Later, the Justice Department's inspector general and a 2014 FBI report both declared that Malone's testimony "exceeded the limits of science and were, therefore, invalid." The inspector general report stated that Malone didn't just stretch the truth but "falsely testified" in some cases. The Supreme Court, however, concluded in its Oct. 12 opinion that jurors would not have felt the "reasonable doubt" needed to acquit Duckett even if they'd known the hair evidence wasn't on the square. Wells disagrees, and she plans to file a motion for a rehearing. "Juries listen to experts. It's the FBI — the preeminent law enforcement agency — and that's going to carry the day," she said. At the time of the murder, DNA testing wasn't widely used. After it became common, Duckett demanded the testing but then backed off. Now, two bits of surviving evidence could be tested — one is the single hair, and the other is a slide called Q63, which contains a now-dried vaginal swab with semen. Wells said the chain of evidence became so convoluted as prosecutors shopped for a hair expert to say what they wanted — batches of test hairs were lost, mislabeled, found, lost again and retaken — that she has no confidence that the single hair is the right one. The slide, however, is another matter. It is being stored in a temperature-appropriate setting, waiting to settle the question of whether Duckett is really the killer — if it can. The sample has degraded over the years. This seems like a no-brainer for an innocent defendant. Otherwise, one can only conclude that prosecutors have the right man."

The entire commentary  can be found at:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/lake/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-test-duckett-dna-20171024-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.

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

Tune into The Charles Smith Blog at:

http://www.smithforensic.blogspot.com

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

Susan Neill-Fraser: Australia; Last -ditch legal bid fro freedom begins in Hobart Supreme Court, ABC News reports in story headed: "Key witness says she made a false statement out of fear."..." She must convince Justice Michael Brett that there is fresh and compelling evidence to warrant a retrial. But the appeal's first witness Meaghan Vass — who was a homeless teenager at the time of the murder — said a statement she made that appeared to be helpful to Neill-Fraser's case was false. In April this year, Ms Vass, 24, signed a statutory declaration saying she was on the boat co-owned by Neill-Fraser and Mr Chappell in 2009. Her statement said Neill-Fraser was not aboard the boat. Also, the court heard Ms Vass's statement read: "I was on the Four Winds yacht and I was with people." Today, she said the entire statement was made up and she signed it out of fear. "I was threatened to be put in the boot of the car over that statement," she said. "I was too f**king scared. It is not true. I was made to sign it out of fear. "This is just something that Karen Keefe has made up." Karen Patricia Nancy Keefe has been charged with corrupting a witness and perverting the course of justice. Ms Vass repeatedly told the court she did not remember anything about the night of the murder and she did not know Neill-Fraser or Bob Chappell. "As far as I'm concerned this occasion doesn't exist," she said. "I can't remember. I don't know these people [Sue and Bob]." No body or weapon have ever been found. Neill-Fraser has always maintained her innocence and the case has attracted a high level of public interest, the story featuring as a documentary, a play and a book."

STORY: "Sue Neill-Fraser appeal: Key witness says she made a false statement out of fear," published by ABC News on October 29, 2017.

 

GIST: "A key witness to the appeal bid of convicted murderer Sue Neill-Fraser said she was threatened into making a statement that cast doubt over Neill-Fraser's guilt. Neill-Fraser, 62, was jailed in 2010 for 23 years for murdering her partner, radiation physicist Bob Chappell, on board the yacht the Four Winds on Australia Day 2009. After seven years and multiple appeals, Neill-Fraser launched her last-ditch legal bid for freedom today in the Hobart Supreme Court. She must convince Justice Michael Brett that there is fresh and compelling evidence to warrant a retrial. But the appeal's first witness Meaghan Vass — who was a homeless teenager at the time of the murder — said a statement she made that appeared to be helpful to Neill-Fraser's case was false. In April this year, Ms Vass, 24, signed a statutory declaration saying she was on the boat co-owned by Neill-Fraser and Mr Chappell in 2009. Her statement said Neill-Fraser was not aboard the boat. Also, the court heard Ms Vass's statement read: "I was on the Four Winds yacht and I was with people." Today, she said the entire statement was made up and she signed it out of fear. "I was threatened to be put in the boot of the car over that statement," she said. "I was too f**king scared. It is not true. I was made to sign it out of fear. "This is just something that Karen Keefe has made up." Karen Patricia Nancy Keefe has been charged with corrupting a witness and perverting the course of justice. Ms Vass repeatedly told the court she did not remember anything about the night of the murder and she did not know Neill-Fraser or Bob Chappell. "As far as I'm concerned this occasion doesn't exist," she said. "I can't remember. I don't know these people [Sue and Bob]." No body or weapon have ever been found. Neill-Fraser has always maintained her innocence and the case has attracted a high level of public interest, the story featuring as a documentary, a play and a book. One prominent lawyer has likened Neill-Fraser's plight to that of Lindy Chamberlain. Neill-Fraser has exhausted all regular avenues of appeal but has a final chance under new fresh and compelling evidence legislation.

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-30/susan-neill-fraser-last-ditch-appeal-bob-chappell/9098224

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.

Momentous Development: Larry Swearingen; Texas; The Chronicle reports that prosecutors and defence counsel have agreed to DNA testing..."After years of courtroom wrangling, lawyers from both sides are finally agreeing to move forward with DNA testing in the 1998 rape and murder of Montgomery College student Melissa Trotter. The agreement, expected to be finalized in court papers in the coming weeks, comes just days after a judge called off the pending execution of death row inmate Larry Swearingen, who was convicted in the slaying nearly two decades ago and has since repeatedly professed his innocence. "They're doing the right thing," defense attorney James Rytting said Sunday, pointing to another death row inmate's alleged plan to confess to the crime as evidence of the need for testing. A lab would likely evaluate the rape kit, the ligature used to strangle Trotter, finger nail scrapings and hair. "We're still working out the details, but I'm excited that Mr. Rytting has finally agreed to allow us to test this DNA," Montgomery County District Attorney Brett Ligon said Sunday. "I'm glad to be moving forward on this matter." Years-long legal battles over DNA testing have become a hallmark of Swearingen's case, which even sparked changes to state laws regarding post-conviction DNA testing in 2015."

STORY: "Lawyers agree to DNA testing in Swearingen's death row case," by reporter Keri Blakinger, published by The Chronicle on October 29, 2017.

GIST: "After years of courtroom wrangling, lawyers from both sides are finally agreeing to move forward with DNA testing in the 1998 rape and murder of Montgomery College student Melissa Trotter. The agreement, expected to be finalized in court papers in the coming weeks, comes just days after a judge called off the pending execution of death row inmate Larry Swearingen, who was convicted in the slaying nearly two decades ago and has since repeatedly professed his innocence. "They're doing the right thing," defense attorney James Rytting said Sunday, pointing to another death row inmate's alleged plan to confess to the crime as evidence of the need for testing. A lab would likely evaluate the rape kit, the ligature used to strangle Trotter, finger nail scrapings and hair. "We're still working out the details, but I'm excited that Mr. Rytting has finally agreed to allow us to test this DNA," Montgomery County District Attorney Brett Ligon said Sunday. "I'm glad to be moving forward on this matter." Years-long legal battles over DNA testing have become a hallmark of Swearingen's case, which even sparked changes to state laws regarding post-conviction DNA testing in 2015. Both sides have pushed for DNA testing at times, but always using different legal mechanisms and never in agreement. At least twice, a trial court judge sided with Swearingen's testing requests - but each time the state slapped down the lower court's move, ruling that new DNA wouldn't be enough to counter the "mountain of evidence" pointing to Swearingen's guilt. In 2013, prosecutors filed a failed bid for DNA testing, but the defense opposed. Now, though, an alleged death row confession plot that could have seen another convicted killer confess to Trotter's death has sparked new interest in testing. "Both sides now recognize that there's a need to test the evidence," Rytting said. Swearingen and Trotter were seen in the college's library together on Dec. 8, 1998 - the day of the teen's disappearance. Afterward, a biology teacher spotted Trotter leaving the school with a man. Hair and fiber evidence later showed that she'd been in Swearingen's car and home the day she vanished. The killer's wife testified that she came home that evening to find the place in disarray - and in the middle of it all were Trotter's lighter and cigarettes. Swearingen later filed a false burglary report, claiming his home had been broken into while he was out of town. That afternoon, Swearingen placed a call routed through a cell tower near FM 1097 in Willis - a spot he would have passed while heading from his house to the Sam Houston National Forest where Trotter's decomposing body was found 25 days later. Swearingen was convicted and sentenced to death in 2000, but on Friday a judge approved calling off his Nov. 16 death date - the fifth one scheduled in the case - as a result of a filing snafu."

The entire story can be found at:

http://m.chron.com/neighborhood/conroe/news/article/DA-defense-agree-to-DNA-testing-in-Swearingen-12315422.php

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.


Sent from my iPhone

Bulletin: Five Miu family members: China: They have been exonerated (one was facing the death penalty; the others had received prison terms) - thanks to scientific refutation of crucial mitochondrial DNA evidence by American DNA expert Greg Hampikian. (An extraordinary story: Bravo to Dr. Hampikian and The Idaho Innocence Project)..."A woman named Yanhui Yang was found dismembered in seven pieces, placed in plastic bags tucked away in an abandoned cottage on a hill in southeastern China in April 2003. The victim’s ex-boyfriend Xinhua Miu and four of his male family members were arrested, and convicted of the slaying and body disposal at trial about a year later. Miu was sentenced to death, and his father, uncle and two brothers all received prison terms. Now crucial mitochondrial DNA evidence has been scientifically refuted by an American expert, which resulted in all five being cleared of the crime, and freed. “China is using forensic DNA, but had not been giving defendants even the basic information needed to understand or evaluate supposed DNA matches,” said Greg Hampikian, a DNA expert and director of the Idaho Innocence Project, who provided the new analysis."..."Put together, the mitochondrial evidence was turned on its head at the July retrial. What was initially used to link the victim to the bathroom was now exclusionary evidence, according to those involved. The hairs did not belong to the victim. “I asked Dr. Hampikian for help, and he kindly agreed,” said Jiaboa Ji, in an email to Forensic Magazine. Hampikian had previously secured the first exoneration by debunking of false Y-STR analysis, in a Taiwanese gang rape case, as reported in the journal Forensic Science International Genetics two months ago."

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "“DNA reports—like all evidence—can be faked, exaggerated or misinterpreted. Without data, DNA is meaningless.”

Dr. Greg Hampikian;

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "All five maintained their confessions had been acquired through torture."

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

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

STORY: "5 Exonerated in China Based on Mitochondrial DNA Hair Analysis," by reporter Seth Augenstein, published by The Forensic Magazine on October 27, 2017.

GIST:  "A woman named Yanhui Yang was found dismembered in seven pieces, placed in plastic bags tucked away in an abandoned cottage on a hill in southeastern China in April 2003. The victim’s ex-boyfriend Xinhua Miu and four of his male family members were arrested, and convicted of the slaying and body disposal at trial about a year later. Miu was sentenced to death, and his father, uncle and two brothers all received prison terms. Now crucial mitochondrial DNA evidence has been scientifically refuted by an American expert, which resulted in all five being cleared of the crime, and freed. “China is using forensic DNA, but had not been giving defendants even the basic information needed to understand or evaluate supposed DNA matches,” said Greg Hampikian, a DNA expert at Boise State University who provided the new analysis. “DNA reports—like all evidence—can be faked, exaggerated or misinterpreted. Without data, DNA is meaningless.” The crucial evidence, aside from confessions, were three hairs found in the Miu family’s bathroom. The prosecution maintained that bathroom is where the woman had been dismembered. Two of the three hairs were identified to be the victim’s with 99.999 percent assurance, the Forensic Department of the Public Security Bureau of Liaoning Province ruled. No further scientific determination was provided by the authorities, said Hampikian. “We did not get the sequence data of the mitochondrial DNA, nor any information about a database, all we got was a report that concluded ‘the probability that two of the dark hairs are from Yang is 99.999 percent,’” Hampikian told Forensic Magazine. The five Miu family members appealed the 2004 convictions twice. All five maintained their confessions had been acquired through torture. The Innocence Aid of Shangquan Law Office was contacted in 2016 by Xinrong Miu, one of the accused killer’s brothers who was behind bars. The new analysis was put together by a team of attorneys representing each of the family members, a group which included Lixin Mao, Wanchun Zhan, Hua Cai, Ping Liu, Yongzhong Gu, Zhifang Gong, Xuhua Zhang, Guqing Chen, Yaogang Wang and Wenlong Gao. The lawyers reached out to DNA expert Jiaboa Ji (known also as Jack Freeman), who in  contacted his American counterpart, Hampikian (who is also director of the Idaho Innocence Project). Put together, the mitochondrial evidence was turned on its head at the July retrial. What was initially used to link the victim to the bathroom was now exclusionary evidence, according to those involved. The hairs did not belong to the victim. “I asked Dr. Hampikian for help, and he kindly agreed,” said Jiaboa Ji, in an email to Forensic Magazine. Hampikian had previously secured the first exoneration by debunking of false Y-STR analysis, in a Taiwanese gang rape case, as reported in the journal Forensic Science International Genetics two months ago.

Independent Chinese media outlet The Sixth Tone also reported on the quintuple exoneration, which was decided last month. Their analysis of the country’s criminal courts found 34 overturned wrongful convictions from 2013 to 2016. "

The entire story can be found at the link below: 
 https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/10/5-exonerated-china-based-mitochondrial-dna-hair-analysis?et_cid=6153235&et_rid=979655504&type=cta&et_cid=6153235&et_rid=979655504&linkid=https%3a%2f%2fwww.forensicmag.com%2fnews%2f2017%2f10%2f5-exonerated-china-based-mitochondrial-dna-hair-analysis%3fet_cid%3d6153235%26et_rid%3d%%subscriberid%%%26type%3dcta

  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.

Barry Jones: Arizona: Brilliant story by reporter Liliana Segura - in anticipation of an evidentiary hearing set to begin Monday (October 30, 2017) - a hearing loaded with issues of interest to the readers of this Blog...Her story is headed: ""What Happened to Rachel Gray? Barry Jones Was Sent to Death Row for the Murder of a 4-Year-Old Girl. Did Arizona Get It Wrong?"... "Attorneys with the Arizona Federal Public Defender’s Office plan to argue that Jones’s trial was fundamentally unfair, marred by ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. Moreover, they say, bad lawyering at the post-conviction level left the trial attorneys’ failures unaddressed, resulting in a horrible miscarriage of justice. If his lawyers succeed, Jones could win a new trial — or even be released from prison. Poor defense representation and a lack of physical evidence are both hallmarks of wrongful convictions. The files in Jones’s case reveal many more. They show a rush to judgment, tunnel vision by the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, and a shifting theory of the crime by the state. Prosecutors relied on the most dubious kinds of evidence, from flawed forensics to the eyewitness accounts of young children. Vital pieces of evidence were lost, concealed, or never collected to begin with. More recently, DNA testing on one key item has failed to implicate Jones. In a state where eight people have been exonerated from death row, Arizona prosecutors have fought against reopening Jones’s case, even as the basis for his conviction has fallen apart.The intercept: What Happened to Rachel Gray? Barry Jones Was Sent to Death Row for the Murder of a 4-Year-Old Girl. Did Arizona Get It Wrong?

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: This detailed, thorough opus, written  by a top-notch criminal justice reporter,  cries out to be read to the end. Although it defies 'reduction' I will highlight a few of its many memorable passages.

Harold Levy: Publisher. The Charles Smith Blog:

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

STORY: "What Happened to Rachel Gray? Barry Jones Was Sent to Death Row for the Murder of a 4-Year-Old Girl. Did Arizona Get It Wrong?, by Liliana Segura, published by The Intercept on October 23, 2107. 

GIST: "Since the day of his arrest in 1994, Barry Lee Jones has insisted he did not rape or kill his girlfriend’s 4-year-old daughter, Rachel Yvonne Gray. Jailed on the same day the child’s lifeless body arrived at a Tucson hospital, Jones admitted she’d been injured on his watch, repeatedly saying she had fallen from his parked yellow work van the day before, hitting her head. Jones said Rachel told him a little boy had pushed her out. But even if it was true, that did not explain the bruises covering her body, or the abdominal injury that took her life. Almost no physical evidence linked Jones to Rachel’s injuries — and there was nothing to show he was guilty of rape. But when children die under mysterious circumstances, early suspicion typically falls on the adults who were closest to them in their final hours. On that day, witnesses said, that person was Jones. He and Rachel’s mother, Angela Gray, were tried back to back in 1995; Gray was convicted of child abuse but acquitted of murder. Jones was sentenced to die. After more than 20 years insisting upon his innocence, Jones won a rare evidentiary hearing from a U.S. district judge, set to begin October 30. Attorneys with the Arizona Federal Public Defender’s Office plan to argue that Jones’s trial was fundamentally unfair, marred by ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. Moreover, they say, bad lawyering at the post-conviction level left the trial attorneys’ failures unaddressed, resulting in a horrible miscarriage of justice. If his lawyers succeed, Jones could win a new trial — or even be released from prison. Poor defense representation and a lack of physical evidence are both hallmarks of wrongful convictions. The files in Jones’s case reveal many more. They show a rush to judgment, tunnel vision by the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, and a shifting theory of the crime by the state. Prosecutors relied on the most dubious kinds of evidence, from flawed forensics to the eyewitness accounts of young children. Vital pieces of evidence were lost, concealed, or never collected to begin with. More recently, DNA testing on one key item has failed to implicate Jones. In a state where eight people have been exonerated from death row, Arizona prosecutors have fought against reopening Jones’s case, even as the basis for his conviction has fallen apart. As his defense attorneys argue, “Jones was convicted based on a very specific timeline, which was grounded on a single factual premise: that Rachel was fatally injured and sexually assaulted while she was alone with Jones on portions of Sunday, May 1, 1994.” The total time frame was no longer than four hours, during which Jones was seen taking the child on short trips in his van. But several medical experts hired by defense attorneys have concluded that Rachel’s fatal injury could not possibly have occurred within the narrow window presented by the state. More significant still, in a recent letter to Jones’s lawyers, the Arizona Attorney General’s Office conceded that the current Pima County medical examiner “did not dispute the conclusions of your experts.” And the forensic pathologist who took the stand against Jones in 1995 has acknowledged that his testimony was flawed. Jones’s attorneys are certain that if the case were tried again, “no juror acting reasonably would ever find Jones guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” For his part, Jones admits he was no upstanding citizen before he went to prison. But he did not kill Rachel Gray. “I was guilty of a lifestyle,” Jones told me. “I was a thief. I was a dope fiend. … I wasn’t looking out for nobody but myself. And I hold myself responsible, because she died under my roof, on my watch. … I blame myself every day for that.”...(Read on: HL):

The entire story can be found at the link below:

https://theintercept.com/2017/10/23/barry-jones-arizona-death-row-rachel-gray/

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;

Kirstin Lobato: Nevada; Excellent backgrounder - by the highly respected criminal justice reporter Jordan Smith - for Lobato's on-going hearing aimed at a new trial. Story is headed: "In Bizarre Murder Hearing, Prosecutor Argues That Flies in Las Vegas Don’t Like Dead Bodies."..."Lobato has steadfastly maintained her innocence — and there are very good reasons to believe her. None of the physical evidence had tied her to the crime. And she had a solid alibi: She was at Larry and Becki’s house all day on the day of the murder, July 8, 2001, nearly three hours northeast of the city in the small town of Panaca. Indeed, The Intercept’s 2015 investigation into the case revealed shockingly inadequate work by police detectives who ignored Lobato’s alibi and failed to consider strong evidence that implicated a far more likely suspect. The weeklong court hearing will determine, at the very least, if Lobato deserves a new trial. At issue is whether the attorneys who defended her against the murder charge in 2006 were deficient for failing to call forensic experts to challenge the state’s theory of the case — and in particular, the assertion that Bailey was killed sometime before dawn on the day that his body was discovered."

STORY: "In Bizarre Murder Hearing, Prosecutor Argues That Flies in Las Vegas Don’t Like Dead Bodies," by reporter Jordan Smith,  published by The Intercept on October 25, 2017.

GIST: "Larry and Becki Lobato were sitting nervously in the back row of a Las Vegas courtroom when their daughter, 34-year-old Kirstin Blaise Lobato was brought in through a side door. Dressed in a prison jumpsuit, her hands were cuffed and shackled to a thick chain that encircled her waist, while leg irons secured around her ankles gave her a truncated gait. Her dark, wavy hair brushed the tops of her shoulders. She’d trimmed it, Larry noted. “She’s been crying,” Becki remarked. “She’s scared shitless,” Larry replied. Kirstin — known as Blaise — looked over her shoulder at her father and stepmother, and a slightly weary smile spread across her face. Becki smiled back, motioning to her. Moments later, the county marshal who acts as the bailiff for the court signaled for Larry and Becki to follow him into a vestibule outside the courtroom. It’s illegal for them to communicate with their daughter in any way while she’s in court, he cautioned. If they did so again, they could be charged with a gross misdemeanor — an offense punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine. Understood, they told him. But that’s easier said than done — especially when your daughter has been in prison for more than a decade for a murder she did not commit. And it’s even more challenging with the level of anxiety surrounding this meeting: What happens in court this week could lead to Lobato’s conviction being overturned. Lobato was twice convicted of the grisly 2001 murder of a homeless man named Duran Bailey. Bailey was brutalized in a dumpster enclosure behind a bank just west of the Las Vegas Strip. His carotid artery was cut, and multiple teeth were knocked from his head. His blood-caked eyes were swollen shut. His anus was slashed, and his penis was amputated; it was found several feet away. He was left to bleed out on the ground, covered in a layer of trash. Lobato has steadfastly maintained her innocence — and there are very good reasons to believe her. None of the physical evidence had tied her to the crime. And she had a solid alibi: She was at Larry and Becki’s house all day on the day of the murder, July 8, 2001, nearly three hours northeast of the city in the small town of Panaca. Indeed, The Intercept’s 2015 investigation into the case revealed shockingly inadequate work by police detectives who ignored Lobato’s alibi and failed to consider strong evidence that implicated a far more likely suspect. The weeklong court hearing will determine, at the very least, if Lobato deserves a new trial. At issue is whether the attorneys who defended her against the murder charge in 2006 were deficient for failing to call forensic experts to challenge the state’s theory of the case — and in particular, the assertion that Bailey was killed sometime before dawn on the day that his body was discovered. “Our hope is that the truth comes out that she has been wrongly convicted,” Larry said, “and that she gets her freedom.”

The entire story can be found at:

https://theintercept.com/2017/10/25/kirstin-lobato-murder-trial-las-vegas/

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.

DNA Series: (7): David Butler; Amanda Knox; Brian Shivers: DNA in the dock: Guardian story: How flawed techniques send innocent people to prison...". “You do see an assumption being made that a DNA profile is evidence of contact – case closed – whereas it is actually a lot more complicated than that,” says Ruth Morgan, the director of the Centre for the Forensic Sciences at University College London. “We are only beginning to realise quite how complex it is.” Since DNA was first used in a police investigation 31 years ago, to solve the murder of Dawn Ashworth, a 15-year-old schoolgirl who was raped and strangled in Leicestershire, the technique has attained an aura of being bulletproof. Certainly, in some cases, evidence of a DNA match to a suspect can be powerful. “There will be times when you get a really clear [DNA] profile, and it is very clear how that material got to the crime scene. And it is [also] very clear that it was during the course of an illegal activity,” says Morgan. “The classic [example] would be semen on the clothing of someone who is underage.” But Butler’s case is just one of many that highlight growing questions in the world of forensic science: what exactly are fingermarks, DNA or gunshot residue actually evidence of – particularly now that even tiny traces can be detected? It’s a riddle whose answer may have profound consequences. According to research published by Morgan and her colleagues, rulings for 218 successful appeal cases in England and Wales between 2010 and 2016 argued that DNA evidence had been misleading, with the main issues being its relevance, validity or usefulness in proving an important point in a trial. It is not the first time forensic science has come under scrutiny."

STORY: "DNA in the dock: how flawed techniques send innocent people to prison," by reporter Nicola Davis, published by The Guardian on October 2, 2017.

GIST: "Many juries believe crime-scene DNA evidence is watertight – but this is far from the case. As forensic technology gets ever more sophisticated, experts are only just realising how difficult interpreting the evidence can be." For David Butler, it began with a knock on the door early one November morning, seven years ago. When he opened it, officers from the Merseyside police were standing on his doorstep. The retired taxi driver was being arrested for murder. The police said they had evidence connecting Butler to the death of Anne Marie Foy, a 46-year-old sex worker who had been battered and strangled in Liverpool in 2005. Butler’s DNA, it turned out, had been logged into the UK national database after a 1998 investigation into a break-in at the home he shared with his mother. A partial match had been made to DNA found on Foy’s fingernail clippings and cardigan buttons. This, combined with CCTV evidence of a distinctive taxi seen near the scene, led the prosecutor to tell the jury in Butler’s trial that the DNA information “provides compelling evidence that the defendant was in contact with Anne Marie Foy at the time immediately before she died”. The case seemed conclusive. Yet Butler was adamant: he had not met Foy. “You do see an assumption being made that a DNA profile is evidence of contact – case closed – whereas it is actually a lot more complicated than that,” says Ruth Morgan, the director of the Centre for the Forensic Sciences at University College London. “We are only beginning to realise quite how complex it is.” Since DNA was first used in a police investigation 31 years ago, to solve the murder of Dawn Ashworth, a 15-year-old schoolgirl who was raped and strangled in Leicestershire, the technique has attained an aura of being bulletproof. Certainly, in some cases, evidence of a DNA match to a suspect can be powerful. “There will be times when you get a really clear [DNA] profile, and it is very clear how that material got to the crime scene. And it is [also] very clear that it was during the course of an illegal activity,” says Morgan. “The classic [example] would be semen on the clothing of someone who is underage.” But Butler’s case is just one of many that highlight growing questions in the world of forensic science: what exactly are fingermarks, DNA or gunshot residue actually evidence of – particularly now that even tiny traces can be detected? It’s a riddle whose answer may have profound consequences. According to research published by Morgan and her colleagues, rulings for 218 successful appeal cases in England and Wales between 2010 and 2016 argued that DNA evidence had been misleading, with the main issues being its relevance, validity or usefulness in proving an important point in a trial. It is not the first time forensic science has come under scrutiny. In 2015, the FBI and co-authors released a report that put the final nail in the coffin of hair analysis, while the matching of fingermarks (found at crime scenes) and fingerprints (taken from suspects) has also been in the spotlight. In a seminal paper from 2005, the neuroscientist Itiel Dror and colleagues revealed that, in the case of ambiguous marks, those examining the evidence could be swayed in their conclusions by the context of a case, with a match more likely to be made when the crime had been depicted as harrowing.  After initial resistance, the impact of such work has been dramatic. “Fingermarks are now presented in court in a completely different way – it is really, really rare that you get someone saying unequivocally: ‘This is an identification,’” says Morgan. But with technology now allowing the recovery of minute traces of DNA, new challenges have arisen. Not only is it often unclear whether trace DNA is from skin cells, saliva or some other body fluid, but such DNA samples often contain material from multiple individuals, which is difficult to tease apart. What’s more, working out when the DNA was deposited, and for how long it might have been present, is an enormous problem. “If you get a mixed profile on an item of clothing, is the major profile the last person who wore it, or is it somebody who regularly wore it?” Morgan asks. And it gets more complicated. “In different scenarios, some people leave DNA and some people don’t,” she says. Indeed, studies from several groups have looked at a number of factors affecting how much DNA is left behind, which can be influenced by such things as how long it was since somebody washed their hands and which hand a person touched an object with. And some people simply shed more. “We’ve had some experiments where the person whose DNA we were looking for left either a partial profile or not really a viable profile – but there was other DNA [from a person] who we were able to identify as a close partner who hadn’t touched the item; they hadn’t been in the lab.” To Butler, such issues proved pivotal. The DNA samples from Foy’s nails were a complex mixture of profiles and only a partial match was found with Butler’s DNA. Further analysis of the initial examination notes also revealed that Foy had been wearing glittery nail varnish. “That is going to retain more DNA for a longer time because there is more opportunity; more things for it to stick to,” says Sue Pope, a DNA expert who worked on the case, and is now co-director of Principal Forensic Services Ltd. And there was another significant factor: Butler had a condition which led to him having flaky skin. “He was depositing a lot more cells that you might expect from a single touch,” says Pope. The findings, argued the defence, meant that Butler’s DNA could have found its way on to Foy’s hands and hence her clothing by entirely innocent means – for example by Foy handling coins that had previously been touched by Butler. After eight months on remand, Butler was acquitted. The case exemplifies the puzzles Morgan and her colleagues are hoping to tackle by means of a host of experiments, from looking at how DNA can be transferred between individuals to how long particles such as quartz grains can cling to footwear – an important consideration given that the shape and texture of such grains can be linked to specific environments. “One poor student had to wear the same pair of shoes most days for four months,” says Morgan. The results were intriguing. The outsides of the shoes showed a rise in particular types of quartz grain as the student visited each of five known locations, with the quantity of each type dropping off over time. At the end of the study, grains from just two locations were found on each shoe. But there was a surprise. “Inside [the shoe] we had every single location,” said Morgan. That, counterintuitively, means the inside of a pair of shoes could offer up more clues than the outside when it comes to tracing a suspect’s movements. Meanwhile, research by the team carried out after the Rotherham abuse scandal not only revealed that DNA from semen could be found on clothes laundered several months after the fluid was deposited, but also threw up another result. “We found the ‘suspect’s’ DNA on other items that had never had any of that bodily fluid on them, indicating you are getting transfer in a washing machine,” says Morgan. The question of how and when DNA can be transferred, and its implications for the justice system, was thrown into sharp relief by the murder of Meredith Kercher in November 2007. Among the evidence was the fact that DNA from Raffaele Sollecito – the boyfriend of Kercher’s flatmate, Amanda Knox – was found on the clasp of Kercher’s bra. While it was argued that the DNA cropped up as a result of contamination, Morgan points out that when people are under the same roof there are multiple opportunities for transfer, from handling each other’s laundry to touching the same objects. Yet just how much DNA is transferred, and in what circumstances, remains unknown. The upshot is that, although the technology is more powerful than ever, the presence of trace DNA is far from a magic bullet. Indeed, the 2015 annual report from the UK government’s chief scientific adviser into forensic science warned that for many substances now detectable at trace levels “our ability to analyse may outstrip our ability to interpret”. But funding, says Morgan, is largely directed towards inventing new gadgets and miniaturising existing technology, adding that UCL has had to turn to crowdfunding to raise money for a centre dedicated to the interpretation of forensic evidence. Georgina Meakin, an expert in DNA analysis, also based at UCL, says that public understanding is another thing lagging behind advances in technology. One potential area of confusion is just what DNA analysis involves. Rather than sequencing the whole genome, only certain areas of the DNA are examined. Since 2014, in England, it has generally been at 16 sites, plus an additional marker that indicates whether the sample is from a man or woman. “These [sites] consist of repeating sequences of DNA, and we are interested in the number of repeats that are present; it is the number of those repeats that can differ between individuals,” says Meakin. But, she stresses, trace DNA is often far from conclusive, with analysts often having to turn to statisticians to unpick mixed profiles. It’s a situation that some have sought to commercialise, among them Cybergenetics – the company behind an algorithm-based technology known as TrueAllele which claims to be able to untangle mixed profiles and “produce accurate results on previously unsolvable DNA evidence”. It has been used in hundreds of cases in the US. But there is a hitch: experts have argued that neither they, nor the defendants, have been allowed access to the system’s source code – meaning, among other things, that it is difficult to know what assumptions are built into the technology. “There is a lot of concern,” says Morgan. “People aren’t happy that it is essentially a black box.” But the company puts the case that both defence and prosecution are welcome to test the software on their own data, adding that the maths behind the system has been disclosed. Nonetheless, Pope argues that independent validation of software for DNA analysis is crucial. “A courtroom setting is not the best place for looking at really detailed questions about how statistics have been done.” And, even if the technology is accepted as being reliable, questions remain. It “tells you something about the potential source of the DNA, but nothing at all about the activity involved in the DNA coming to be where it was found”, she says. That became apparent in the case of the Massereene barracks murders – the shooting of two British soldiers in Antrim, Northern Ireland, in March 2009. Among the evidence were findings from TrueAllele, which included a match between mixed-profile DNA taken from a mobile phone found in the partly burnt-out getaway car and one of the suspects, Brian Shivers. As Mark Perlin, founder of TrueAllele, testified, the DNA on the phone was six billion times more likely to be that of Shivers than it being a coincidence. Killer breakthrough – the day DNA evidence first nailed a murderer. Together with other DNA evidence, the finding proved pivotal in the outcome of the trial. Shivers was found guilty and sentenced to at least 25 years in jail, with his poor health making it likely he would die in prison. Yet in 2013, there was a retrial. The reasoning hung not on the evidence, but on its interpretation. Shivers’ DNA, the judge concluded, might have turned up on the phone and on other evidence from an innocent touch, or even a handshake. “Have the prosecution eliminated other possibilities than the guilt of the accused? Am I satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused?” he asked. The answer was clear. No. Shivers was acquitted."

Read the entire story at the link below:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/oct/02/dna-in-the-dock-how-flawed-techniques-send-innocent-people-to-prison

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.

  

Jesse Lee Johnson: Oregon; Larry Swearingen; Texas; Post-sentence DNA testing: In Justice Blog asks a very good question: "why would prosecutors refuse DNA testing - when it could ensure that the state does not execute an innocent man?..."Johnson has maintained his innocence for twenty years. Now, his counsel, Steven Wax of the Oregon Innocence Project, is asking for DNA testing of 38 samples from the crime scene. Many of them were never tested; others were tested using an older DNA test that has fallen out of use because it is not as accurate as current methods. The Marion County District Attorney’s office is opposing any requests to test more evidence, arguing in their brief that “this is not a DNA case.” Even though DNA testing has helped exonerate over 340 people, there are still prosecutors who oppose disturbing standing convictions, favoring finality over justice." Publisher's note: "This post is highly relevant to the Larry Swearingen case in Texas. Swearingen is scheduled to be executed on November 18, 2017;

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: This post is highly relevant to the Larry Swearingen  case in Texas. Swearingen is scheduled to be executed on November 16, 2017. From a previous post of this Blog (Link below)  October 28, 2015: "The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for the second time Wednesday reversed a state district judge’s order that would have allowed East Texas death row inmate Larry Swearingen to test DNA from evidence in his murder case. Swearingen, 44, was convicted of kidnapping, raping and killing 19-year-old Melissa Trotter, then a Lone Star College student in 1998. He was sentenced to death in 2000. His execution date has been set and stayed multiple times. The death row inmate has argued that he couldn’t have killed Trotter because he was in jail when she was murdered, and DNA testing would prove that someone else committed the crime. State District Judge Kelly Case twice granted Swearingen’s requests for evidence to be tested...Each time, the court ultimately has ruled that results from DNA testing would not have overcome the “mountain of evidence” establishing Swearingen's guilt."
 https://www.texastribune.org/2015/10/28/texas-cca-denies-death-row-inmates-dna-testing-req/

POST: "Why Would Prosecutors Refuse DNA Testing? In this Oregon capital case, it could ensure that the state doesn’t execute the wrong man. Published by 'In Justice Today', (Fair punishment Project) on October 13, 2017. (Thanks to the Wrongful Convictions Blog for drawing this post to our attention. HL);

GIST: "On March 20, 1998, Harriet Thompson was found dead in her Salem, Oregon, apartment. The scene was gruesome, “a scene from a slaughterhouse” the District Attorney would say — blood stains on the floor, bloody shoe-prints, bloody towels, a bloody bathroom and a broken, bloody knife. The police formulated a theory that the crime was a murder-robbery. A week later, the police arrested Jesse Lee Johnson because he had some of Thompson’s jewelry, allegedly giving earrings to his girlfriend and selling a ring. Johnson admitted he had been in Thompson’s apartment — he knew her — but denied being involved in her death. At trial, prosecutors presented some forensic evidence — a cigarette butt, footprints and fingerprints — to argue that Johnson had been in the house that day and had killed Thompson. Prosecutors offered to let Johnson plea to manslaughter, which he turned down. He was then convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Johnson has maintained his innocence for twenty years. Now, his counsel, Steven Wax of the Oregon Innocence Project, is asking for DNA testing of 38 samples from the crime scene. Many of them were never tested; others were tested using an older DNA test that has fallen out of use because it is not as accurate as current methods. The Marion County District Attorney’s office is opposing any requests to test more evidence, arguing in their brief that “this is not a DNA case.” Even though DNA testing has helped exonerate over 340 people, there are still prosecutors who oppose disturbing standing convictions, favoring finality over justice. For example, St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCullough defended the capital conviction of Marcellus Williams even though post-conviction DNA testing pointed to a different person. McCullough’s office and the Missouri Attorney General’s office continued to argue that other evidence, mostly consisting of jailhouse snitch testimony, pointed to Williams’s guilt. Ultimately, the Missouri governor stayed the execution pending an investigation. In another recent Philadelphia case, Anthony Wright faced execution for a rape and murder that he did not commit. Wright — who was only 20 at the time of his arrest — says he gave a confession after being threatened by the police. Post-conviction DNA testing, which the original prosecutor Lynne Abraham resisted, pointed to another suspect. Despite the fact that a judge ordered a retrial based on the DNA results, then-District Attorney Seth Williams prosecuted Wright again and lost. And, even though DNA testing is the gold standard for convictions and exonerations, there are differences in how DNA evidence has historically been processed as well as how that evidence can be used and interpreted. In the early stages of DNA exonerations, the evidence was relatively simple — DNA from a rape kit, for example, definitively excluded the exoneree from the crime. In Johnson’s case, the DNA evidence requires more interpretation because, as Johnson admits, he was in the apartment. Therefore, it would make sense that his DNA would be found on objects also in the crime scene. For example, some evidence was tested for DNA, but the results were not conclusive. Some DNA samples — like those from the bloody bathroom and the likely murder weapon — excluded Johnson, but law enforcement never matched the DNA to anyone else. Some DNA samples were mixed and difficult to process. Some DNA matched other people. And some DNA samples did match the defendant, but they could also have been present because Johnson had been in the apartment before. (The state used other evidence — like footprint matching — at trial, but the results were not only potentially tainted by law enforcement but have also been deemed unreliable by the scientific community.) This is likely to be the next generation of DNA exonerations — cases where the DNA can point to other suspects or cast appreciable doubt on a conviction. Last Friday, Johnson’s counsel argued in favor of additional DNA testing while the DA’s office defended their position that the current Oregon law does not apply to Johnson’s case because, they argued, there was not enough to show that the results would fully prove Johnson’s innocence. Steve Wax, Johnson’s legal counsel, argued that the Oregon statute only required a “reasonable possibility” that the evidence points to innocence. It would be impossible to prove otherwise until the testing is complete, as Wax explains. Via email he told me after the hearing, “Seven exclusions of Mr. Johnson’s DNA from items at the murder scene raise significant questions about the conviction that we are hopeful further testing could answer.”

The entire post can be found at:

https://injusticetoday.com/why-would-prosecutors-refuse-dna-testing-c8c84f0213d5
  
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