POST: "Securing murder convictions without evidence," by Andrew L. Urban, published on his Blog "Pursue Democracy: on November 23, 2017.
GIST: "Many people find it difficult to believe that our criminal justice system is capable of repeated and gross errors. But the example of just three cases show how the prosecution (protected by professional immunity) sought and secured a conviction by applying three ‘imperatives’ in each case. This breakdown shows that scenarios (however implausible) invented by prosecutors – when un-censured by judges – can persuade juries and help secure (wrongful) convictions. It’s rare, but not as rare as we like to think. Such miscarriages of justice put innocent people in jail and ruin many lives, undermine confidence in the courts and waste large amounts of money. More than criticisms of judicial decisions alone, they undermine the authority of the criminal justice system. The trigger for such speculative scenarios is lack of evidence, combined with failures at the investigation stage. When police are determined to bring a case against their suspect in a murder case and are unable to produce any direct evidence, there is a scramble for circumstantial evidence which can be manipulated to support a hypothesis. It’s called tunnel vision. Any clues or leads that do not fit the case constructed against the suspect is ignored. The brief to the Director Public Prosecutions is then massaged to fit the charge against the accused. This is where the prosecutor takes over and has to decide whether to proceed to trial with ‘reasonable and probable cause’ that a conviction can be secured on the basis of the evidence. In some cases, as shown here, that decision can only be substantiated by a creative approach which fills in the missing gaps in the evidence. It means speculating what might have happened, how the accused might have committed the murder. To succeed, this approach requires exceptional skills in story telling and jury psychology.
Juries – and defence teams – beware. Read on, at the link below, for Urbans's description of the three imperatives - and his account as to how they were applied in each of the cases."
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/c
