PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "What about the future of bloodstain pattern analysis? This summer has brought renewed scrutiny to the unreliability of the forensic discipline through two unscripted TV series: Netflix’s “The Staircase” and ABC’s “The Last Defense.” Both feature murder cases that ended in convictions based, in part, on the strength of questionable bloodstain pattern analysis. Additionally, as I mentioned in an earlier newsletter, the New York Times’ editorial board weighed in with a powerful indictment of bloodstain pattern analysis. “The scientific analysis of forensic evidence can be essential to solving crimes,” the board noted, “but as long as the process is controlled by the police and prosecutors, and not scientists, there will never be adequate oversight. Yet there has been no movement in recent weeks to make any substantive changes to the way that bloodstain pattern analysis is used in the courts. Any hope for reform lies with the Texas Forensic Science Commission."
--------------------------------------------------
GIST: Hi everyone:This is the last dispatch of the Blood Will Tell newsletter... for now. Every so often in the months to come, you’ll receive new reporting from me. But before I sign off, I wanted to let you know what lays ahead for Joe Bryan, and for bloodstain pattern analysis as a whole. Joe will not come up for parole again until May 2019, when he will be 78 years old. Will the increased attention on his case, and the questions that “Blood Will Tell” raised, make a difference to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles? That remains to be seen. Between now and then, there will be some major milestones in his case. First, the Texas Forensic Science Commission is expected to release its findings about the reliability of the bloodstain pattern analysis that helped win convictions in Joe’s 1986 trial and 1989 retrial. That may happen as soon as July, at the commission’s next quarterly meeting, or later in the year. I will keep you posted. Then, in August, Joe’s case will be back in court for the first time in 26 years—since he lost his last appeal in 1992. This is a day that his attorneys, Walter Reaves and Jessica Freud, and former Clifton Record editor Leon Smith have long worked toward and hoped for. At the evidentiary hearing, Reaves and Freud will be able to introduce new evidence that jurors in Joe’s trials never heard, and they will put witnesses on the stand who will, at last, challenge the now decades-old testimony of Robert Thorman, the detective who performed bloodstain pattern analysis in the case. The hearing will function as a sort of mini-trial, if you will—a proceeding that will likely span several days, and will include testimony from an array of witnesses. It will take place in Comanche, Texas, about 150 miles southwest of Dallas, where Joe’s retrial was held, and will begin on August 20. During the course of the hearing, the defense will make the case that there is enough new evidence that Joe should be granted a new trial. Unlike a trial, however, the burden of proof will be on the defense, and so Reaves and Freud will present their case first. Then the prosecution will be able to offer rebuttal witnesses. The presiding judge, Doug Shaver, will make recommendations to the state’s highest criminal court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, whose justices will be the final arbiters. I will be in Comanche to cover the proceedings in August. I also plan to keep writing about the latest developments in Joe’s quest for DNA analysis. He is currently waiting for a decision from Texas’ 11th Court of Appeals about whether or not testing on additional pieces of evidence should go forward. In the meantime, I’ll be pursuing a number of new leads, including some intriguing information that a family in Central Texas, who recently contacted me after reading my story, has provided about a possible alternative suspect. All updates on Joe’s case will be sent to you as soon as they are published via this newsletter. What about the future of bloodstain pattern analysis? This summer has brought renewed scrutiny to the unreliability of the forensic discipline through two unscripted TV series: Netflix’s “The Staircase” and ABC’s “The Last Defense.” Both feature murder cases that ended in convictions based, in part, on the strength of questionable bloodstain pattern analysis. Additionally, as I mentioned in an earlier newsletter, the New York Times’ editorial board weighed in with a powerful indictment of bloodstain pattern analysis. “The scientific analysis of forensic evidence can be essential to solving crimes,” the board noted, “but as long as the process is controlled by the police and prosecutors, and not scientists, there will never be adequate oversight. Yet there has been no movement in recent weeks to make any substantive changes to the way that bloodstain pattern analysis is used in the courts. Any hope for reform lies with the Texas Forensic Science Commission. Noted the Times, “The commission, whose recommendations are watched nationally, in February imposed on Texas a requirement that bloodstain-pattern analysis be performed by an accredited organization, which should make it harder for prosecutors to introduce testimony by analysts with minimal training and qualifications.” To make sure no one loses sight of what’s at stake here, I’m spending the summer investigating a dozen or so cases in which bloodstain pattern analysis was used to convict defendants who were later exonerated, acquitted, or who remain behind bars, despite serious questions about their guilt. More on that soon. Thank you for reading “Blood Will Tell” and my newsletters. It’s been hugely gratifying to see the response to this series, and to hear how many of you care about the issues I have written about. More later this summer. Until then, thanks for reading! Pamela
P.S. Here’s a list of the previous five dispatches:
- Dispatch #1: How I recreated a 33-year-old murder case
- Dispatch #2: Here’s what investigators on the Joe Bryan murder case didn’t investigate
- Dispatch #3: This is how I found Joe Bryan
- Dispatch #4: How I became a forensic expert in five days
- Dispatch #5: How could someone be convicted on so little evidence?
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/16437a999eefd805
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
