PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Here is the latest report (and related links) to readers from Pamela Colloff on her New York Times/ProPublica investigation 'Blood Will Tell' into Joe Bryan's blood-splatter based conviction.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Hi everyone, I’m back in Comanche, Texas, where the evidentiary hearing in Joe Bryan’s case wrapped up today. There were several jaw-dropping moments, but none was more dramatic than when many of us in the courtroom — reporters, spectators and even prosecutors — learned for the first time that a key witness for the state had decided that his prior testimony in the case was, in his words, “wrong.” Read the latest story here; Robert Thorman, as you may recall, was the bloodstain-pattern analyst whose testimony proved critical in convicting the former high school principal of the 1985 murder of his wife, Mickey. Thorman helped tie the flashlight to the crime scene and explained away the lack of blood in the interior of Joe’s car. Thorman wasn't in the courtroom today, but his affidavit, which he penned last week, and which was read aloud at the hearing, confirmed much of what ProPublica has been saying since the publication of “Blood Will Tell” — that his bloodstain-pattern analysis was not accurate and should not have played any part in Joe’s trials. We also learned today about the results of a new DNA analysis of the flashlight. I think you’ll be very interested by the findings. Suffice it to say that cases rarely unravel so quickly after so many years of inaction. Now we just have to wait to see whether Joe gets a new trial. Best wishes, Pamela."
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/FMfcgxvzKbVjbVsjTLwLvWqBRkQRQkDs
Read related KCNTV story (Reporter Leslie Draffin) at the link below: "Joe Bryan’s defense team made their final push Monday to prove he deserves a new trial. Bryan was convicted of killing his wife Mickey in 1985 but has always claimed he was innocent. Bryan’s attorney Jessi Freud delivered a shocking new piece of evidence in the form of an affidavit from Robert Thorman. Thorman was the bloodstain pattern analyst who was a key expert witness in both of Bryan's trials. Initially, Thorman claimed the flashlight found in the trunk of Bryan’s car had to have been held by the killer because of blood spatter on it. But in his September 13th affidavit, Thorman said after reviewing testimony from the first part of Bryan’s evidentiary hearing, he realized his testing, techniques and testimony may have been incorrect, but Thorman made it clear he wasn't lying. Celestina Rossi, a crime scene investigator and bloodstain pattern analyst from Montgomery County, has been critical of Thorman’s work from the beginning. She said his affidavit proves he was never qualified to be the expert witness against Bryan. “So, there were so many things that he testified to in his trials both in '86 and '89 that were absolutely false. They were wrong. They were egregiously wrong. It wasn't just an error like he messed up on the time it takes. All of it was wrong,” Rossi said. Earlier in the morning Brent Watson, DNA supervisor for the Waco DPS crime lab, detailed new DNA tests done by his department. Watson said he tested six samples taken from the flashlight, the key piece of evidence against Bryan. Only one showed a positive presumptive test for blood, although that test cannot determine if it was human blood or not. Watson also said a swab of the flashlight lens was inconclusive for Mickey Bryan's DNA. And when Bryan's defense team asked Watson if the state could determine whether Mickey's blood and DNA were on the flashlight he answered, “No, we cannot.” Rossi said she believes the flashlight presents many problems. "In a courtroom I’m familiar with I think we lose the flashlight," said Rossi. "I think the chain of custody is compromised and I think we have lost the integrity of the flashlight to ever be used in any subsequent trial.” Bryan's defense team closed Monday by saying his trials were never done the right way and asking the judge to fix this. As for district attorney Adam Sibley, he didn't have much to say in court, but he did urge the judge to look at everything as a whole, not the separate pieces of information detailed by Bryan’s lawyers. He also asked for more time to review Thorman’s affidavit and new evidence. Lawyers on both sides will meet with Judge Doug Shaver in November about the final facts in the case. Then Shaver will make a recommendation to the Court of Criminal Appeals who has the final say whether Joe Bryan will get a new trial."
https://www.kcentv.com/article/news/local/key-witness-in-hearing-to-get-joe-bryan-new-trial-admits-mistake/500-595578290
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/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
