UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR: "University of Sydney Law School professor David Hamer, who has written in the past about the Eastman case in the context of the effectiveness of criminal procedure, said it would serve as a useful reminder of the infallibility of the legal system. “It is a pretty graphic illustration that the system isn't perfect,” he said."
-------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "From the finer points of evidence law and hearsay, to the age-old conundrum of jury trials and outdated investigation techniques, the Eastman case has plenty to keep legal eagles interested, according to one Australian National University academic. Anthony Hopkins, a senior lecturer at the ANU College of Law, said the Eastman trial - the 20-year legal saga which culminated in a verdict of not guilty on Thursday - was a unique and remarkable case. “I think it raises deep questions about the extent to which we can fact-find so long after an event, but in other contexts, like say child abuse, it's often the case that we need to factually interrogate evidence that's decades old,” he said. “[The Eastman case] is almost singularly unusual, not so much that there could be a miscarriage of justice and someone could spend a long time in prison and then be released, but that this was followed by a retrial.”
---------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "David Eastman case a boon for legal eagles," by reporter Sally Pryor, published by The Sydney Morning Herald on November 22, 2018. (Sally Pryor is a reporter at the Canberra Times);
GIST: "The David Eastman case will give generations of academics and law students something to pore over in years to come. From
the finer points of evidence law and hearsay, to the age-old conundrum
of jury trials and outdated investigation techniques, the Eastman case
has plenty to keep legal eagles interested, according to one Australian
National University academic. Anthony
Hopkins, a senior lecturer at the ANU College of Law, said the Eastman
trial - the 20-year legal saga which culminated in a verdict of not
guilty on Thursday - was a unique and remarkable case. “I think it
raises deep questions about the extent to which we can fact-find so
long after an event, but in other contexts, like say child abuse, it's
often the case that we need to factually interrogate evidence that's
decades old,” he said. “[The
Eastman case] is almost singularly unusual, not so much that there
could be a miscarriage of justice and someone could spend a long time in
prison and then be released, but that this was followed by a retrial.” He
said the fact that the jury had taken so long to arrive at a verdict -
31 hours over seven days - was reassuring, in a way, for the legal
system. “There can be no doubt that they've applied their minds to
this, and that the system allows and encourages a degree of pressure to
be put on to keep thinking, keep trying,” he said. “In some ways,
it supports the faith we have in the legal system and the process of
trial by jury, that they have clearly given such thought and
consideration to the evidence in working towards a verdict. “I think it would have been perhaps more challenging if they'd come back immediately. The rest of us stand on the outside and we don't really know the full extent of the evidence that they've seen and considered. You could pick over this forever, even just thinking about the process of trying to appeal your conviction.” University
of Sydney Law School professor David Hamer, who has written in the past
about the Eastman case in the context of the effectiveness of criminal
procedure, said it would serve as a useful reminder of the infallibility
of the legal system. “It is a pretty graphic illustration that the system isn't perfect,” he said. “That's
no great surprise, because if you think about what the system is trying
to do, it's trying to conduct a historical inquiry where inevitably
you've got limited evidence, and the prosecution has to, with this
limited evidence, prove its case to a very high standard. “We
can't demand absolute certainty because that would be impossible to
achieve. Proof beyond reasonable doubt doesn't demand absolute
certainty, and that means that there are going to be errors.”
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/act/david-eastman-case-a-boon-for-legal-eagles-20181122-p50hpr.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/
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/act/david-eastman-case-a-boon-for-legal-eagles-20181122-p50hpr.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/
