PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "I’ve been writing about wrongful convictions for 20 years, and I’ve done a lot of reporting on junk forensics, but this was the first time I’d encountered a case in which the science of drowning was called into question. A year after Nadel first contacted me, I can now say that of all the cases I’ve investigated, Lindsey’s ranks among the most dramatic and confounding I’ve seen. There is certainly junk science, and plenty of it: Self-professed experts in the mechanics of drowning were unequivocal in backing the state’s contention that the only way Lindsey’s daughter could have drowned that day was if Lindsey had forcibly held her under the water until she died. But that’s not the only thing that went sideways. There was a lackluster police investigation built on a foundation of flawed assumptions. There were witnesses with serious credibility issues — chief among them, Lindsey’s estranged second wife, Linda, who painted an elaborate picture of Lindsey as heartless and capable of murder. As it turns out, she was a serial bigamist who was never legally married to Lindsey, and a private investigator had tied her to at least two fake Social Security numbers. There were allegations that the local medical examiner’s office changed its manner of death determination in order to satisfy police, a bumbling defense attorney who managed to make the case even more convoluted, and prosecutors who carried on an injudicious relationship with Lindsey’s surviving daughter after she testified at trial on behalf of the state. And then there was Lindsey."
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: "The Intercept' has published a recap of its 2018 justice coverage with its traditional focus on wrongful convictions and the death penalty - and the factors such as junk science which "invariably" contribute to the unjust incarceration of innocent people. Among these memorable stories is 'What happened at the lake," by Jordan Smith, in which the science of drowning was called into question. The entire recap of this important story can be read at:
https://theintercept.com/2018/12/26/the-intercept-2018-justice/'
STORY: "What happened at the lake,?" by Jordan Smith, originally published by The Intercept on September 9, 2018.
GIST: "I’ve been writing about wrongful convictions for 20 years, and I’ve done a lot of reporting on junk forensics, but this was the first time I’d encountered a case in which the science of drowning was called into question. A year after Nadel first contacted me, I can now say that of all the cases I’ve investigated, Lindsey’s ranks among the most dramatic and confounding I’ve seen. There is certainly junk science, and plenty of it: Self-professed experts in the mechanics of drowning were unequivocal in backing the state’s contention that the only way Lindsey’s daughter could have drowned that day was if Lindsey had forcibly held her under the water until she died. But that’s not the only thing that went sideways. There was a lackluster police investigation built on a foundation of flawed assumptions. There were witnesses with serious credibility issues — chief among them, Lindsey’s estranged second wife, Linda, who painted an elaborate picture of Lindsey as heartless and capable of murder. As it turns out, she was a serial bigamist who was never legally married to Lindsey, and a private investigator had tied her to at least two fake Social Security numbers. There were allegations that the local medical examiner’s office changed its manner of death determination in order to satisfy police, a bumbling defense attorney who managed to make the case even more convoluted, and prosecutors who carried on an injudicious relationship with Lindsey’s surviving daughter after she testified at trial on behalf of the state. And then there was Lindsey. Hapless at best, he had a long history of making poor decisions, particularly when it came to finances — a history that was often criminal and made his decision to buy life insurance on his daughter seem particularly suspicious. Prosecutors would argue at Lindsey’s 1991 trial that he was obsessed with Linda, and plagued by financial problems, so he intentionally drowned his daughter as part of a plot to woo Linda back into his life." Over the last year, I’ve asked Lindsey countless questions — in letters, on the phone, and in person — many of them frankly antagonistic, in an effort to get at the truth of what happened at the lake that day. To his credit, Lindsey has answered each at length, at times offering up details of his life that I hadn’t even asked about. He is a prolific letter writer. He’s sent me so many that I had to create a lengthy index to keep them all straight. And in nearly every communication, Lindsey comes back to one thing: He did not kill his daughter. And he’d like a second chance to prove it............................Among them was Sarah Forsyth, an aquatics coordinator and instructor at Texas Christian University. Good swimmers don’t just drown, especially not in shallow water, she told the jury. And Jeanette’s family — including Darlene — had classified her as a good swimmer. Cottingham asked Forsyth to assume that a 10-year-old was standing on a log and fell into shallow water. What would the child do? she asked. “Stand up,” Forsyth replied. When the child fell, she would have her hands out in front of her, not only making it impossible that she would land on her face — and thus get mud in her mouth, ears, or nose — but also making it easy for her to find the bottom, get her bearings, and push back up out of the water.“ When you fall on the floor, do you forget to stand up?”: The alleged rarity of finding organic material in the ears, nose, mouth, or lungs of a person who has drowned in silty lake water was an ongoing theme throughout the testimony of the state’s experts. Paramedics and firefighters who tried to revive Jeanette at the scene commented on the water and debris in her system — “chunks of mud” as one of them put it — saying they hadn’t encountered that in other drowning cases. Forsyth said the fact that Jeanette had screamed suggested she was aware that she was going under and would likely take a breath beforehand — meaning it would not make sense that she would ingest lake water. Forsyth added that a person who was drowning would never be in a horizontal position, make any forward progress through the water, or struggle against a rescuer, as Lindsey’s explanation of what happened would suggest. “It just wouldn’t be possible,” she said. “It wouldn’t happen.” Would a struggle be “consistent with [a] person sitting on top of the drowner?” Cottingham asked. Yes, Forsyth said, and that would explain why mud was found in Jeanette’s mouth. For that to happen, she said, “you’d have to have your face smushed into the mud.” None of the witnesses considered whether the temperature of the water could have had any significant impact on the situation. In fact, a firefighter who was at the scene opined that the water was “real nice” the day Jeanette drowned — minutes after testifying that when he returned three days later to take depth measurements, he had donned a dry suit before wading in. That way, he said, “when the water is real cold, we don’t get cold. Short, Lindsey’s attorney, tried to push back to little effect. When he asked Forsyth if she was saying that there was no way a child would fail to stand up after falling in the water, she retorted, “When you fall on the floor, do you forget to stand up?” Forsyth also questioned why Lindsey just sat on the bank with Jeanette in his arms rather than try to initiate CPR. Lindsey had taken a CPR class back in 1976, prosecutors noted. And, Forsyth declared, a person would never forget how to administer aid no matter how much time had passed since their training. Short pointed out that Lindsey was likely in shock — as park employees and first responders at the scene had suggested. But that wouldn’t matter, Forsyth said, agreeing with Cottingham that in an emergency situation, a person wouldn’t “allow themselves the luxury of shock.” Driving home the state’s theory about the intentional nature of the drowning was Krouse, the medical examiner. “There is absolutely no way this is an accidental drowning,” he testified — put simply, the autopsy evidence was not consistent with Lindsey’s story. “In what way?” Montague asked. “In the description of the — virtually the entire event,” Krouse said.""
GIST: "I’ve been writing about wrongful convictions for 20 years, and I’ve done a lot of reporting on junk forensics, but this was the first time I’d encountered a case in which the science of drowning was called into question. A year after Nadel first contacted me, I can now say that of all the cases I’ve investigated, Lindsey’s ranks among the most dramatic and confounding I’ve seen. There is certainly junk science, and plenty of it: Self-professed experts in the mechanics of drowning were unequivocal in backing the state’s contention that the only way Lindsey’s daughter could have drowned that day was if Lindsey had forcibly held her under the water until she died. But that’s not the only thing that went sideways. There was a lackluster police investigation built on a foundation of flawed assumptions. There were witnesses with serious credibility issues — chief among them, Lindsey’s estranged second wife, Linda, who painted an elaborate picture of Lindsey as heartless and capable of murder. As it turns out, she was a serial bigamist who was never legally married to Lindsey, and a private investigator had tied her to at least two fake Social Security numbers. There were allegations that the local medical examiner’s office changed its manner of death determination in order to satisfy police, a bumbling defense attorney who managed to make the case even more convoluted, and prosecutors who carried on an injudicious relationship with Lindsey’s surviving daughter after she testified at trial on behalf of the state. And then there was Lindsey. Hapless at best, he had a long history of making poor decisions, particularly when it came to finances — a history that was often criminal and made his decision to buy life insurance on his daughter seem particularly suspicious. Prosecutors would argue at Lindsey’s 1991 trial that he was obsessed with Linda, and plagued by financial problems, so he intentionally drowned his daughter as part of a plot to woo Linda back into his life." Over the last year, I’ve asked Lindsey countless questions — in letters, on the phone, and in person — many of them frankly antagonistic, in an effort to get at the truth of what happened at the lake that day. To his credit, Lindsey has answered each at length, at times offering up details of his life that I hadn’t even asked about. He is a prolific letter writer. He’s sent me so many that I had to create a lengthy index to keep them all straight. And in nearly every communication, Lindsey comes back to one thing: He did not kill his daughter. And he’d like a second chance to prove it............................Among them was Sarah Forsyth, an aquatics coordinator and instructor at Texas Christian University. Good swimmers don’t just drown, especially not in shallow water, she told the jury. And Jeanette’s family — including Darlene — had classified her as a good swimmer. Cottingham asked Forsyth to assume that a 10-year-old was standing on a log and fell into shallow water. What would the child do? she asked. “Stand up,” Forsyth replied. When the child fell, she would have her hands out in front of her, not only making it impossible that she would land on her face — and thus get mud in her mouth, ears, or nose — but also making it easy for her to find the bottom, get her bearings, and push back up out of the water.“ When you fall on the floor, do you forget to stand up?”: The alleged rarity of finding organic material in the ears, nose, mouth, or lungs of a person who has drowned in silty lake water was an ongoing theme throughout the testimony of the state’s experts. Paramedics and firefighters who tried to revive Jeanette at the scene commented on the water and debris in her system — “chunks of mud” as one of them put it — saying they hadn’t encountered that in other drowning cases. Forsyth said the fact that Jeanette had screamed suggested she was aware that she was going under and would likely take a breath beforehand — meaning it would not make sense that she would ingest lake water. Forsyth added that a person who was drowning would never be in a horizontal position, make any forward progress through the water, or struggle against a rescuer, as Lindsey’s explanation of what happened would suggest. “It just wouldn’t be possible,” she said. “It wouldn’t happen.” Would a struggle be “consistent with [a] person sitting on top of the drowner?” Cottingham asked. Yes, Forsyth said, and that would explain why mud was found in Jeanette’s mouth. For that to happen, she said, “you’d have to have your face smushed into the mud.” None of the witnesses considered whether the temperature of the water could have had any significant impact on the situation. In fact, a firefighter who was at the scene opined that the water was “real nice” the day Jeanette drowned — minutes after testifying that when he returned three days later to take depth measurements, he had donned a dry suit before wading in. That way, he said, “when the water is real cold, we don’t get cold. Short, Lindsey’s attorney, tried to push back to little effect. When he asked Forsyth if she was saying that there was no way a child would fail to stand up after falling in the water, she retorted, “When you fall on the floor, do you forget to stand up?” Forsyth also questioned why Lindsey just sat on the bank with Jeanette in his arms rather than try to initiate CPR. Lindsey had taken a CPR class back in 1976, prosecutors noted. And, Forsyth declared, a person would never forget how to administer aid no matter how much time had passed since their training. Short pointed out that Lindsey was likely in shock — as park employees and first responders at the scene had suggested. But that wouldn’t matter, Forsyth said, agreeing with Cottingham that in an emergency situation, a person wouldn’t “allow themselves the luxury of shock.” Driving home the state’s theory about the intentional nature of the drowning was Krouse, the medical examiner. “There is absolutely no way this is an accidental drowning,” he testified — put simply, the autopsy evidence was not consistent with Lindsey’s story. “In what way?” Montague asked. “In the description of the — virtually the entire event,” Krouse said.""
https://theintercept.com/2018/09/09/wendell-lindsey-murder-drowning-forensic-science/
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/
