PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "No one disputes Stinson's innocence. The DNA from the 1984 murder case later matched a different man, Moses Price, who confessed to the crime in 2012. Lawyers for retired detective James Gauger, 74, and dentists Lowell Thomas Johnson, 88, of Milwaukee, and Ray Rawson, 78, of Las Vegas say their work was valid at the time, completely transparent and not disputed at Stinson's trial in 1985. They say the men barely knew each other and had no reason to conspire to frame Stinson. "There's really no motive. None. Zero," Rawson's attorney, Pat Sullivan, told jurors in his opening statement. But Stinson's lawyers are trying to convince the jury Gauger still believes Stinson was part of a 1982 homicide that's never been solved, focused on him immediately and ignored other good leads. As stated in the lawsuit, "Rather than continue to search for the true perpetrator, or take dental molds of the other potential suspects, the Individual Defendants manipulated the evidence so that the bitemark evidence appeared to correlate with Mr. Stinson’s dentition."
--------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Johnson, they say, was trying to build his reputation as an expert in the fledgling field of bite-mark evidence, and later spoke about the case around the country. Johnson was standing by his analysis even when Stinson was freed in 2009, saying he disagreed with a panel of experts that completely dismissed his opinion in the case. Stinson's new expert says even under 1985 standards, Johnson's work was badly flawed. Innocence Projects around the country have won exoneration of inmates convicted on the basis of bite marks, a strain of forensic analysis that has been largely discredited."
---------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "Horn suggested the evidence will show that Gauger and his now-deceased partner, Thomas Jackelen, "had it in" for Stinson because they believed he had withheld information about a 1982 homicide. The plaintiff team claims the detectives got Johnson to alter his initial analysis after learning Stinson was missing a different tooth. She showed jurors a police sketch, based on Johnson's observation of the victim, of a person's upper teeth that showed a missing second top incisor. Next to it, Horn displayed a photo of Stinson's teeth, which were missing an upper front tooth. Johnson's attorney, Jason Franckowiak, called the original sketch a red herring, just an early image based on Johnson's memory of viewing Cychosz's body, before he had even see the forensic photographs. After Johnson — an unpaid consultant to the medical examiner — said it appeared whoever bit Cychosz was missing an upper tooth, the detectives locked in on Stinson when they noticed he was missing his front tooth. He and his twin brother were interviewed because Cychosz was found near their backyard. At a secret John Doe hearing, Stinson was ordered to let Johnson take molds and imprints and photos of his teeth, and Johnson later concluded only Stinson could have made the marks found on the victim's body. "
--------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE FOUR OF THE DAY: " The idea that a person's dentition was as unique and traceable as a fingerprint was not generally accepted at the time, and is still not. Johnson believed it to be true and later used the Stinson case in his teaching at Marquette on the subject. Gauger would devote a chapter in his 2010 memoir, "The Memo Book," to "The Bite Mark Case." He didn't edit it to reflect that Stinson had been exonerated. Sometime after publication but before his deposition in Stinson's lawsuit, Gauger testified, he destroyed all memo books and notepads on which he based the book. Gauger, now silver-haired and walking with a cane, sounded his age from the witness stand at times, and repeatedly referenced the 35 years since the crime. But other times he was forceful and confident of specific memories. He said he doesn't believe now that he met with Johnson before talking with Stinson, despite what he wrote in his book and testified at his 2010 deposition. His attorney noted that Gauger's description of the trial, for instance, said he testified about an hour; he didn't testify at all. Horn pointed out that the teeth of Moses Price — who did kill Cychosz — didn't match Johnson's sketch either. She asked how a gap from a missing tooth would leave a mark when teeth on either side would not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Man exonerated after 23 years in prison says detectives, dentists framed him with bogus bite-mark evidence," by Legal Affairs Reporter Bruce Vielmetti, published by The Milkwaukee Journal Sentinel on June 24, 2019.
CAPTION: "Images shown to jurors in a civil trial over whether detectives and dentists framed a man for a murder he did not commit. "
GIST: "Thirty-four years after Robert Lee Stinson was wrongly convicted of killing a neighbor and sentenced to life in prison, he's back in court. This time, he's suing the retired detective and dentists his lawyers say conspired to frame Stinson with bogus bite-mark evidence. Stinson, 54, spent 23 years in prison before the Wisconsin Innocence Project helped free him in 2009, the same year he filed his civil rights lawsuit, which has finally reached a jury after a decade of pretrial litigation and appeals.No one disputes Stinson's innocence. The DNA from the 1984 murder case later matched a different man, Moses Price, who confessed to the crime in 2012. Lawyers for retired detective James Gauger, 74, and dentists Lowell Thomas Johnson, 88, of Milwaukee, and Ray Rawson, 78, of Las Vegas say their work was valid at the time, completely transparent and not disputed at Stinson's trial in 1985. They say the men barely knew each other and had no reason to conspire to frame Stinson. "There's really no motive. None. Zero," Rawson's attorney, Pat Sullivan, told jurors in his opening statement. But Stinson's lawyers are trying to convince the jury Gauger still believes Stinson was part of a 1982 homicide that's never been solved, focused on him immediately and ignored other good leads. As stated in the lawsuit, "Rather than continue to search for the true perpetrator, or take dental molds of the other potential suspects, the Individual Defendants manipulated the evidence so that the bitemark evidence appeared to correlate with Mr. Stinson’s dentition." Johnson, they say, was trying to build his reputation as an expert in the fledgling field of bite-mark evidence, and later spoke about the case around the country. Johnson was standing by his analysis even when Stinson was freed in 2009, saying he disagreed with a panel of experts that completely dismissed his opinion in the case. Stinson's new expert says even under 1985 standards, Johnson's work was badly flawed. Innocence Projects around the country have won exoneration of inmates convicted on the basis of bite marks, a strain of forensic analysis that has been largely discredited. Body found in alley: Ione Cychosz, 63, was found dead in an alley near Stinson's home near North 7th and West Center streets in November 1984. She lived on the same street. She had been beaten to death. Her partially nude body had apparent bite marks on it. Stinson, 21, at the time, had a solid alibi and denied any knowledge of the murder, but quickly became the lead suspect. No other evidence tied him to the scene. No one testified he was anywhere but where he said he had been. In her opening statement, Stinson's attorney, Gayle Horn, asked the federal jury, "How did these defendants get it so wrong?" She answered, "It was not an innocent mistake." Horn suggested the evidence will show that Gauger and his now-deceased partner, Thomas Jackelen, "had it in" for Stinson because they believed he had withheld information about a 1982 homicide. The plaintiff team claims the detectives got Johnson to alter his initial analysis after learning Stinson was missing a different tooth. She showed jurors a police sketch, based on Johnson's observation of the victim, of a person's upper teeth that showed a missing second top incisor. Next to it, Horn displayed a photo of Stinson's teeth, which were missing an upper front tooth. Johnson's attorney, Jason Franckowiak, called the original sketch a red herring, just an early image based on Johnson's memory of viewing Cychosz's body, before he had even see the forensic photographs. After Johnson — an unpaid consultant to the medical examiner — said it appeared whoever bit Cychosz was missing an upper tooth, the detectives locked in on Stinson when they noticed he was missing his front tooth. He and his twin brother were interviewed because Cychosz was found near their backyard. At a secret John Doe hearing, Stinson was ordered to let Johnson take molds and imprints and photos of his teeth, and Johnson later concluded only Stinson could have made the marks found on the victim's body. The prosecutor on the case, Daniel Blinka, now a law professor at Marquette University who went on to work with Johnson on bite-mark evidence research, wanted a second opinion. He chose Rawson, whom Johnson had recommended. Gauger and his partner flew to Las Vegas with Johnson's molds and photos. Rawson looked over Johnson's materials for less than two hours and said he agreed it must be Stinson. The day after detectives returned from five days in Nevada, they shared Rawson's findings with Blinka and arrested Stinson the next day. The idea that a person's dentition was as unique and traceable as a fingerprint was not generally accepted at the time, and is still not. Johnson believed it to be true and later used the Stinson case in his teaching at Marquette on the subject. Gauger would devote a chapter in his 2010 memoir, "The Memo Book," to "The Bite Mark Case." He didn't edit it to reflect that Stinson had been exonerated. Sometime after publication but before his deposition in Stinson's lawsuit, Gauger testified, he destroyed all memo books and notepads on which he based the book. Gauger, now silver-haired and walking with a cane, sounded his age from the witness stand at times, and repeatedly referenced the 35 years since the crime. But other times he was forceful and confident of specific memories. He said he doesn't believe now that he met with Johnson before talking with Stinson, despite what he wrote in his book and testified at his 2010 deposition. His attorney noted that Gauger's description of the trial, for instance, said he testified about an hour; he didn't testify at all. Horn pointed out that the teeth of Moses Price — who did kill Cychosz — didn't match Johnson's sketch either. She asked how a gap from a missing tooth would leave a mark when teeth on either side would not. Horn said the euphoria Stinson experienced when freed from prison didn't last that long as he struggled to reintegrate into life outside. "It's hard to catch, maybe impossible," she said during her opening statement. Stinson had dropped out of school in eighth grade to work to support his family, he later testified, and then earned a GED in prison. Since his release, he said he worked for a time in a plastics factory but mostly as a caregiver to his mother, who died of cancer in 2014, and a nephew with severe autism. He lives with his sister in Milwaukee."
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2019/06/24/freed-inmate-says-he-framed-bogus-bite-mark-evidence/1490097001/
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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
CAPTION: "Images shown to jurors in a civil trial over whether detectives and dentists framed a man for a murder he did not commit. "
GIST: "Thirty-four years after Robert Lee Stinson was wrongly convicted of killing a neighbor and sentenced to life in prison, he's back in court. This time, he's suing the retired detective and dentists his lawyers say conspired to frame Stinson with bogus bite-mark evidence. Stinson, 54, spent 23 years in prison before the Wisconsin Innocence Project helped free him in 2009, the same year he filed his civil rights lawsuit, which has finally reached a jury after a decade of pretrial litigation and appeals.No one disputes Stinson's innocence. The DNA from the 1984 murder case later matched a different man, Moses Price, who confessed to the crime in 2012. Lawyers for retired detective James Gauger, 74, and dentists Lowell Thomas Johnson, 88, of Milwaukee, and Ray Rawson, 78, of Las Vegas say their work was valid at the time, completely transparent and not disputed at Stinson's trial in 1985. They say the men barely knew each other and had no reason to conspire to frame Stinson. "There's really no motive. None. Zero," Rawson's attorney, Pat Sullivan, told jurors in his opening statement. But Stinson's lawyers are trying to convince the jury Gauger still believes Stinson was part of a 1982 homicide that's never been solved, focused on him immediately and ignored other good leads. As stated in the lawsuit, "Rather than continue to search for the true perpetrator, or take dental molds of the other potential suspects, the Individual Defendants manipulated the evidence so that the bitemark evidence appeared to correlate with Mr. Stinson’s dentition." Johnson, they say, was trying to build his reputation as an expert in the fledgling field of bite-mark evidence, and later spoke about the case around the country. Johnson was standing by his analysis even when Stinson was freed in 2009, saying he disagreed with a panel of experts that completely dismissed his opinion in the case. Stinson's new expert says even under 1985 standards, Johnson's work was badly flawed. Innocence Projects around the country have won exoneration of inmates convicted on the basis of bite marks, a strain of forensic analysis that has been largely discredited. Body found in alley: Ione Cychosz, 63, was found dead in an alley near Stinson's home near North 7th and West Center streets in November 1984. She lived on the same street. She had been beaten to death. Her partially nude body had apparent bite marks on it. Stinson, 21, at the time, had a solid alibi and denied any knowledge of the murder, but quickly became the lead suspect. No other evidence tied him to the scene. No one testified he was anywhere but where he said he had been. In her opening statement, Stinson's attorney, Gayle Horn, asked the federal jury, "How did these defendants get it so wrong?" She answered, "It was not an innocent mistake." Horn suggested the evidence will show that Gauger and his now-deceased partner, Thomas Jackelen, "had it in" for Stinson because they believed he had withheld information about a 1982 homicide. The plaintiff team claims the detectives got Johnson to alter his initial analysis after learning Stinson was missing a different tooth. She showed jurors a police sketch, based on Johnson's observation of the victim, of a person's upper teeth that showed a missing second top incisor. Next to it, Horn displayed a photo of Stinson's teeth, which were missing an upper front tooth. Johnson's attorney, Jason Franckowiak, called the original sketch a red herring, just an early image based on Johnson's memory of viewing Cychosz's body, before he had even see the forensic photographs. After Johnson — an unpaid consultant to the medical examiner — said it appeared whoever bit Cychosz was missing an upper tooth, the detectives locked in on Stinson when they noticed he was missing his front tooth. He and his twin brother were interviewed because Cychosz was found near their backyard. At a secret John Doe hearing, Stinson was ordered to let Johnson take molds and imprints and photos of his teeth, and Johnson later concluded only Stinson could have made the marks found on the victim's body. The prosecutor on the case, Daniel Blinka, now a law professor at Marquette University who went on to work with Johnson on bite-mark evidence research, wanted a second opinion. He chose Rawson, whom Johnson had recommended. Gauger and his partner flew to Las Vegas with Johnson's molds and photos. Rawson looked over Johnson's materials for less than two hours and said he agreed it must be Stinson. The day after detectives returned from five days in Nevada, they shared Rawson's findings with Blinka and arrested Stinson the next day. The idea that a person's dentition was as unique and traceable as a fingerprint was not generally accepted at the time, and is still not. Johnson believed it to be true and later used the Stinson case in his teaching at Marquette on the subject. Gauger would devote a chapter in his 2010 memoir, "The Memo Book," to "The Bite Mark Case." He didn't edit it to reflect that Stinson had been exonerated. Sometime after publication but before his deposition in Stinson's lawsuit, Gauger testified, he destroyed all memo books and notepads on which he based the book. Gauger, now silver-haired and walking with a cane, sounded his age from the witness stand at times, and repeatedly referenced the 35 years since the crime. But other times he was forceful and confident of specific memories. He said he doesn't believe now that he met with Johnson before talking with Stinson, despite what he wrote in his book and testified at his 2010 deposition. His attorney noted that Gauger's description of the trial, for instance, said he testified about an hour; he didn't testify at all. Horn pointed out that the teeth of Moses Price — who did kill Cychosz — didn't match Johnson's sketch either. She asked how a gap from a missing tooth would leave a mark when teeth on either side would not. Horn said the euphoria Stinson experienced when freed from prison didn't last that long as he struggled to reintegrate into life outside. "It's hard to catch, maybe impossible," she said during her opening statement. Stinson had dropped out of school in eighth grade to work to support his family, he later testified, and then earned a GED in prison. Since his release, he said he worked for a time in a plastics factory but mostly as a caregiver to his mother, who died of cancer in 2014, and a nephew with severe autism. He lives with his sister in Milwaukee."
The entire story can be read at:
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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
