PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Hernandez went missing in Elkhart, Indiana, in March of 1992, the police suspected Joyner might be responsible. But Joyner, who worked with Hernandez at a door-manufacturing company, denied having anything to do with her disappearance. To assess Joyner’s credibility, Elkhart police turned to a tool — well known to many police departments, little known to the public — called Scientific Content Analysis, or SCAN for short. A detective, trained in SCAN, reviewed Joyner’s written answers. He also examined the answers of a second suspect who filled out the same questionnaire. After conducting his analysis, the detective typed up a two-page report. The second suspect’s responses were “truthful,” the detective concluded. Joyner’s, he determined, were “deceptive.”He noted that while summarizing the day Hernandez disappeared, Joyner had not used the word “I,” writing, for example, “went home,” not, “I went home.” “That in itself is a signal of deception,” the detective wrote."
-------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Why Are Cops around the World Using This Outlandish Mind-Reading Tool?" by reporters Ken Armstrong and Christian Sheckler, published by The Homeland Security Newswire on February 3, 2020.
GIST: "The creator of Scientific Content Analysis, or SCAN,
says the tool can identify deception. Law enforcement has used his
method for decades, even though there’s no reliable science behind it.
Even the CIA and FBI have bought in. The police gave Ricky Joyner a pen and a nine-page questionnaire. Write what you did, beginning to end, on the day Sandra Hernandez disappeared, one question asked. “Went ot work …,” Joyner
wrote, transposing the letters in “to.” “Went home toke shower got dress
pick Sandra up … went out to eat … went the movies … toke Sandra home …
stop at [bar] for little while, then spent the night with
a grilfriend.” “Did you cause Sandra to become missing?” another question asked. “No,” Joyner wrote. “How do you feel now that you have completed this form?” “Yes,” Joyner wrote, that one word the entirety of his answer. When Hernandez went missing in Elkhart, Indiana, in March of 1992,
the police suspected Joyner might be responsible. But Joyner, who worked
with Hernandez at a door-manufacturing company, denied having anything
to do with her disappearance. To assess Joyner’s credibility, Elkhart police turned to a tool —
well known to many police departments, little known to the public —
called Scientific Content Analysis, or SCAN for short. A detective, trained in SCAN, reviewed
Joyner’s written answers. He also examined the answers of a second
suspect who filled out the same questionnaire. After conducting his
analysis, the detective typed up a two-page report. The second suspect’s
responses were “truthful,” the detective concluded. Joyner’s, he
determined, were “deceptive.”
He noted that while summarizing the day Hernandez disappeared, Joyner
had not used the word “I,” writing, for example, “went home,” not, “I
went home.” “That in itself is a signal of deception,” the detective
wrote. Instead of writing “my girlfriend,” Joyner had written “a
girlfriend.” What’s more, the detective wrote, Joyner’s handwriting was
larger and more spread out in the answer’s last two lines than in the
previous seven. When asked why the police should believe his answers, Joyner had written, “I have nothing to hide.” “This is not the same as stating I did not lie,” the detective wrote. When Hernandez was later found dead, Joyner was charged with, and convicted of, murder."The entire story can be read at:
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20200203-why-are-cops-around-the-world-using-this-outlandish-mindreading-tool
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;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------
