Monday, May 3, 2021

Significant Development: (United Kingdom): Launching of new registry of U.K. miscarriages of justices - many involving false or misleading forensic science - that have occurred in the UK in the past 50 years with 346 cases..."According to these classifications, one hundred and forty-three (41 per cent) of the miscarriages of justice involved unreliable witness testimony, 91 (26 per cent) involved a false or unreliable confession, 75 (22 per cent) involved false or misleading forensic science, and 73 (21 per cent) involved inadequate disclosure."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Congrats to the University of Exeter Law School on the launching of an 'Evidence  Based Justice Lab' and miscarriage of justice registry. Although in its early days,  it takes its place among some very helpful  (if not essential) criminal justice resources including 'the National Registry of Exonerations  (USA'),  'The Death Penalty Information Center' (USA) and  internationally-focussed  'Networked Knowledge'. Australia. One section of the new project is devoted to  analysis of forensic  evidence relating to miscarriages of justice. Check it out!

Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.


The new registry can be accessed at:

Analysis of forensic evidence related miscarriages of justice in the Registry:


RELEASE: Database of miscarriages of Justice launched as part of new 'Evidence Based Justice Initiative," by Becky Harwood, released on February 28, 2021.

GIST:  "The database gives a range of information about each case and includes links to relevant press and legal documentation. It also provides information about key identified causes of miscarriages of justice more generally through online “wikis” that can be added to by researchers, practitioners, and members of the public. The creators hope that the publicly available database will assist in research to improve evidence evaluation and help those who may have been wrongfully convicted themselves.

Dr Helm said: “When people discuss miscarriages of justice in the UK, they often refer to famous cases such as the cases of the Guildford 4 or Birmingham 6. However, these cases represent the tip of the iceberg and miscarriages of justice still occur quite frequently. Using data from existing miscarriages of justice is important in identifying problems with evidence evaluation, and in protecting those interacting with the criminal justice system in the future.”

Selin Uyguc, a research assistant who worked on the database, described its importance in contextualising problems in the legal system: “Working on this database put me at the heart of some of the stories of those who the law has deeply wronged, and brought them to light. The research is not just about facts or numbers, but lives.”

The entire release can be read at.

The website for the Evidence Based Justice Initiative:

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: Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to:  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;
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they’ve exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;