PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "‘The police had press conferences on the [Letby] case before the trial even started. On the eve of the trial, they had a press conference, and 10 months later, while the defence was giving its closing speech, they had another press conference. They made videos. They made films. They’ve appeared in documentaries. They drip-fed videos – the things you now see on TV whenever you see [Letby] were given to them. They do press releases constantly. Every time I do something, they issue a press release to rebut it. They are constant. They have created a narrative around this case. One that meant that when she was convicted you had on the front pages of newspapers “Evil, angel of death, worst serial killer this country has ever seen”. You don’t see that today because the narrative has changed. What I hope I’ve done is say “Hold on here, there’s an alternative narrative behind what’s gone on here”. I think it’s important to win that public battle as much as it is to win the legal battle.’
———————————————————————
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The CCRC is now testing the McDonald/Letby application against its key criteria – whether there are new arguments or evidence not previously considered and a real possibility that the convictions would not be upheld. These requirements can be set aside if there are exceptional circumstances justifying a referral to the Court of Appeal, and it is not inconceivable that the publicity and experts’ doubts could help persuade the CCRC that this is an exceptional case. The timing may be propitious. Earlier this year, the previous chairman of the CCRC resigned after a damning independent report into its failure on two occasions to take up the case of Andrew Malkinson, who spent 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit, 10 of them after the CCRC was told about potentially exculpating DNA evidence and did nothing."
———————————————-
PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "The CCRC’s new chairman has criticised it for looking for reasons ‘not to refer rather than to refer’ cases to the Court of Appeal. Since then, the CCRC has used its ‘exceptional circumstances’ clause – reportedly for the first time – to send a murder conviction back to the courts despite no new evidence or new point of law. It has also referred back a long-standing murder conviction which it had previously rejected on five occasions, launched a review of several indeterminate sentences issued to young offenders before the practice was abolished, and recruited several new case review managers to deal with the rising number of applications. If you were Letby’s lawyer, you might be forgiven for feeling increasingly more hopeful."
----------------------------------------
STORY: ‘I had concerns right from the beginning,’ by Guernsey Press Journalist Matt Fallaize, published on November 16, 2025. (The Guernsey Press and Star, more commonly known as the Guernsey Press, is the only daily newspaper published in Guernsey, the second largest island in the Channel Islands.)
(PREFACE): The murder trial of nurse Lucy Letby has several local connections. Among them is that Dr Sandie Bohin was an expert witness for the prosecution. Another is that Channel Islands residents are involved in renewed efforts for a retrial. Meanwhile, Letby's barrister, Mark McDonald, is a regular visitor to family who live locally. Matt Fallaize interviewed him at a public event when he was recently in the island.
PHOTO CAPTION: "MARK MCDONALD BECAME LUCY LETBY’S LAWYER JUST OVER A YEAR AGO, BUT HE HAS BEEN SPEAKING ABOUT HER CASE SINCE SHE WAS CONVICTED.
PHOTO CAPTION: "Documents provided by local families are on their way to the Criminal Cases Review Commission as it re-examines one of the highest-profile murder convictions in English legal history."
GIST: "Barrister Mark McDonald believes the families’ complaints about paediatric services in Guernsey could help his client, neonatal nurse Lucy Letby.
She is in prison serving 15 whole-life orders after being convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others at the Countess of Chester Hospital where she worked, primarily on the testimony of several medical experts, one of whom was local consultant paediatrician Dr Sandie Bohin.
The CCRC is Letby’s final hope of getting her convictions back in front of the Court of Appeal, where she has already lost two cases. McDonald, who was taken on as her lawyer only after she was convicted, has prepared a case which focuses heavily on the reliability of the prosecution’s medical evidence and experts, who were led by another consultant paediatrician, Dr Dewi Evans.
‘I have met with some of the families here in Guernsey,’ said McDonald, while he was in the island recently.
‘I have got a number of documents which have been given to me and all of them are going to be submitted to the CCRC, as a separate ground. Whether there is an issue there or not is nothing to do with me. My job is Lucy Letby, and I’ll let the CCRC decide whether there’s an issue.’
LUCY LETBY IS IN PRISON SERVING 15 WHOLE-LIFE ORDERS AFTER BEING CONVICTED OF MURDERING SEVEN BABIES AND ATTEMPTING TO MURDER SEVEN OTHERS AT THE COUNTESS OF CHESTER HOSPITAL WHERE SHE WORKED;
Expert witnesses in criminal trials must be highly competent in their specialised field. They must also be independent and unbiased, clearly state the limits of their knowledge, continually review their opinions as more information comes to light, and disclose anything which could adversely affect their credibility, which may include unresolved complaints and disciplinary proceedings.
McDonald declined to elaborate on why exactly he believes the local families’ testimony could add weight to his contention that Letby is the victim of one of the greatest miscarriages of justice there has ever been.
More may become clear at the weekend when some of the families join Dr Roger Norwich, a medico-legal expert who now lives in the Channel Islands, to speak at a conference in Manchester about the wider impact of expert witnesses.
These are the same families, or some of now nearly 30 families, with whom Deputy Gavin St Pier has been working for years to bring to light experiences which he has said left them ‘damaged, neglected or ignored’ by local medical or safeguarding services, mostly in the area of paediatrics but not exclusively.
They say he has worked tirelessly on their behalf and for greater openness and accountability in health care. His detractors accuse him of a vindictive campaign to undermine doctors involved in an unsatisfactory experience affecting his own family a decade ago.
St Pier has used parliamentary privilege to speak about some of these cases publicly in the States Assembly.
The previous Assembly reprimanded him following a code of conduct investigation into a speech he made in 2022 during which he criticised Bohin and paediatric services. He was cleared of abusing parliamentary privilege. Since then, St Pier has been re-elected to the States, finishing seventh in June’s island-wide poll, and made vice-president and treasury lead of the senior committee, Policy & Resources.
He is now facing a new code of conduct recommendation to suspend him from the States for 25 days over a disputed telephone call with a Guardian journalist who was looking into the families’ concerns about local paediatric services.
Standards commissioner Dr Melissa McCullough found that St Pier had carried on ‘a deliberate and sustained effort to unfairly criticise, discredit and cause harm to Bohin’s professional and personal reputation’.
St Pier claims he is facing ‘extraordinary and dystopian’ consequences merely for confirming facts to a journalist which she had already obtained from other sources.
He will ask deputies to reject the proposal to suspend him when they debate it this month, urging them to see that ‘use of the code of conduct to prevent elected representatives from speaking to the media about public interest issues undermines democracy’.
The vote on St Pier’s proposed suspension has wider political implications. It puts P&R president Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez and her members in a particularly difficult position.
If their votes help to suspend their own treasury lead, they risk giving impetus to a nascent movement to replace him. If their votes help to save him from suspension, his alleged misconduct will reflect on them in the minds of his critics, and they may terminally undermine the standards commissioner. Abstaining would be an obvious abdication of leadership. They can only vote with their conscience and hope for the best.
In a recent radio interview, Bohin appeared to be trying almost to goad de Sausmarez into voting for suspension, saying ‘nothing would surprise’ her in a discussion about how the P&R president might act, and referring to the deputy’s criticism of misbehaviour among senior politicians in the previous Assembly.
Before the vote there will be another debate, again with parliamentary privilege, and there is every chance of it being as frank and brutal as previous episodes of what St Pier recently said had become ‘a repetitious sideshow’.
Repetitious, certainly; merely a sideshow, we shall see.
I do not know whether the Guernsey families were a consideration in McDonald agreeing to my request to interview him about Letby at a public event while he was on holiday with his family, visiting relatives who live in the island. If he merely thought there would be considerable interest locally in such a renowned criminal case, the size of the audience proved him correct.
However, it is not hard to see the links between the complaints about paediatric services in Guernsey and the claims against the medical expertise in Letby’s trial. Furthering one potentially strengthens the other. Which must also, at least partially, be why Conservative MP David Davis used parliamentary privilege earlier this year to link the two issues in a speech in the House of Commons.
He has not, incidentally, faced an abuse of privilege case over his speech, nor any other case.
‘David Davis became involved in Lucy’s case because of an article that was published which completely destroyed the prosecution’s case but was not allowed to be published in England,’ said McDonald. ‘The more he got involved, the more he realised this was a miscarriage of justice, and he’s done a number of debates on the issue. He uses parliamentary privilege to do this because he feels it’s right to expose these issues and he will continue doing it.’
Following our interview, a member of the audience asked McDonald about the St Pier suspension case. ‘I am, of course, aware of what’s happening. We all are in this room. But I don’t want to go down that particular rabbit hole because it’s not my job,’ he said. ‘I represent Lucy Letby, and my sole focus is Lucy Letby and overturning these convictions.’
Letby’s case is unprecedented. She was convicted in 2023 of being the country’s most prolific child serial killer after the longest murder trial on record. The prosecution presented circumstantial, statistical and medical evidence and the defence failed to call a single medical expert; indeed, other than Letby herself, the defence’s only witness was a plumber who worked at the hospital. The judge described Letby’s actions as ‘malevolence bordering on sadism’ and handed her the most severe sentence available since the abolition of the death penalty.
This prompted a miscarriage of justice campaign of unmatched speed and intensity, which is now backed by an extraordinary range of eminent professionals, among them neonatologists, paediatricians, statisticians and scientists. Earlier this year, a panel of 14 specialists – the best experts in the world, according to McDonald – published a report in which they concluded that there was no evidence of deliberate harm and that the babies had instead died of natural causes or due to errors in medical care.
The panel was led by Dr Shoo Lee, one of Canada’s most renowned neonatologists. A paper Lee authored in 1989 was key to prosecution experts’ explanations of harm in seven of the charges against Letby. But Lee said that they misinterpreted and misused his research.
Evans described the conclusions of Lee and his panel as ‘deeply flawed and erroneous’ and insisted that Letby was ‘evil’ and ‘guilty as sin’. McDonald and Evans have since fought an increasingly public and adversarial battle.
Barely a week passes without the case making headlines. Since McDonald’s interview in Guernsey, the Daily Telegraph’s science editor Sarah Knapton, who travelled to the island for that event, has published an article in which a former assistant chief constable who drew up the national policy for investigating deaths in healthcare settings criticised the investigation into Letby for producing ‘absolutely no evidence whatsoever’ and claimed she was the victim of ‘an egregious miscarriage of justice’.
Around the same time a new briefing paper appeared on social media in which 17 doctors, statisticians and others, including Norwich, set out why they believe the case against Letby was ‘predicated on unsuitable expert advice, junk science and fake statistics’.
In the 26 months since Letby was convicted, her case has produced a highly unusual abundance of documentaries, podcasts, articles and debates laying out the kind of doubts which it often takes miscarriage of justice campaigns years, even decades, to establish.
McDonald did not demur, and was certainly not apologetic, when I suggested that his work for Letby was as much public campaign as legal application.
‘Paddy Hill, who was one of the [wrongly imprisoned] Birmingham Six, said he could not win in the Court of Appeal until he won the battle of the public narrative, the public view,’ he said.
‘The police had press conferences on the [Letby] case before the trial even started. On the eve of the trial, they had a press conference, and 10 months later, while the defence was giving its closing speech, they had another press conference. They made videos. They made films. They’ve appeared in documentaries. They drip-fed videos – the things you now see on TV whenever you see [Letby] were given to them. They do press releases constantly. Every time I do something, they issue a press release to rebut it. They are constant. They have created a narrative around this case. One that meant that when she was convicted you had on the front pages of newspapers “Evil, angel of death, worst serial killer this country has ever seen”. You don’t see that today because the narrative has changed. What I hope I’ve done is say “Hold on here, there’s an alternative narrative behind what’s gone on here”. I think it’s important to win that public battle as much as it is to win the legal battle.’
The CCRC is now testing the McDonald/Letby application against its key criteria – whether there are new arguments or evidence not previously considered and a real possibility that the convictions would not be upheld. These requirements can be set aside if there are exceptional circumstances justifying a referral to the Court of Appeal, and it is not inconceivable that the publicity and experts’ doubts could help persuade the CCRC that this is an exceptional case.
The timing may be propitious. Earlier this year, the previous chairman of the CCRC resigned after a damning independent report into its failure on two occasions to take up the case of Andrew Malkinson, who spent 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit, 10 of them after the CCRC was told about potentially exculpating DNA evidence and did nothing.
The CCRC’s new chairman has criticised it for looking for reasons ‘not to refer rather than to refer’ cases to the Court of Appeal. Since then, the CCRC has used its ‘exceptional circumstances’ clause – reportedly for the first time – to send a murder conviction back to the courts despite no new evidence or new point of law. It has also referred back a long-standing murder conviction which it had previously rejected on five occasions, launched a review of several indeterminate sentences issued to young offenders before the practice was abolished, and recruited several new case review managers to deal with the rising number of applications.
If you were Letby’s lawyer, you might be forgiven for feeling increasingly more hopeful.
‘Here’s my hope,’ said McDonald. ‘One, we get referred back to the Court of Appeal. Two, the Court of Appeal says there’s a problem here, and these convictions are no longer safe. It is then likely that the prosecution is going to want a retrial. We have a retrial, I call 28 experts to give evidence, and she’s found not guilty. Then there’s a public inquiry as to what went wrong.’
Critics of McDonald’s case routinely argue that his public campaigning and panel of alternative experts which may help persuade the CCRC will be of less use at the Court of Appeal.
At the original appeal, the court threw out all the grounds submitted, including Evans’ inadequate expertise and bias and the unreliability of the medical evidence, and rejected leave to submit fresh evidence from Lee, finding no reasonable explanation why it was not called at trial.
It remains a steep challenge to explain the failure of the defence to call any expert evidence at all, including its original expert, neonatologist Dr Mike Hall, who attended court throughout the trial and has remained a critic of the convictions.
‘I wasn’t there. I wasn’t in the trial. I can’t tell you, and I certainly can’t discuss with you, why he wasn’t called. I wasn’t in that room. I was instructed afterwards,’ said McDonald.
‘One of the difficulties you face as a defence lawyer or barrister, if you are representing somebody who is charged with child abuse or child injury, is that you can’t find an expert who will give evidence for the defence. It’s a real problem. It could happen to any of us tomorrow or the next day, where there’s an allegation of physical abuse against a child, and now you’re accused and arrested and on trial and you can’t get an expert to contradict what a prosecution expert has said.
‘One of the things that you’re familiar with as a defence lawyer is that they are generally the same names you hear working for the prosecution, but you can’t get someone to contradict them. Unless you understand this world, and I do understand this world because I’ve been working in it for many years and I understand the problems, there’s a tendency simply to go to the local children’s hospital, be it Great Ormond Street or Alder Hey, and ask for an opinion, but often it’s one that agrees with the prosecution case because they won’t put their head above the parapet and get it taken out. That is historically a problem. There have been leading experts in the UK who have challenged the prosecution experts and they’ve been destroyed. They’ve been struck off for doing so.
‘If you play the same level – you know, they get a neonatologist, we get a neonatologist, they get a paediatrician, we get a paediatrician – then that is the quality of expert evidence going before the jury. What’s needed, if you’re on trial for the rest of your life, is the best in the world, which is what we have now got.’
If what Letby needed was the best experts in the world, when what she actually got at trial was no experts at all, it might follow that she could appeal on the basis that she was poorly advised by her then legal team. She would first probably need to waive privilege to allow them to discuss why no experts were called, and she has not done so.
‘Privilege is a complex area. Every conversation you have with your lawyer remains confidential and nobody else is allowed to see it. She never said “By the way I did it, but don’t tell anyone”, but there would have been conversations that she had throughout the many years that she was being represented which the prosecution would be allowed access to by waiving privilege.
‘The police issued another press statement and they have sent a file to the prosecution because they want her prosecuted for more murders. If privilege is waived, they’re going to have access to every single conversation she’s ever had with her lawyers. You know what they did with her Facebook searches and with a text message conversation she had with another doctor. Can you imagine if they had access to every single conversation that she’s ever had with her lawyers, all there in front of them, how that could be used against her, if there’s an inconsistency in something she said four years ago and has changed her mind in whatever way it may be? That’s your area of concern when it comes to waiving legal privilege.
'That is something that is under discussion continuously. But while the police and the prosecution are threatening her – which is what they’ve done, deliberately releasing it to the media, deliberately telling the Daily Mail that they’re looking at charging her for more murders – in her position, would you waive your privilege?’
McDonald became Letby’s lawyer just over a year ago, but he has been speaking about her case since she was convicted. On that very day, he was interviewed on national radio and said he thought there may have been a miscarriage of justice.
‘I’d seen this playbook before. There are four nurses in prison serving life for the same thing, and they were presented to the jury in the same way with the same type of experts used. I could have written that prosecution speech before they wrote it. I had concerns right from the beginning, which is why from the day I was instructed I have done this for not one penny, working pro bono. As my wife will tell you, it’s taken up a hell of a lot of my time.’
His background made him naturally interested in the case. He was born and grew up on an inner-city council estate in Birmingham, leaving school at 16 to become a sheet metal worker. He then went to work in an NHS hospital, first in accident and emergency and then as an assistant in operating theatres.
When he was 26, he put himself through night school while still working full time. Nearly 20 years ago he founded the London Innocence Project, a non-profit organisation which supports people wrongfully convicted. He has said that in all that time he has not known a stronger miscarriage of justice case than Letby’s. From that first radio interview, he was talking about convictions based on ‘a limited amount of evidence’ and ‘anecdotal evidence’.
Former Supreme Court justice Jonathan Sumption, who has said Letby is ‘probably innocent’, has expressed concerns that the convictions were based on ‘inferences from circumstantial evidence’. This included staff rota sheets, door swipe data, and Letby’s handwritten notes and internet searches.
Soon after Letby qualified to work with infants in intensive care at the Countess of Chester, there was a spike in neonatal collapses and deaths, and prosecutors presented charts showing that she was the one almost constant presence when babies became seriously unwell or died.
The charts were selective, said McDonald, excluding some deaths and illnesses for no good reason.
Professor Jane Hutton, an expert in medical data whose advice was initially sought by police investigators but was not followed up, has said that the statistical work presented to the jury ‘appears not to have been done in the way that it should be’ and that a police statement suggested ‘the work was done with Lucy Letby in mind, which is completely inappropriate’.
Letby took and retained a photograph of a sympathy card she sent to parents on the day of their baby’s funeral. She searched Facebook for families of the victims. Her diary was found to include victims’ initials entered on the days she was alleged to have attacked them. Handover notes which she took home at the end of her shifts were presented to the court as if they were trophies of her crimes.
McDonald described this as ‘weak circumstantial evidence used to damage the credibility’ of a young woman who grew up dreaming of being a nurse and whose life was dominated by her job. The victims’ families featured in a handful of her thousands of Facebook searches. No internet searches were found for anything related to the methods of death the jury was persuaded she used.
Perhaps the most infamous circumstantial evidence was notes written by Letby which included phrases such as ‘I killed them’, ‘I am evil’, ‘I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them’. These were presented almost as confessions.
Among the same notes, Letby wrote ‘Not good enough’, ‘I haven’t done anything wrong’ and ‘Police investigation slander discrimination victimisation’. Some of the notes referenced her family, pets and work colleagues. Others indicated suicidal thoughts. A year after the trial, the Guardian reported that sources close to the case had said that Letby scribbled these notes after a GP and occupational health therapist recommended them as a good way of dealing with extreme stress.
McDonald said the notes were ‘almost a cry for help’ written after doctors had started pointing the finger of blame at Letby but before she was arrested.
‘Which is why – and sadly it didn’t happen at the trial – I went to probably the most experienced psychologist in the world on confession evidence, or false confession evidence, a man called Gisli Gudjonsson. He gave evidence in the Court of Appeal on the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. He was instructed by me. He went to see her twice and wrote a very detailed report. He said two things – first that was simply not a confession and second having that before the jury and it being said it was a confession would have had a massive impact upon those 12 members of the jury. He concluded it should never have been allowed before the jury, and that is also now before the CCRC.’
But it is the findings of Lee’s panel of experts which remain the gravamen of McDonald’s case.
Case notes for each baby who died were examined by two experts independently, who then passed their reports to the chairman.
If their opinions differed, a third member of the panel reviewed the case, and a consensus view was reached.
The panel worked under the agreement that their findings would be released whether they favoured Letby or not.
In February, Lee announced that his panel ‘did not find any murders’, and presented alternative explanations for the deaths.
Prosecutors identified the injection of air in various ways as Letby’s preferred method of murder. Lee’s panel instead attributed those deaths to a range of factors such as thrombosis, sepsis, blood clots in the circulatory system, infection and respiratory complications. Prosecutors alleged that Letby poisoned babies with insulin. Lee’s panel found that their insulin levels were not abnormal for pre-term infants.
In perhaps the most widely reported of all the deaths, known as Baby O, Letby was found responsible for inflicting a traumatic liver injury. Lee’s panel has suggested both that a doctor mistakenly inserted a needle into the boy’s liver and that the injuries may have arisen during a difficult delivery at birth.
McDonald, who has accused Evans of changing his explanations of death in three other cases, insisted there was ‘no inconsistency’ in his panel’s analysis of Baby O, but some critics beg to differ. Evans has dismissed the claim of changing his mind as ‘unsubstantiated’ and ‘inaccurate’.
There is a quote about justice paraphrased from ancient Greece: the wheels of justice turn slowly but grind exceedingly fine. McDonald maintains he is certain that Letby’s convictions will one day be quashed, but not soon.
‘I don’t envisage that I will hear back from the CCRC until probably next summer. If they refer it back to the Court of Appeal, that’s probably going to be about eight months later. If there is another trial that may be about two years after that.’
In the meantime, Letby will be in prison, a prolific murderer according to the courts but hoping one day to be exonerated and freed, medical experts will go on disagreeing, McDonald and Evans will probably be unable to resist clashing, and various corners of social media will remain an inferno of commentary, some pseudo and unpleasant, of course.
Numerous times over the past few weeks I have wondered whether what happens next, or in the end, matters much to the families of the victims, especially the parents of those poor little babies who died, who have already suffered pain beyond what it is possible for most of us, thankfully, to imagine. It seems unlikely that a judicial outcome could in any way help relieve a loss so grave. Yet perhaps a sense of knowing, of what is sometimes called closure, can provide a grain of comfort, or can be at least preferable to uncertainty.
Certainly, when Lee’s panel challenged the court’s findings about Letby, the mum of one of the victims said it was ‘disrespectful’ and ‘very upsetting’ for the families who felt they ‘already have the truth’. McDonald has a right to defend his client, of course, and pursue his claims of a miscarriage of justice, but so publicly?
‘The starting point, particularly for the families whose babies died, is that they lost a child and they went through the horrendous grieving process one would go through from losing your child. And then sometime later they were told that somebody had murdered their child or intentionally harmed them. They sat through a 10-month trial and saw a conviction. And they’ve got a right to be angry with what I’m doing. But if I’m right, if the now 28 experts are right, and this woman is innocent, then their anger shouldn’t be at me. It should be at the people who have put them through hell and back for the last five years.
‘No one has seen all the reports that have gone into the CCRC but I have said that, if any of the families want to, they can see everything and read them. I’ll have probably a neonatologist sit down with them and go through the reports and explain to them what the position is. They haven’t taken me up on the offer yet. They may never do, but if they want my door is always open.’
The entire story can be read at:
https://guernseypress.com/island-life/2025/11/16/i-had-concerns-right-from-the-beginning
—————————————————————
http://www.amazon.ca/Nurses-Are-Innocent-Digoxin-Poisoning/dp/1459700570
--------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
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;
-------------------------------------------------------------------
