September 17: Technology (Gone Wrong!): When even the police union are worried about the use of Flock, you know there must be something really wrong with it as is evident from this story by Reporters Juan Benn Jr. and Ben Conarck, headed, "D.C. police union, Alexandria leaders voice concerns over Flock technology," and sub-headed, "The AI-powered license-plate readers can track vehicles across vast geographical areas in real time."... "Gregg Pemberton, president of the D.C. police union, said Friday the city’s department has used license plate readers for many years and is a powerful investigative tool. But he noted Flock’s technology can also create detailed files on people not suspected of any crimes. “We have a lot of concerns about whether or not there’s a constitutional question that needs to be addressed there,” Pemberton said. Pemberton’s skepticism of the technology also comes as the union said it learned the police force’s internal affairs department had used the technology to investigate sworn officers. The union filed misconduct complaints and a grievance about what it said was improper use of the technology, but Pemberton saiddepartment leadership has so far declined to investigate. The department has since restricted access to the system, according to the union."

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “People who often are not on the same page on issues, who have all come together around being deeply angry about Flock” and surveillance technology, said Tess McEnery, a local organizer and human rights policy expert in Alexandria."

---------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The union’s grievance thrust it into an improbable alliance of groups — which ranges from conservative politicians to leftist activists and civil rights advocacy organizations — raising questions about the technology that can track vehicles across vast geographical areas in real time."

---------------------------------------

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The chorus of skepticism grew especially heated this summer in light of reporting, including an investigation by The Washington Post, that found scores of law enforcement officers have been charged with or accused of misusing the technology, including for spying on wives, girlfriends and exes. Other critics have raised concerned about the data being shared with other law enforcement agencies, including federal immigration authorities."

----------------------------------------

STORY: "D.C. police union, Alexandria leaders voice concerns over Flock technology, by Reporters Juan Benn Jr. and Ben Conarck, published by The Washington Post on September 12, 2026. (Juan Benn Jr. is a reporter covering criminal justice in Virginia.)

 SUB-HEADING: "D.C. police union, Alexandria leaders voice concerns over Flock technology,"  

GIST: "The national blowback against Flock license-plate readers is also hitting the Washington region, with D.C.’s police union and leaders in a Northern Virginia city raising concerns about the use of the technology in recent days.

Gregg Pemberton, president of the D.C. police union, said Friday the city’s department has used license plate readers for many years and is a powerful investigative tool. But he noted Flock’s technology can also create detailed files on people not suspected of any crimes.

“We have a lot of concerns about whether or not there’s a constitutional question that needs to be addressed there,” Pemberton said.

Pemberton’s skepticism of the technology also comes as the union said it learned the police force’s internal affairs department had used the technology to investigate sworn officers.

The union filed misconduct complaints and a grievance about what it said was improper use of the technology, but Pemberton saiddepartment leadership has so far declined to investigate. The department has since restricted access to the system, according to the union.Ask The Post AIDive deeper

Pemberton called for the D.C. Council to regulate how the tech is used in the nation’s capital.

“Once you start to understand the capabilities of this system, even the proponents of it say there needs to be more public discussion and probably more legislation on it,” he said.

The union’s grievance thrust it into an improbable alliance of groups — which ranges from conservative politicians to leftist activists and civil rights advocacy organizations — raising questions about the technology that can track vehicles across vast geographical areas in real time.

The chorus of skepticism grew especially heated this summer in light of reporting, including an investigation by The Washington Post, that found scores of law enforcement officers have been charged with or accused of misusing the technology, including for spying on wives, girlfriends and exes. Other critics have raised concerned about the data being shared with other law enforcement agencies, including federal immigration authorities.

“People who often are not on the same page on issues, who have all come together around being deeply angry about Flock” and surveillance technology, said Tess McEnery, a local organizer and human rights policy expert in Alexandria.

Use of — and resistance to — readers grows

Many law enforcement agencies across the D.C. region use various forms of license-plate readers. Police in Fairfax County said Flock cameras helped identify suspects connected to a fire this summer at a storage facility that caused upward of $1.3 million worth of damage.

In Maryland, the network of Flock cameras has been expanding, though some of the state’s largest law enforcement agencies — including Baltimore and Montgomery County — don’t contract with the company and use other vendors. 

The police department in Alexandria operates 61 fixed Flock cameras along busy public roads, with more used by private businesses and schools, including Northern Virginia Community College’s Alexandria campus, Police Chief Tarrick McGuire told city leaders at a meeting this week. The city also uses automatic license plate readers to enforce parking, speed and red-light violations.

The department has drawn scrutiny in recent weeks after reports of potential improper use of the technology, but the chief said an auditing unit found zero instances of “malicious misuse.” He also said the department may soon get additional oversight help from an outside criminologist.

As McGuire spoke to lawmakers, at least 10 people held signs protesting the readers. The chief told the mayor and city council that he has heard the community’s concerns.

“I am of the opinion [that] as leaders our responsibility is not to choose between public safety and civil liberties,” he said at the meeting Tuesday. “The constitution does not ask us to sacrifice one for another. It requires us to govern in a way that safeguards the rights of individuals while protecting all persons in our communities.”

An Alexandria police spokesperson said in a statement that Flock cameras have helped the department find missing people and have supported 35 criminal investigations, including two armed robberies. “These investigations involve real victims and real harm, from violent crime and its lasting trauma to the broader impact crime has on families and the community,” the statement said.

But some city officials signaled at Tuesday’s meeting that they want the technology gone.

“While I do think there’s a role for technology, and I do think we have seen the role that that has played and the benefit it has, I do not think there is a role for Flock in this community,” said Mayor Aliya Gaskins.

The police chief said the department is in talks with other companies with “stronger safeguards” to address community and policing needs. The department’s contract was signed with Flock in 2023 and can be terminated at any time, McGuire said, adding the cameras were paid for by grant and city funding.

Gaskins and some council members said they worried that, even with a different vendor, the same potential problems could arise.

“Eliminating Flock isn’t enough for me,” said councilwoman Sandy Marks. “Eliminating and moving to a new and similar technology isn’t enough for me without an extended conversation.”"

The entire story can be read at: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2026/09/12/dc-police-union-alexandria-leaders-voice-concerns-over-flock-technology/

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. 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; 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;

September 16: Neonatal nurse Lucy Letby: UK: The Independent (Reporter Albert Toth, asks the questions of the day: "What is the ‘medical evidence’ against Lucy Letby’s convictions - and can she still re-appeal?," noting that: "An expert panel claimed Lucy Letby did not commit the murders of seven babies - with members’ evidence now being considered as part of an application for a fresh Court of Appeal hearing."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Letby’s legal team said it revealed “significant new medical evidence” based on findings from the expert panel which Dr Lee assembled. Lawyers claimed these findings show no evidence of deliberate harm in any of the 17 cases, but other varying reasons including natural causes and “bad medical care”. The expert panel also challenged the prosecution’s claim that Letby murdered seven babies by injecting air into their veins and causing an air embolism which blocks the blood supply. Their evidence was supported by Dr Lee’s 1989 paper on the topic, which Letby’s legal team said was based on a different kind of embolism. The professor also takes issue specifically with the prosecution’s claim that skin discolouration on the skin of several of the babies was evidence of an air embolism. He said there are several other reasons this could have occurred, adding discolouration is only a symptom in around 10 per cent of cases of air embolism – but it was present in nine of 17 babies harmed at the Countess of Chester Hospital. The professor added: “In summary, ladies and gentlemen, we did not find any murders. In all cases, death or injury were deemed to be natural causes or just bad medical care.”

STORY: "What is the ‘medical evidence’ against Lucy Letby’s convictions - and can she still re-appeal?, by Reporter Albert Toth, published by The Independent, on September 14, 2026. (Albert Toth is The Independent's Audience Reporter. He covers and commissions trending stories, topical features, and general news – with a special interest in social affairs and UK politics.")

SUB-HEADING: "An expert panel claimed Lucy Letby did not commit the murders of seven babies - with members’ evidence now being considered as part of an application for a fresh Court of Appeal hearing." 

SUB-HEADING: Experts claim they found 'no murders' in Lucy Letby case

GIST: "A panel of experts claimed that Lucy Letby did not commit murder after its chairman presented “significant new medical evidence” on her court case.

Evidence used to convict the killer nurse was newly challenged by Canadian professor Dr Shoo Lee who convened a panel of experts in London for a press conference last year.

Following a review by the 14 experts, he claimed there was no medical evidence to support the convictions and suggested the deaths and injuries were caused by natural causes or "bad medical care".

They were joined by Conservative MP David Davis.

Letby was convicted by a jury of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill another seven between 2015 and 2016. She is currently serving 15 whole-life orders for the crimes, which took place at the Countess of Chester Hospital where she worked as a neonatal nurse.

The two previous attempts to challenge Letby’s convictions have been unsuccessful. But her legal team has applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to investigate her case as a potential miscarriage of justice, which could see the case brought to the Court of Appeal.

Who are Dr Shoo Lee and the other experts? Dr Shoo Lee is a Canadian professor of paediatrics and founder of the Canadian Neonatal Foundation.
His 1989 research on air embolisms was used by the prosecution in its case against Letby at her trial between 2022 and 2023.

The respected professor now thinks his academic paper was misinterpreted by the prosecution and its lead expert witness, Dr Dewi Evans. Dr Lee explained to The Times: “I looked at [the court transcripts] and I wasn’t very happy because what they were interpreting wasn’t exactly what I said.”

Retired consultant paediatrician Dr Evans previously said concerns regarding his evidence were "unsubstantiated, unfounded, inaccurate".

Dr Lee however said he is challenging the evidence used against Letby to be entirely sure that the case against her was not based on faulty evidence.

The professor said that, upon learning the low chance of having her conviction overturned after a failed appeal, he remarked: “Well, this is not fair, because the evidence that was used to convict her, in my opinion, wasn’t quite right.”

Dr Lee told reporters he conferred with Letby’s legal team to assess whether the 35,000 pages of medical evidence was “faulty or good”. What followed was the assembly of 14 experts from six countries, organised by the professor, who presented their findings.

These experts were drawn from institutions around the world, including Canada, the US, Japan, Sweden, Germany, and the UK. They include ten neonatologists, one paediatric surgeon, one paediatric infectious disease specialist, one senior neonatal intensive care nurse, and another paediatric specialist.

What evidence did the panel present?

Letby’s legal team said it revealed “significant new medical evidence” based on findings from the expert panel which Dr Lee assembled. Lawyers claimed these findings show no evidence of deliberate harm in any of the 17 cases, but other varying reasons including natural causes and “bad medical care”.

The expert panel also challenged the prosecution’s claim that Letby murdered seven babies by injecting air into their veins and causing an air embolism which blocks the blood supply. Their evidence was supported by Dr Lee’s 1989 paper on the topic, which Letby’s legal team said was based on a different kind of embolism.

The professor also takes issue specifically with the prosecution’s claim that skin discolouration on the skin of several of the babies was evidence of an air embolism. He said there are several other reasons this could have occurred, adding discolouration is only a symptom in around 10 per cent of cases of air embolism – but it was present in nine of 17 babies harmed at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

The professor added: “In summary, ladies and gentlemen, we did not find any murders. In all cases, death or injury were deemed to be natural causes or just bad medical care.”

Did the panel discuss any specific cases?

During the conference, Dr Lee spoke about the specific cases of several of the babies. He began with the death of baby one, a pre-term boy who collapsed two days after being born, with skin discolouration noted and who did not respond to resuscitation.

The professor called into question the use of his paper to support the finding that Letby had injected air into the veins, causing the baby’s death. He indicated skin discolouration was not safe evidence of this, saying “the notion that these babies can be diagnosed with air embolism because they collapsed and had these skin discolourations has no evidence in fact”.

Likewise, Dr Lee said the panel claimed the death of baby four, also attributed to an air embolism, was actually caused by “systemic sepsis, pneumonia and disseminated intravascular coagulation” resulting from poor healthcare.

After a “prolonged, premature rupture of membranes” had caused an infection, he said “the mother did not receive antibiotics”, adding “there were important delays in the admission, diagnosis and treatment of the baby after the baby was born”.

He said: “This was not a stable baby, as alleged by the prosecution witness, and in fact, this baby continued to deteriorate for the next few days until final collapse with worsening symptoms of infection as we went along.”

Dr Lee said the panel had next looked at a girl identified only as baby nine. He said her death was preventable, suggesting she had been poorly cared for. He said there was no evidence of an air embolism, for which Letby has been blamed after claims she injected the child with air.

He said the child was born severely pre-term with chronic lung disease and needed to be resuscitated. Letby had been accused of injecting air into the child through a nasal-gastric tube into her stomach causing respiratory arrest, heart failure and death.

The former nurse was also accused of turning off a monitor alerting medics if the baby stopped breathing for longer than around 20 seconds, causing a delay in her treatment.

Dr Lee said the alarm was not switched off and the baby was “gasping” for air. He suggested the medics caring for her failed to respond timely to a bacterial infection with antibiotics, and he concluded the child died from respiratory complications with no evidence of air embolism.

The professor went on to discuss baby 11 (whose death Letby was not found guilty of), baby 15 and baby seven, finding fault with the allegations against the former nurse in each case.

Dr Lee, summarising his panel’s findings, cited what he claimed were flaws in the prosecution evidence.

He cited incomplete medical treatment, failure to consider medical histories, disregard for warnings about infections, misdiagnosis of babies, caring for very poorly babies beyond their medical competencies, delays in treatment of acutely poorly babies, poor medical skills in certain procedures and poor supervision of more junior medics and a lack of understanding of some basic procedures.

He also cited poor management of common medical conditions and lack of knowledge about commonly used equipment in the hospital unit, adding: “There was a lack of teamwork and trust between the health professions.”

Dr Lee also said there was evidence of inadequate numbers of staff, a lack of training, workload overload, and some poorly babies should have been treated at a “higher level” unit or hospital.

Could this change Letby’s convictions?

Following the previous unsuccessful attempts, Letby’s legal team can no longer challenge her convictions at the Court of Appeal without significant new evidence that was not available during her first trial.

Dr Lee had previously given counter-evidence concerning air embolisms during Letby’s appeal, but the judge said this was inadmissible as he was not called by her defence at the original trial. The professor claimed he was first contacted in October 2023, after Letby was convicted, and did not know his paper had been used in the trial.

The new file of evidence convened by him and his panel has been submitted to the CCRC. The body aims to complete most investigations within a year of application. If it finds a substantial possibility that judges could overturn the conviction, it has the power to send the case back to the Court of Appeal.

Last year, A CCRC spokesperson said: “It is for the CCRC to find, investigate and if appropriate, refer potential miscarriages of justice to the appellate courts when new evidence or new argument means there is a real possibility that a conviction will not be upheld, or a sentence reduced.

"At this stage it is not possible to determine how long it will take to review this application. A significant volume of complicated evidence was presented to the court in Ms Letby's trials.

"The CCRC is independent. We do not work for the government, courts, police, the prosecution or for anyone applying for a review of their case. This helps us investigate alleged miscarriages of justice impartially."

On Tuesday, the outcome of the the Thirwall Inquiry into how the nurse committed her crimes will be published.

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.independent.co.uk/author/albert-toth

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. 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; 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;

September 15: "Neonatal nurse Lucy Letby: Thirlwell Report released: The Guardian examines the report, released earlier today, and asks, "I've heard people say Letby may be innocent. What does the report say about that?" The Guardian's response: "Nothing. The inquiry was conducted entirely on the basis of Letby being found guilty of the offences for which she was convicted. All attempts by Letby to appeal against the convictions were dismissed. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is investigating her case to determine if there is a “real possibility” her convictions would not be upheld, which could trigger a referral back to the appeal courts. The chair of the CCRC, Vera Baird, told the BBC the miscarriages of justice watchdog would be looking at the conclusions drawn by the Thirlwall inquiry. She said: “We will be looking at the report with interest to assess whether it has any bearing on our review of the case."

 

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am very uncomfortable with much of the reporting on the Thirlwall report, issued earlier today - especially the stories which refer to her as "killer nurse". Yes, I know she has been convicted and has lost her appeals, But there is a mountain of   new evidence not previously available that she had an extremely unfair trial - at which she seemed more of a target than an accused -  and  she desperately needs the CRCC (Criminal Cases Review Commission)  to refer the case back to the appeal courts. Yes, I also know that two of the experts supporting her position have changed their minds -   affirming their initial opinions, but criticizing opinions of some of the other experts supporting her. Nor does this change my mind about the unfairness of her trial - especially when one considers the utterly biased evidence given by Dr. Dewi  Evans,  and some of the other so-called witnesses testifying for the prosecution:  Last point: As the Guardian reports, the main focus on the report  is on 'security' -  the need to protect babies from being harmed to protect newly born babies from being killed by future Lucy Letby's  by installing  cameras. This does not impress me. I have read enough about the terribly flawed treatment provided to newly born babies at the Countess of Chester hospital,  to believe that none of the  babies at Countess of Chester  were murdered. Their deaths were due to natural causes and bad medicine. Lucy Letby  is a scapegoat - as was Nurse Susan Nelles was in Ontario - the innocent  (exonerated) nurse who was convicted of murdering four babies at Toronto's Iconic Hospital for Sick Children in 1980-81;  It is the  Countess of Chester hospital - and the National Health Service - (not Lucy Letby)  that  must accept the blame - and prove to the world that they have taken all necessary steps to make sure this cannot happen again. 

Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. 

-------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Who is Lucy Letby and what is this new report about? Letby, 36, is serving 15 whole-life prison terms after being convicted of the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of seven other newborns at the Countess of Chester hospital in north-west England from June 2015 to June 2016. The former neonatal nurse says she is innocent and is fighting to overturn her convictions. The report published on Tuesday holds the findings of the Thirlwall inquiry, an independent public inquiry led by Lady Justice Kathryn Thirlwall, a senior court of appeal judge, which was first announced on 4 September 2023. It focused on events at the Countess of Chester hospital leading up to and during Letby’s offending. It aimed to get answers for the victims’ families and ensure lessons were learned. The inquiry also looked at the wider circumstances, including the response and conduct of the NHS, I ts staff and its regulators."

--------------------------------------------

STORY: "Thirlwall report: what did it say about Lucy Letby case and what does it recommend?, by Senior News Reporter Jamie Grierson, published by The Guardian, on September 15, 2026.

SUB-HEADING: "Lady Justice Thirlwall’s wide ranging inquiry calls on NHS England to implement 14 changes by March next year

GIST: "Lady Justice Thirlwall has published the report on the findings of her inquiryinto events at the Countess of Chester hospital involving the actions of former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby, who was convicted over the murder and attempted murder of multiple babies.

Here we take a look at the report and its findings.

Who is Lucy Letby and what is this new report about?

Letby, 36, is serving 15 whole-life prison terms after being convicted of the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of seven other newborns at the Countess of Chester hospital in north-west England from June 2015 to June 2016. The former neonatal nurse says she is innocent and is fighting to overturn her convictions.

The report published on Tuesday holds the findings of the Thirlwall inquiry, an independent public inquiry led by Lady Justice Kathryn Thirlwall, a senior court of appeal judge, which was first announced on 4 September 2023.

It focused on events at the Countess of Chester hospital leading up to and during Letby’s offending. It aimed to get answers for the victims’ families and ensure lessons were learned. The inquiry also looked at the wider circumstances, including the response and conduct of the NHS, I ts staff and its regulators.

What was the main finding of the inquiry?

Thirlwall found a “complete failure” to protect babies on the neonatal unit at the hospital.

Delivering her report at Liverpool town hall on Tuesday, Thirlwall said the report described dysfunctional management and governance, a gulf between hospital leadership and clinicians, and failure to understand the fundamentals of safeguarding.

Could any of the babies have been saved?

Thirlwall concluded that three babies might have survived and seven others could have been protected if hospital bosses had taken action over concerns about Letby.

She said two newborn twins would not have died and five others would not have been harmed if Letby had been removed from the unit sooner, while a third baby, a two-month-old girl, and two others who suffered unexplained collapses might have been protected if a doctor had detected an earlier insulin poisoning on the unit.

One of those infants, now aged 11, suffered a lifelong brain injury and needs 24-hour care.

If doctors were worried, why did the hospital not stop her?

Senior doctors became increasingly concerned about Letby’s connection to the unusual rise in deaths and serious incidents over the following months and raised their fears with executives.

However, the Thirlwall inquiry found that senior nurses effectively dismissed the concerns about Letby and that there was a “prolonged delay” in calling the police.

Thirlwall said that rather than being believed, clinicians were themselves made the subject of investigation in a “deplorable” grievance process brought by Letby when she was finally removed from the neonatal unit in July 2016.

Did the families know what was happening at the time?

The inquiry found that parents were “kept in the dark” for years about what happened to their babies and the concerns they might have been deliberately harmed.

Thirlwall concluded this was “reprehensible”.

Experts quit Lucy Letby’s defence team over ‘scientific credibility’ as public inquiry reports

Read more

What needs to change to stop this from happening again?

A total of 14 recommendations have been made in the Thirlwall inquiry report – including the fitting of baby monitors in all cots and incubators in neonatal units and CCTV cameras focused on insulin storage fridges.

The recommendations follow the conclusions made by Thirlwall, the inquiry chair, who said the collapse and deaths of some babies could have been avoided if safeguarding practices had been followed.

She said baby monitors would ensure parents could observe their babies “remotely at any time” – adding that NHS England should “set out a roadmap” for how it could be implemented by 31 March next year.

I’ve heard people say Letby may be innocent. What does this report say about that?

Nothing. The inquiry was conducted entirely on the basis of Letby being found guilty of the offences for which she was convicted. All attempts by Letby to appeal against the convictions were dismissed.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is investigating her case to determine if there is a “real possibility” her convictions would not be upheld, which could trigger a referral back to the appeal courts.

The chair of the CCRC, Vera Baird, told the BBC the miscarriages of justice watchdog would be looking at the conclusions drawn by the Thirlwall inquiry. She said: “We will be looking at the report with interest to assess whether it has any bearing on our review of the case.""

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/sep/15/lucy-letby-public-inquiry-thirlwall-report

----------------

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. 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; 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;

September 15: Jimmy Duncan: Louisiana: Author, blogger Bill Kissinger, a battler against the death penalty gets to heart of the Jimmy Duncan case, in a commentary headed, "Jimmie Duncan Deserves His Life Back - and Science in Court Must Earn Our Trust,," and sub-headed, "When You Can No Longer Trust Science Or Experts In The Courtroom."... "As of September 12, Duncan is out of prison, but he still faces the possibility of another trial. His conviction is gone. The threat of another prosecution is not. "I believe Duncan deserves the chance to rebuild his life. I also believe we need to look closely at how scientific “evidence” helped take so much of that life away."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Duncan’s original appeal described a sharp disagreement at trial. The prosecution’s dental expert, Neal Riesner, connected marks on Haley’s body to Duncan’s teeth with varying levels of certainty. Defense experts disputed whether the injuries were bite marks at all. Original appeal Imagine being a juror hearing that testimony.  One expert says the marks connect the defendant to the child. Another says they are not even bite marks. How is someone without scientific training supposed to decide? The answer should not depend on which witness sounds more certain. The court needs to ask what research supports the method, how often it produces mistakes, and whether other qualified people can reach the same result. Those questions should be answered before a jury is asked to rely on the evidence."

----------------------------------------

COMMENTARY: "Jimmie Duncan Deserves His Life Back - and Science in Court Must Earn Our Trust," by Bill Kissinger, published on 'The Death Penalty Corner" on September 13, 2026. (Bill Kissinger recently celebrated his third “FreedomVersary” after serving 47 flat calendar years on a LWOP (Life Without Parole) sentence in Angola, one of the roughest prisons in America. He was released on a final court judgment on March 30,  2023, based on a Ramos v. Louisiana (2020) case, which he had been fighting for years. He is a published author, operates a website, and awaiting publication of his autobiography, “47 Winters”. He can be found on Substack where he has a column called “The Death Penalty Corner” at williamkissinger.substack.com.)...Nota bene:   (WIKIPEDIA): Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that guilty verdicts be unanimous in criminal trials. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramos_v._Louisiana

-------------------------------------------------------------

SUB-HEADING: "When You Can No Longer Trust Science Or Experts In The Courtroom."

Jimmie “Chris” Duncan was convicted in 1998 of killing 23-month-old Haley Oliveaux, his girlfriend’s daughter, who drowned while in his care. He spent 27 years on Louisiana’s death row before his release in November 2025. On June 29, 2026, the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the ruling that threw out his conviction and death sentence on factual-innocence grounds. Case background and release; Supreme Court decision.

As of September 12, Duncan is out of prison, but he still faces the possibility of another trial. His conviction is gone. The threat of another prosecution is not. Recent reporting

I believe Duncan deserves the chance to rebuild his life. I also believe we need to look closely at how scientific “evidence” helped take so much of that life away.

Most of us expect an expert witness to help a jury understand the facts. We expect that person to use sound methods, keep honest records, and admit what the evidence cannot tell us.

Those are reasonable expectations. When someone’s freedom - or life - is at stake, they should be firm requirements.

The FBI’s past laboratory problems and the recent prosecution of Colorado scientist Yvonne “Missy” Woods show why we cannot take those requirements for granted.

In 2004, former FBI employee Jacqueline Blake pleaded guilty after submitting more than 100 reports falsely stating that she had completed required checks during DNA testing. She received two years of probation and 100 hours of community service. The Justice Department reported that its review had not found a changed outcome in a criminal case where her results were used. It nevertheless acknowledged the damage to her work and the laboratory’s integrity. Justice Department report

The missing checks were meant to detect contamination. The inspector general found that skipping them made her analyses scientifically invalid. That distinction matters: a result might happen to be “right” even though the work needed to justify trusting it was not done. Inspector-general findings

The FBI also faced serious questions about experts making claims that went beyond what science could support, including examiner Michael Malone. A 2014 investigation criticized unreliable evidence and failures in reviewing affected cases. A broader FBI review later found errors in testimony in 257 of 268 reviewed cases where hair evidence pointed toward the defendant. That did not mean 96 percent of those defendants were innocent. It meant the testimony in that particular group of cases contained errors. 2014 investigation; FBI review

Then there is Woods.

On September 8, 2026, a Colorado judge sentenced the former Colorado Bureau of Investigation analyst to ten years in prison. She had pleaded guilty to cyber-crime, perjury, attempting to influence a public servant, and forgery. Prosecutors identified 52 false laboratory reports and another “misleading” report. Much of the conduct involved reporting that DNA was absent when testing had detected it, stopping opportunities for further investigation. Prosecutors said they had not established false DNA identifications or false-positive results. Colorado sentencing announcement

These cases are different. Lying about laboratory work is not the same as using a method that cannot support the conclusion being offered. Neither automatically proves what happened in Duncan’s case.

But they help us understand the same basic danger: people can place enormous trust in scientific evidence without seeing the problems beneath it.

There are three reasons Duncan’s case should change how we think about that trust.

First, an expert’s confidence is no substitute for proof that the method works.

A degree tells us someone has studied a subject. Experience tells us someone has done the work before. Neither guarantees that a particular method can answer the question being asked.

That is the problem with identifying someone from a supposed bite mark.

Before that identification can be trusted, we need to know that teeth leave useful differences, that skin records those differences accurately, and that examiners can reliably read the marks.

A 2023 review by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, found that those basic claims lacked enough scientific support. Skin can stretch and distort a mark. The research did not establish the reliable identification process that confident courtroom testimony can suggest. NIST review

This problem exists even when an examiner believes every word he says. Being “sincere” cannot make an unreliable method dependable.

Duncan’s original appeal described a sharp disagreement at trial. The prosecution’s dental expert, Neal Riesner, connected marks on Haley’s body to Duncan’s teeth with varying levels of certainty. Defense experts disputed whether the injuries were bite marks at all. Original appeal

Imagine being a juror hearing that testimony.

One expert says the marks connect the defendant to the child.


Another says they are not even bite marks.

How is someone without scientific training supposed to decide?

The answer should not depend on which witness sounds more certain.

The court needs to ask what research supports the method, how often it produces mistakes, and whether other qualified people can reach the same result. Those questions should be answered before a jury is asked to rely on the evidence.

The FBI hair cases raise a similar concern. Finding that two things look alike does not automatically tell us how strong that connection is.

An expert can turn a limited observation into a powerful accusation by giving it more weight than the science allows.

Blake and Woods show a different weakness. Even a useful, well-tested form of science can be undermined by dishonest work.

That leaves three separate questions:


Does the method work?

Was the work done properly?

Did the witness describe the result fairly?

We should demand a sound and solid answer to all three. Duncan should not have to pay for our willingness to settle for the word “expert.”

Second, we must be able to check how
the evidence was handled.

A trustworthy examination should leave a clear record.

What did the evidence look like at the start?


What did the examiner do to it?


When were the photographs taken?


Could the examination itself have changed what later experts saw?

These are basic questions. In Duncan’s case, they became deeply troubling ones.

Experts at his later hearing testified that video showed Michael West pressing dental casts against Haley’s skin and compromising the evidence. The lack of a clear photographic timeline made it difficult to tell whether pictures were taken before or after that handling. A detective disputed that West created new marks. West performed the examination; Riesner gave the prosecution’s bite-mark testimony. Supreme Court’s account

That is a problem with the evidence itself. Before discussing what a mark means, we need to know how it got there and whether it changed.

If an examination alters an injury, a later expert may be studying the effects of the examination as well as the original injury. Without a clear record, it may be impossible to separate the two.

And having several experts agree does not necessarily solve the problem. They may all be looking at the same questionable photograph. Their agreement can sound like independent confirmation when it rests on the same unresolved concern.

Blake’s case helps explain why records matter so much. Her paperwork said required checks had been done. Anyone relying on that paperwork could believe the results had safeguards they did not actually have.

Woods’s case shows why a final report cannot be accepted simply because it comes from a respected laboratory. The report must accurately reflect the work behind it.

The same standard should apply to Duncan. We should be able to examine the steps that produced the evidence against him, rather than trusting the conclusion alone.

This is also why I think we need to be careful with the phrases “fake science” and “debunked science.” They describe different problems.

Someone may knowingly falsify a record. Someone else may use a method that research shows cannot do what was claimed. An examiner may also damage or change evidence during the work. These failures can overlap, but we should explain which one the record supports.

None of that weakens Duncan’s position. It makes the argument more honest.

He should not have to prove that an examiner committed a crime before a court recognizes that the evidence is too unreliable to justify punishment. The question is whether the evidence deserves the weight the state placed on it.

When the state asks to take someone’s freedom, it should be able to show its work.

Third, correcting a mistake must mean more than admitting there was a problem.

A new scientific report does little for someone sitting in prison unless that person can use it.

The defendant needs access to the records. A qualified expert must be able to review them. A court must be willing to hear what has changed and decide whether the conviction can still stand.

Without those steps, the correction remains on paper while the punishment continues.

The FBI’s history shows how that can happen. The 2014 inspector-general report criticized problems with reviewing cases, notifying affected defendants, and giving death-penalty cases the urgency they deserved. Finding unreliable work did not automatically get useful information to the people whose lives depended on it. Oversight report

Woods’s prison sentence cannot, by itself, repair every case she touched. Punishing the scientist and reviewing the evidence are separate responsibilities. Both matter.

Duncan’s case shows why a real review is so important. The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld relief after considering new evidence that undermined the main scientific and medical claims supporting the prosecution. It did not declare all bite-mark evidence invalid. It ruled on the evidence in Duncan’s case. Supreme Court decision

That should carry real weight.

Duncan is not simply asking the public to distrust an unpopular expert or a disputed field. He has obtained a court ruling in his favor on factual-innocence grounds.

His lawyers have warned that another prosecution remains possible and have promised to continue defending him. Statement from his legal team

Before that happens, the public deserves a clear answer to this question:


What reliable evidence would justify putting him through another trial?

A prosecutor’s ability to pursue a case does not settle whether doing so serves justice. The time already spent defending a conviction cannot become a reason to keepdefending it. An accusation does not become stronger because it has been repeated for decades.

There is a responsibility to Haley, too. Her death deserves a truthful account based on careful evidence. Holding the wrong person responsible would not honor her. Protecting Duncan from an unsupported prosecution does not diminish the value of her life.

The same commitment to truth should guide both.

I do not look at these cases and come to the conclusion that we should give up on science. I conclude that we should insist on the things that make science worthtrusting: methods that have been tested, honest records, independent review, and a willingness to correct mistakes.

Those safeguards protect everyone. They help prevent wrongful convictions. They also help keep dishonest or careless work from closing off investigations that could bring answers to victims and their families.

Duncan has already lost decades of his life waiting to be executed. The courts have now ruled in his favor. Unless new, reliable evidence justifies another course, Louisiana should end this prosecution and let him rebuild his life.

An expert should be willing to show the work. A court should be willing to question it. And when that work no longer supports a conviction, the justice system should have the courage to let go.

Jimmie Duncan deserves that much.

But, “science?”

And “experts?”

You have to earn our trust again."

The entire commentary can be read at: 

https://williamkissinger.substack.com/p/jimmie-duncan-deserves-his-life-back

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. 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; 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;

Neonatal nurse Lucy Letby: UK: LBC News reports that Lucy Letby's appeal team rhas been rocked as two key experts quit while she seeks to overturn her conviction, while noting that her lawyer insists that her case has not been "undermined... "Asked by BBC Newsnight whether their withdrawal undermined Letby’s case, lawyer Mark McDonald said he “fundamentally” disagreed. “They don’t know what I put into the CCRC because I haven’t told them. So how on earth could they make that conclusion?” he said. “But really, it comes back to this. Both sets of experts say that Lucy Letby is innocent. “One set of experts remains in the CCRC. One set of experts have withdrawn. But they both are of the same position that whatever happened at the trial, what took place at the trial, was wrong, that the jury was misled.”

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The findings of a public inquiry into how she was able to repeatedly kill and harm babies on the hospital’s neonatal unit are due to be published on Tuesday."

---------------------------------

STORY: "Lucy Letby's appeal team rocked as key experts quit as killer nurse seeks to overturn conviction," by Journalist  Chay Quinn, published by  LBC News, on September 14, 2026;

SUB-HEADING: "Lucy Letby’s lawyer has insisted her case has not been undermined after two experts quit her defence team, saying some of its arguments have “unresolvable problems”.

GIST: "The former nurse, who maintains her innocence, is serving 15 whole-life terms for the murders of seven babies and the attempted murders of seven others while working on the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester hospital.

Engineering expert Helen Shannon and bioengineering professor Geoff Chase withdrew from the team on Monday.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, is considering evidence presented on her behalf by an international panel of medics.

The group argued the babies died or collapsed as a result of poor medical care and natural causes.

Asked by BBC Newsnight whether their withdrawal undermined Letby’s case, lawyer Mark McDonald said he “fundamentally” disagreed.

“They don’t know what I put into the CCRC because I haven’t told them. So how on earth could they make that conclusion?” he said. “But really, it comes back to this. Both sets of experts say that Lucy Letby is innocent.

“One set of experts remains in the CCRC. One set of experts have withdrawn. But they both are of the same position that whatever happened at the trial, what took place at the trial, was wrong, that the jury was misled.”

In a letter to the CCRC and reported by The Guardian, the two experts raised concerns about legal arguments put forward by Letby’s team, adding that it was “placing the long-term interests of Ms Letby at serious, unnecessary and unacceptable risk”.

The pair continued to back their report on Letby’s convictions for attempting to murder two babies with insulin, maintaining it was “very unlikely” they had been poisoned.

The letter added: “Whilst it is entirely legitimate for the defence to advance multiple arguments, some of the other arguments now being put forward we cannot support as scientifically credible and which have, in our view, fundamental unresolvable problems.”

Letby was denied permission to appeal against her convictions in 2024.

The findings of a public inquiry into how she was able to repeatedly kill and harm babies on the hospital’s neonatal unit are due to be published on Tuesday."

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/lucy-letby-appeal-team-key-experts-quit-5HjdhS6_2/

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. 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; 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;

September 14: Nurse Susan Nelles: Ontario: Tragic deaths of babies at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children in 1980-81: Dr. Gavin Hamilton's new book, printed in Canada by The Aylmer Express, is called "MBT Poisoning not digoxin caused Sick Kids cardiac deaths." It is a summary and follow up of Dr. Hamilton's earlier book "The nurses are innocent: The Digoxin Poisoning Fallacy (2011), the subject of numerous posts on this Blog: As he says in his new book: "This short and powerful book reveals six absolute proofs that there were no murders by Digoxin at the Toronto Hospital for Sick Kids in 1980-81. The deaths on one single hospital ward established that the baby cardiac deaths were a tiny insight into deaths occurring from the worldwide contamination of injections discovered by the author on two occasions in his small office practice – not causing poisoning, but causing anaphylactic shock - allergic reactions to the MBT contamination(explained below) he discovered and which the WHO (World Health Organization) warned in the Uppsala Reports in 1980, had been causing deaths and serious reactions for years – and known by world health protection agencies."

IMPORTANT BOOK RELEASE: Major (Welcome) Development: Dr. Gavin Hamilton's new book "MBT Poisoning not digoxin caused Sick Kids cardiac deaths," printed in Canada by The Aylmer Press,  is available as free open access  (Thank you Dr. Hamilton)  at the  following link:

https://www.gavinhamilton.ca/

Visitors to this web-site will also learn much about his fascinating life -  and his innovative career in science. HL.

-----------------------------------------

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "I always believed that there was a medical reason behind the infant deaths and Gavin’s very thorough research and writing proved this was the case. When I read it, I immediately thought “this all makes sense”!

Susan Nelles Pine (May, 2026):

----------------------------------------- 

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: "I was much moved to find the "Forward" (below) written by Susan Nelles, the innocent nurse, wrongly arrested for four infant deaths at  Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, commonly known as Sick Kids, around 1980, 1981. I had followed her case from the outset,  commented on it in  Toronto Star, and have posted about it  on this Blog over the years. The Crown's evidence against Susan Nelles was so weak, that the prosecution case did not even get past a preliminary hearing, for which, under Canadian law,  scarcely any evidence is sufficient to set a case down for trial. 

Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog:

--------------------------------------

FOREWORD: (BY SUSAN NELLES PINE): "It has now been 45 years since my arrest for four infant deaths at Sick Kids Hospital. I have been very reluctant to speak to any type of media source about that time, primarily because I feel it is long in the past and my focus has been on my continued enjoyment of the nursing profession and more importantly my family. However, when Gavin Hamilton approached me with this summary and update to his previous book, I was deeply moved. I always believed that there was a medical reason behind the infant deaths and Gavin’s very thorough research and writing proved this was the case. When I read it, I immediately thought “this all makes sense”! I cannot thank Gavin enough for his perseverance and dedication in his pursuit for justice. I only hope that it has the profound effect that it so deserves.

 Susan (Nelles) Pine May 2026;"

-----------------------------------------------

A TASTE:  WHAT IS MBT POISONING? Here is Dr. Hamilton's explanation of MBT at the outset of the book: "A series of baby cardiac ward deaths was falsely attributed to Digoxin poisoning by an innocent nurse, Susan Nelles. Decades of intense research unearthed multiple facts proving there was no murder by Digoxin. There was poisoning, but the poisoning was by a known toxin, a natural rubber manufacturing chemical, MBT, that contaminated injections from rubber parts of syringes, from drug ampoule seals and from rubber parts of IV fluid administration sets. MBT increased in concentration in cardiac babies’ blood, because it isn’t broken down, nor is it eliminated in the urine.  An FDA drug testing laboratory in 1980 proved that 50% of disposable syringe injection fluid. The health sciences and the general public have been kept unaware that the MBT poisoning problem even existed, yet it is permitted to persist today – as the author revealed in 2019 in Military Medicine (“Re: Latex in adult vaccines”). The Toronto baby cardiac deaths represent collateral damage in a worldwide poisoning problem. There is much to philosophize about in the story of why an aspiring young innocent nurse, Susan Nelles, was falsely charged with serial murder by Digoxin poisoning of baby cardiac patients at the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children, 1980-81, when he same pattern of increased baby cardiac deaths occurred in hospitals across Canada at that time – and in hospitals around the world. The deaths were caused by worldwide MBT contamination – leaching into injections from contact with natural rubber parts of disposable syringes, drug ampoule seals and from three sites in IV fluid administration sets."

------------------------------------------------

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. 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; 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;

September 14: Mistaken Black Identity: Social historian Edmund Davis explains in this powerful, beautifully written commentary, why facial recognition algorithms are no substitute for independent verification in an eye-opening commentary on "Chicago Defender,' noting that: "Facial recognition was supposed to make identification more scientific. Instead, when investigators treat an algorithmic lead as evidence rather than a lead requiring rigorous independent verification, old human biases can acquire digital authority. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found significant demographic differences across many facial-recognition algorithms. In one-to-one matching, NIST found higher false-positive rates for African American and Asian faces compared with Caucasian faces, with differences often ranging from 10 to 100 times, depending on the algorithm.""

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: "This Blog is interested in false eye-witness identification issues because wrongful identifications are at the heart of so many DNA-related exonerations in the USA and elsewhere - and because so much scientific research is being conducted with a goal to making the identification process more transparent and reliable- and less subject to deliberate manipulation. I have also reported far too many cases over the years - mainly cases lacking DNA evidence (or other forensic evidence pointing to the suspect - where the identification is erroneous - (all too often where Black identity is mistaken) in spite of witness’s certainty that it is true - or where the police have somehow rigged the identification process in order to make a desired identification inevitable.
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
----------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Search “mistaken identity police arrest,” and the images and news reports tell their own disturbing story: innocent people handcuffed, detained, jailed, and sometimes traumatized because they supposedly “fit the description." How many times can “mistaken identity” happen before America stops treating every incident as merely an innocent mistake? And what does the persistence of these racial disparities tell us about anti-Blackness in American institutions?"

-----------------------------------------

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "There is no comprehensive national database documenting every innocent person stopped, searched, handcuffed, detained, or arrested because police believed that person “fit the description.” That absence matters. America collects extensive criminal-justice statistics, yet we still cannot determine exactly how many innocent citizens experience mistaken-identity police encounters each year. .According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Black people in 2022 were three times as likely as white people—6% compared with 2%—to experience threatened or actual nonfatal force during their most recent police-initiated or traffic-accident-related contact."

------------------------------------------

PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "The reforms are not mysterious: require independent corroboration before arrests involving facial recognition; prohibit an algorithmic candidate from becoming the sole basis for probable cause; strengthen body-camera accountability; improve eyewitness-identification procedures; audit racial disparities; document mistaken-identity detentions; and establish national reporting so America can finally determine how frequently innocent people are stopped because they supposedly “fit the description.” Good policing should welcome safeguards that improve accuracy."

-------------------------------------------

COMMENTARY : "Mistaken identity only if you're black: When “Fitting the Description” Turns Blackness Into Probable Cause, by Edmond W. Davis, published by Chicago Defender, on September 11, 2026. (Edmond W. Davis is a social historian, media strategist HBCU leader, and professor);

------------------------------------------------------------

GIST: "Tashawn Bernard was 12 years old.

Driving while Black. Working while Black. Walking while Black. And now, apparently, doing chores while Black.

These phrases describe a painful American reality in which routine encounters between Black citizens—particularly Black males—and law enforcement can escalate into suspicion, detention, handcuffs, force, or arrest. Sometimes authorities acknowledge “mistaken identity.” Other cases raise serious questions about racial profiling, inadequate verification, and police misconduct.

Search “mistaken identity police arrest,” and the images and news reports tell their own disturbing story: innocent people handcuffed, detained, jailed, and sometimes traumatized because they supposedly “fit the description.”

How many times can “mistaken identity” happen before America stops treating every incident as merely an innocent mistake? And what does the persistence of these racial disparities tell us about anti-Blackness in American institutions?

On August 10, 2023, Bernard was outside his Lansing, Michigan, home taking out the trash when police detained and handcuffed him while searching for a suspected car thief. Officers had the wrong person. Lansing police acknowledged the misidentification and released Bernard within minutes. But a few minutes can become a lifelong memory when you are a child surrounded by armed adults with the authority to take away your freedom.

In July 2025, Bernard and his family filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against Lansing and several officers.

There is no comprehensive national database documenting every innocent person stopped, searched, handcuffed, detained, or arrested because police believed that person “fit the description.” That absence matters. America collects extensive criminal-justice statistics, yet we still cannot determine exactly how many innocent citizens experience mistaken-identity police encounters each year.

What we can measure is troubling.According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Black people in 2022 were three times as likely as white people—6% compared with 2%—to experience threatened or actual nonfatal force during their most recent police-initiated or traffic-accident-related contact.

Bernard was not committing a crime. He was doing what his father asked him to do: taking out the trash.

His family’s lawsuit alleges lasting emotional harm. Therapy may help a traumatized child process such an experience, but therapy cannot erase the moment.

In a well-run organization, when an unacceptable outcome occurs repeatedly, leaders examine the process itself. One of the first questions should be: Was the established process followed? If it was, yet innocent people repeatedly suffer unacceptable outcomes, then perhaps the process itself requires examination.

Wrongful-conviction evidence makes that examination even more urgent. The Innocence Project reports that 58% of the people it has helped free or exonerate through its DNA work are Black and that 62% of its cases involved eyewitness misidentification.

Now technology has added another layer.

WHEN THE COMPUTER “FITS THE DESCRIPTION”

Facial recognition was supposed to make identification more scientific. Instead, when investigators treat an algorithmic lead as evidence rather than a lead requiring rigorous independent verification, old human biases can acquire digital authority.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found significant demographic differences across many facial-recognition algorithms. In one-to-one matching, NIST found higher false-positive rates for African American and Asian faces compared with Caucasian faces, with differences often ranging from 10 to 100 times, depending on the algorithm.

Those errors have real consequences.

Robert Williams, a Black Detroit father, was wrongfully arrested in 2020 after facial-recognition technology incorrectly connected him to a shoplifting investigation. He was detained for nearly 30 hours.

Nijeer Parks was wrongfully arrested in New Jersey following an erroneous facial-recognition result. Michael Oliver was wrongfully arrested in Detroit. Porcha Woodruff, a Black woman who was eight months pregnant, was wrongfully arrested following another faulty facial-recognition investigation.

And this problem has expanded beyond Black defendants. By April 2026, the American Civil Liberties Union identified 14 publicly known people wrongfully arrested in the United States following police reliance on erroneous facial-recognition results.

These are not statistics without faces. They are children, parents, workers, and citizens whose freedom was interrupted because a person—or increasingly, a computer—essentially said:

You look like the person we want.

AMERICA MUST CONFRONT THE HISTORY

Historical accuracy matters here.

Not every American police department descended directly from slave patrols. Northern policing developed through systems of watches, constables, and later professional departments. But historians have extensively documented slave patrols as an important part of the development of law enforcement in the American South.

Slave patrols controlled the movement of enslaved Black people, searched quarters, suppressed gatherings, and captured people attempting to escape bondage. After emancipation came Black Codes, Jim Crow enforcement, and periods when racial terror and official authority overlapped.

Historian Sally Hadden’s scholarship on police and slave patrols also documents how the Ku Klux Klan later drew upon slave-patrol practices to terrorize Black Americans, sometimes with cooperation from local law enforcement.

That history does not mean today’s individual police officer is a slave patroller.

It means American law enforcement inherited a complicated racial history that cannot responsibly be discussed without acknowledging race.

And that history matters when a modern officer hears “Black male” and encounters a Black child taking out the trash.

BLACKNESS CANNOT BE THE DESCRIPTION

“Black male, dark clothing” cannot become a license to detain every Black man or boy within walking distance.

Neither should artificial intelligence become digital racial profiling with a confidence score attached.

Police officers have an extraordinarily difficult responsibility. They sometimes must make decisions rapidly, and suspect descriptions are legitimately necessary to locate dangerous individuals. But precisely because government gives police the extraordinary authority to stop, search, handcuff, detain, and arrest citizens, verification must be rigorous.

Race alone is not probable cause.

A computer-generated candidate is not probable cause.

Being nearby is not guilt.

Looking vaguely similar is not guilt.

Proverbs 18:13 warns against answering a matter before fully hearing it. John 7:24 instructs us not to judge merely by appearances, but to judge rightly. Isaiah 1:17 commands us to “seek justice” and defend the oppressed.

Those principles belong in the courthouse, police academy, patrol car—and increasingly, inside the algorithms government purchases.

The reforms are not mysterious: require independent corroboration before arrests involving facial recognition; prohibit an algorithmic candidate from becoming the sole basis for probable cause; strengthen body-camera accountability; improve eyewitness-identification procedures; audit racial disparities; document mistaken-identity detentions; and establish national reporting so America can finally determine how frequently innocent people are stopped because they supposedly “fit the description.”

Good policing should welcome safeguards that improve accuracy.

Because every wrongful arrest potentially creates two victims: the innocent person whose freedom was violated and the public whose actual suspect may remain free.

Tashawn Bernard was taking out the trash.

He was 12.

He was Black.

And he was innocent.

The phrase “mistaken identity” may describe what happened.

It should never be enough to excuse why it keeps happening."

The entire story can be read at:

https://chicagodefender.com/mistaken-identify-only-if-youre-black/

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. 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; 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!