PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dear Reader: it's been about a year since I have taken a break in order to charge the batteries. It has been a fascinating year with gripping matters such as developments in the aftermath of the Goudge Inquiry into many of Dr. Charles Smith's case, the desperate struggle of Hank Skinner to have DNA tests conducted before he is executed in Texas, and the desperate evidence of the Texas authorities to suppress the fact that they used junk science to execute an innocent man. (Cameron Todd Willingham). In the meantime, please let me know about matters that may be of interest to our readers at my e-mail address at the bottom of this post. Looking forward to seeing you in November. Best wishes, Harold Levy.
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
BRENDA WAUDBY; INNOCENT WOMAN'S VALIANT FIGHT TO CLEAR HER NAME; PETERBOROUGH EXAMINER; PUBLISHER'S NOTE: BRENDA WAUDBY'S RAW DEAL;
"Citing new evidence and extenuating circumstances, Kirkpatrick said she's optimistic that the extension would be granted, giving Waudby a shot at appealing her conviction.
Waudby was wrongfully accused of murdering her child, 21-month-old Jenna Mellor, in September 1997.
But as time went on, the Crown's case began to unravel.
On June 11, 1999, Waudby pleaded guilty to one charge of child abuse.
On June 15, 1999, the Crown withdrew its charge of second-degree murder."
REPORTER SARAH DEETH: THE PETERBOROUGH EXAMINER;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: It is clear from the evidence called at the Goudge inquiry that Brenda Waudby - an utterly innocent individual who's baby daughter had been murdered by her babysitter - had been required to plead guilty to a charge of child abuse under provincial legislation before the Crown would withdraw the the second-degree murder charge on the basis of medical opinions which showed she could not possibly have committed the crime. It is also clear that Dr. Charles Smith's opinion that there were injuries which preceded the attack on Baby Jenna - which led to her being wrongfully charged with murder - was also the basis for the provincial charge, along with what the police claimed to be a confession. Instead of receiving the sympathy and compassion she deserved as a grieving mother whose baby daughter had been murdered, Ms. Waudby, a grieving mother, was herself charged with the horrific crime and not surprisingly became a pariah in her community. Brenda Waudby has been given a raw deal by Ontario's criminal justice system. We can only hope that the Court will give her the opportunity to strike the plea that she felt compelled to make in the circumstances, allow her to call the fresh evidence which she says clears her of this offence, and go the rest of the distance necessary to clear her name.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Brenda Waudby has never stopped fighting to clear her name and at battle Thursday in Superior Court of Justice," the Peterborough Examiner story by reporter Sarah Deeth filed earlier today begins, under the heading, "Waudby fights to clear name."
"She's in the early stages of appealing a 1999 child abuse conviction," the story continues.
"Her lawyer, Julie Kirkpatrick, spoke briefly to the matter before Mr. Justice Chris Corkery.
Kirkpatrick has filed a motion asking for an appeal extension. The Crown has to either consent to the extension or a judge has to grant one.
Usually a defendant has 30 days to file a notice of appeal with the court. Anyone trying to appeal a conviction after the 30- day period must first apply for an appeal extension.
Citing new evidence and extenuating circumstances, Kirkpatrick said she's optimistic that the extension would be granted, giving Waudby a shot at appealing her conviction.
Waudby was wrongfully accused of murdering her child, 21-month-old Jenna Mellor, in September 1997.
But as time went on, the Crown's case began to unravel.
On June 11, 1999, Waudby pleaded guilty to one charge of child abuse.
On June 15, 1999, the Crown withdrew its charge of second-degree murder.
She sat in court in December 2005 when her former babysitter pleaded guilty to killing Jenna. She was there when he was sentenced to 22 months in jail in March 2006.
Advertisement
She drove to Toronto every day to watch the Goudge Inquiry unfold. The inquiry examined the work of pathologist Dr. Charles Smith, whose "think dirty" method pointed police to Waudby.
She's watched and waited while the provincial government has begun the tedious job of handing out compensation to Smith's victims.
Waudby declined to speak to reporters Thursday.
Kirkpatrick said Waudby has been living under the stigma of this conviction for years.
"A lot of time has passed, and Brenda Waudby has been determined from the start to see justice done and clear her name. This is one of the last steps in that process," she said.
The local Crown attorney's office can't be involved in the appeal process, given its history with Waudby and the Mellor case.
Kirkpatrick said the Crown's office in Toronto would be responsible for assigning a prosecutor to the case.
The case has been adjourned to Dec. 9."
The story can be found at:
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2822694
Waudby was wrongfully accused of murdering her child, 21-month-old Jenna Mellor, in September 1997.
But as time went on, the Crown's case began to unravel.
On June 11, 1999, Waudby pleaded guilty to one charge of child abuse.
On June 15, 1999, the Crown withdrew its charge of second-degree murder."
REPORTER SARAH DEETH: THE PETERBOROUGH EXAMINER;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: It is clear from the evidence called at the Goudge inquiry that Brenda Waudby - an utterly innocent individual who's baby daughter had been murdered by her babysitter - had been required to plead guilty to a charge of child abuse under provincial legislation before the Crown would withdraw the the second-degree murder charge on the basis of medical opinions which showed she could not possibly have committed the crime. It is also clear that Dr. Charles Smith's opinion that there were injuries which preceded the attack on Baby Jenna - which led to her being wrongfully charged with murder - was also the basis for the provincial charge, along with what the police claimed to be a confession. Instead of receiving the sympathy and compassion she deserved as a grieving mother whose baby daughter had been murdered, Ms. Waudby, a grieving mother, was herself charged with the horrific crime and not surprisingly became a pariah in her community. Brenda Waudby has been given a raw deal by Ontario's criminal justice system. We can only hope that the Court will give her the opportunity to strike the plea that she felt compelled to make in the circumstances, allow her to call the fresh evidence which she says clears her of this offence, and go the rest of the distance necessary to clear her name.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Brenda Waudby has never stopped fighting to clear her name and at battle Thursday in Superior Court of Justice," the Peterborough Examiner story by reporter Sarah Deeth filed earlier today begins, under the heading, "Waudby fights to clear name."
"She's in the early stages of appealing a 1999 child abuse conviction," the story continues.
"Her lawyer, Julie Kirkpatrick, spoke briefly to the matter before Mr. Justice Chris Corkery.
Kirkpatrick has filed a motion asking for an appeal extension. The Crown has to either consent to the extension or a judge has to grant one.
Usually a defendant has 30 days to file a notice of appeal with the court. Anyone trying to appeal a conviction after the 30- day period must first apply for an appeal extension.
Citing new evidence and extenuating circumstances, Kirkpatrick said she's optimistic that the extension would be granted, giving Waudby a shot at appealing her conviction.
Waudby was wrongfully accused of murdering her child, 21-month-old Jenna Mellor, in September 1997.
But as time went on, the Crown's case began to unravel.
On June 11, 1999, Waudby pleaded guilty to one charge of child abuse.
On June 15, 1999, the Crown withdrew its charge of second-degree murder.
She sat in court in December 2005 when her former babysitter pleaded guilty to killing Jenna. She was there when he was sentenced to 22 months in jail in March 2006.
Advertisement
She drove to Toronto every day to watch the Goudge Inquiry unfold. The inquiry examined the work of pathologist Dr. Charles Smith, whose "think dirty" method pointed police to Waudby.
She's watched and waited while the provincial government has begun the tedious job of handing out compensation to Smith's victims.
Waudby declined to speak to reporters Thursday.
Kirkpatrick said Waudby has been living under the stigma of this conviction for years.
"A lot of time has passed, and Brenda Waudby has been determined from the start to see justice done and clear her name. This is one of the last steps in that process," she said.
The local Crown attorney's office can't be involved in the appeal process, given its history with Waudby and the Mellor case.
Kirkpatrick said the Crown's office in Toronto would be responsible for assigning a prosecutor to the case.
The case has been adjourned to Dec. 9."
The story can be found at:
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2822694
IVAN HENRY: DNA EVIDENCE HELPS ACQUIT B.C. MAN OF RAPES AFTER 26 YEARS IN JAIL; TORONTO STAR;
"Another police investigation reopened doubts about Henry’s guilt following a 2002 operation called “Project Smallman.” Vancouver police re-investigated 25 unsolved sexual assaults committed from April 1983 to July 1988, a period when Henry was already in prison.
DNA evidence obtained during “Project Smallman” led to the arrest and conviction of another man identified only as DM because his identity is protected under a publication ban.
Crown prosecutors noted similarities between the Henry case and the “Project Smallman” findings and brought those similarities to the attention of B.C.’s criminal justice branch which appointed an independent lawyer to reinvestigate a potential miscarriage of justice in Henry’s conviction."
REPORTER PETTI FONG; THE TORONTO STAR;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"VANCOUVER – A relieved and “happier than ever” Ivan Henry, who was acquitted Wednesday after spending 26 years in jail, says his first plans for freedom is seeing his grandson's soccer game," the Toronto Star story by reporter Petti Fong published on October 27, 2010 begins, under the heading, "B.C. man acquitted of rapes after 26 years in jail."
"Henry told his daughter Wednesday after hearing BC's highest court have ordered him released that he wants to watch a soccer game and go out for dinner," the story continues.
"A three panel of judges on the B.C. Court of Appeal quashed the convictions and acquitted Henry on all counts Wednesday as the now elderly and frail man and his daughters, who have been fighting for years to overturn the convictions, applauded the new ruling.
Henry’s sentence is believed to be the longest anyone in Canada has spent behind bars for a crime in which they were subsequently acquitted.
He said he's not angry after years of trying to get himself exonerated for crimes he didn't commit.
“It wouldn't heal me if I was angry,” a jubilant Ivan Henry said Wednesday as he hugged his two daughters outside court.
“I've got grandkids that I'm so proud of. I've got a little dog that I look after, and he's my friend.”
“I'd like to say to people who are still incarcerated, `Don't give up. Keep plugging ahead and work to get out and to learn what society's all about. It's not all a dirty world. We're all here to try and help each other.'”
Henry was convicted in 1983 of 10 counts of rape and indecent assault of eight women. The victims were alone at night when their assailant gained access to their basement or ground level suites. The offences included five counts of indecent assault, two counts of attempted rape and three counts of rape.
Henry was convicted by a jury and later declared a dangerous offender by a trial judge, which imposed on him an indeterminate sentence.
Henry, who represented himself in the initial court proceedings, filed appeals but none of them were successful until this latest one, which was heard earlier this year in Vancouver.
His appeal was based on a number of grounds including what was referred to in court as “consciousness of guilt.”
After Henry’s arrest in 1982, he refused to participate in a physical line-up. Police officers forced him into the line-up and one officer held him in a headlock as seen in a photograph that was entered as evidence in his appeal.
While in a headlock, Henry struggled and shouted and was restrained. One uniformed constable put his arm around Henry’s neck and forced his head up. His photograph was used in a photographic line-up and seen by some of the witnesses.
Another police investigation reopened doubts about Henry’s guilt following a 2002 operation called “Project Smallman.” Vancouver police re-investigated 25 unsolved sexual assaults committed from April 1983 to July 1988, a period when Henry was already in prison.
DNA evidence obtained during “Project Smallman” led to the arrest and conviction of another man identified only as DM because his identity is protected under a publication ban.
Crown prosecutors noted similarities between the Henry case and the “Project Smallman” findings and brought those similarities to the attention of B.C.’s criminal justice branch which appointed an independent lawyer to reinvestigate a potential miscarriage of justice in Henry’s conviction.
The courts ordered that an appeal be re-opened and a 12-day trial was held last June.
In ordering Henry’s conviction quashed, the B.C. Court of Appeal Wednesday found that the trial judge had made several errors including the judge’s instruction that Henry’s photo resisting participation in the police line-up could be used as evidence of “consciousness of guilt.”
While the court of appeal judges said the evidence from Project Small does not “exonerate” Henry, it is evidence capable of raising reasonable doubt that should have been enough to lead to his acquittal at the initial trial.
Henry was released from prison two years ago pending his appeal and has been living in North Vancouver with one of his two daughters. Tanya Olivares, 38 and her younger sister Kari Henry, 35, who were children at the time their father went to jail, have been fighting for their father’s appeal.
They are expected to talk later Wednesday about the family’s ordeal and whether Henry, who is now 64 and in ill health, will seek financial compensation for the time he spent in prison."
The story can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/881841--b-c-man-acquitted-of-rapes-after-26-years-in-jail
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
DNA evidence obtained during “Project Smallman” led to the arrest and conviction of another man identified only as DM because his identity is protected under a publication ban.
Crown prosecutors noted similarities between the Henry case and the “Project Smallman” findings and brought those similarities to the attention of B.C.’s criminal justice branch which appointed an independent lawyer to reinvestigate a potential miscarriage of justice in Henry’s conviction."
REPORTER PETTI FONG; THE TORONTO STAR;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"VANCOUVER – A relieved and “happier than ever” Ivan Henry, who was acquitted Wednesday after spending 26 years in jail, says his first plans for freedom is seeing his grandson's soccer game," the Toronto Star story by reporter Petti Fong published on October 27, 2010 begins, under the heading, "B.C. man acquitted of rapes after 26 years in jail."
"Henry told his daughter Wednesday after hearing BC's highest court have ordered him released that he wants to watch a soccer game and go out for dinner," the story continues.
"A three panel of judges on the B.C. Court of Appeal quashed the convictions and acquitted Henry on all counts Wednesday as the now elderly and frail man and his daughters, who have been fighting for years to overturn the convictions, applauded the new ruling.
Henry’s sentence is believed to be the longest anyone in Canada has spent behind bars for a crime in which they were subsequently acquitted.
He said he's not angry after years of trying to get himself exonerated for crimes he didn't commit.
“It wouldn't heal me if I was angry,” a jubilant Ivan Henry said Wednesday as he hugged his two daughters outside court.
“I've got grandkids that I'm so proud of. I've got a little dog that I look after, and he's my friend.”
“I'd like to say to people who are still incarcerated, `Don't give up. Keep plugging ahead and work to get out and to learn what society's all about. It's not all a dirty world. We're all here to try and help each other.'”
Henry was convicted in 1983 of 10 counts of rape and indecent assault of eight women. The victims were alone at night when their assailant gained access to their basement or ground level suites. The offences included five counts of indecent assault, two counts of attempted rape and three counts of rape.
Henry was convicted by a jury and later declared a dangerous offender by a trial judge, which imposed on him an indeterminate sentence.
Henry, who represented himself in the initial court proceedings, filed appeals but none of them were successful until this latest one, which was heard earlier this year in Vancouver.
His appeal was based on a number of grounds including what was referred to in court as “consciousness of guilt.”
After Henry’s arrest in 1982, he refused to participate in a physical line-up. Police officers forced him into the line-up and one officer held him in a headlock as seen in a photograph that was entered as evidence in his appeal.
While in a headlock, Henry struggled and shouted and was restrained. One uniformed constable put his arm around Henry’s neck and forced his head up. His photograph was used in a photographic line-up and seen by some of the witnesses.
Another police investigation reopened doubts about Henry’s guilt following a 2002 operation called “Project Smallman.” Vancouver police re-investigated 25 unsolved sexual assaults committed from April 1983 to July 1988, a period when Henry was already in prison.
DNA evidence obtained during “Project Smallman” led to the arrest and conviction of another man identified only as DM because his identity is protected under a publication ban.
Crown prosecutors noted similarities between the Henry case and the “Project Smallman” findings and brought those similarities to the attention of B.C.’s criminal justice branch which appointed an independent lawyer to reinvestigate a potential miscarriage of justice in Henry’s conviction.
The courts ordered that an appeal be re-opened and a 12-day trial was held last June.
In ordering Henry’s conviction quashed, the B.C. Court of Appeal Wednesday found that the trial judge had made several errors including the judge’s instruction that Henry’s photo resisting participation in the police line-up could be used as evidence of “consciousness of guilt.”
While the court of appeal judges said the evidence from Project Small does not “exonerate” Henry, it is evidence capable of raising reasonable doubt that should have been enough to lead to his acquittal at the initial trial.
Henry was released from prison two years ago pending his appeal and has been living in North Vancouver with one of his two daughters. Tanya Olivares, 38 and her younger sister Kari Henry, 35, who were children at the time their father went to jail, have been fighting for their father’s appeal.
They are expected to talk later Wednesday about the family’s ordeal and whether Henry, who is now 64 and in ill health, will seek financial compensation for the time he spent in prison."
The story can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/881841--b-c-man-acquitted-of-rapes-after-26-years-in-jail
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Thursday, October 28, 2010
ANTHONY GRAVES: DESPERATE PROSECUTORS TRIED TO USE SCENT EVIDENCE FROM A 17 YEAR-OLD CRIME SCENE TO SEND HIM TO HIS DEATH;
"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned Graves' conviction, noting the considerable weakness of the state's case against him. That court also found that Sebasta withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense and knowingly put on false testimony. Yet as late as last year, prosecutors were still seeking to retry Graves anyway, this time based largely on a "scent lineup," in which they used dogs to sniff out burnt clothing removed from a 17-year-old crime scene."
RADLEY BALKO: REASON; (Wikipedia informs us that: "(Radley) Balko is senior editor at Reason magazine. Previously, he was a policy analyst for the Cato Institute, specializing in vice and civil liberties issues. He writes on drug policy, police misconduct, obesity, alcohol and tobacco, and civil liberties. He also writes on trade and globalization issues and more generally on politics and culture. He was also a biweekly columnist for Fox News from 2002 until 2009. His work has been published in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Playboy, TIME magazine, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Slate, Reason, Worth magazine, Canada's National Post, and the Chicago Tribune. He blogs at The Agitator, his personal weblog, and for Reason's Hit & Run blog. He has appeared on CNN, CNBC, Fox News, MSNBC, and National Public Radio. Balko's work on "no-knock" drug raids was profiled in The New York Times, and cited by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in his dissent in the case Hudson v. Michigan. He is also credited with breaking and reporting the Cory Maye case. His work on the Maye case was also cited by the Mississippi Supreme Court. He has also written extensively about the Ryan Frederick case and the raid on Cheye Calvo's home.")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"After 18 years of incarceration and countless protestations of innocence, Anthony Graves finally got a nod of approval from the one person who mattered Wednesday and at last returned home — free from charges that he participated in the butchery of a family in Somerville he did not know and free of the possibility that he would have to answer for them with his life," Radley Balko's post published in "Reason" earlier today under the heading, "Texas has released a death row inmate," begins.
"The district attorney for Washington and Burleson counties, Bill Parham, gave Graves his release," the post continues.
"The prosecutor filed a motion to dismiss charges that had sent Graves to Texas' death row for most of his adult life. Graves returned to his mother's home in Brenham no longer the "cold-blooded killer," so characterized by the prosecutor who first tried him, but as another exonerated inmate who even in the joy of redemption will face the daunting prospect of reassembling the pieces of a shattered life.
"He's an innocent man," Parham said, noting that his office investigated the case for five months. "There is nothing that connects Anthony Graves to this crime. I did what I did because that's the right thing to do."
Graves was convicted of assisting Robert Earl Carter in killing a 45-year-old woman, her daughter, and her four grandchildren in 1992. Carter initially implicated Graves, but later recanted. Carter again insisted Graves was innocent just before he was executed in 2000. The man who prosecuted Graves apparently still believes he is guilty.
Charles Sebesta, then the district attorney, did not believe Carter. Even after he no longer held the post, Sebesta held to his beliefs, calling Graves "cold-blooded" and taking out an ad in two Burleson County newspapers in 2009 to dispute media reports criticizing the conduct of prosecutors.
The evidence against Graves was never overwhelming, depending mostly on Carter's earlier accusation and jailhouse statements purportedly overheard by law enforcement officers. Even Sebesta acknowledged it was not his strongest case.
"I've had some slam-dunk cases," he said in 2001. "It was not a slam-dunk case."
Yet he still sought—and won—a death sentence. (Sebesta has had problems in other cases, too.)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned Graves' conviction, noting the considerable weakness of the state's case against him. That court also found that Sebasta withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense and knowingly put on false testimony. Yet as late as last year, prosecutors were still seeking to retry Graves anyway, this time based largely on a "scent lineup," in which they used dogs to sniff out burnt clothing removed from a 17-year-old crime scene.
...prosecutors this summer brought in Fort Bend County Deputy Keith Pikett to conduct a "scent lineup" – a practice of dubious scientific validity that was recently the subject of a scathing report from the Lubbock-based Innocence Project of Texas. This type of lineup, with dogs supposedly matching a scent from a crime scene to a scent collected from a suspect, is junk science, the Innocence Project charges, while questioning Pikett's techniques in conducting the dog-led lineup. The procedure has indeed been implicated in a number of wrongful arrests and convictions. According to the report, released Sept. 21, Pikett has no formal training in the practice – nor does he apparently think any is necessary. Pikett has testified in court (in a matter unrelated to Graves) that there is no need for formal training or for scientific rules or protocols when conducting such lineups, and Pikett has rejected the importance of scientific studies regarding scent identification. Nonetheless, prosecutors across the state – including with the Texas Attorney General's Office – have relied on Pikett for "expert testimony" in a number of criminal cases.
I've previously written about Deputy Pikett and the junk science of scent linups here and here.
But hey, Graves was eventually exonerated and released, right? As Justice Scalia would assure us, this case is just more proof that the system is working."
The post can be found at:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/28/this-week-in-innocence
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
RADLEY BALKO: REASON; (Wikipedia informs us that: "(Radley) Balko is senior editor at Reason magazine. Previously, he was a policy analyst for the Cato Institute, specializing in vice and civil liberties issues. He writes on drug policy, police misconduct, obesity, alcohol and tobacco, and civil liberties. He also writes on trade and globalization issues and more generally on politics and culture. He was also a biweekly columnist for Fox News from 2002 until 2009. His work has been published in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Playboy, TIME magazine, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Slate, Reason, Worth magazine, Canada's National Post, and the Chicago Tribune. He blogs at The Agitator, his personal weblog, and for Reason's Hit & Run blog. He has appeared on CNN, CNBC, Fox News, MSNBC, and National Public Radio. Balko's work on "no-knock" drug raids was profiled in The New York Times, and cited by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in his dissent in the case Hudson v. Michigan. He is also credited with breaking and reporting the Cory Maye case. His work on the Maye case was also cited by the Mississippi Supreme Court. He has also written extensively about the Ryan Frederick case and the raid on Cheye Calvo's home.")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"After 18 years of incarceration and countless protestations of innocence, Anthony Graves finally got a nod of approval from the one person who mattered Wednesday and at last returned home — free from charges that he participated in the butchery of a family in Somerville he did not know and free of the possibility that he would have to answer for them with his life," Radley Balko's post published in "Reason" earlier today under the heading, "Texas has released a death row inmate," begins.
"The district attorney for Washington and Burleson counties, Bill Parham, gave Graves his release," the post continues.
"The prosecutor filed a motion to dismiss charges that had sent Graves to Texas' death row for most of his adult life. Graves returned to his mother's home in Brenham no longer the "cold-blooded killer," so characterized by the prosecutor who first tried him, but as another exonerated inmate who even in the joy of redemption will face the daunting prospect of reassembling the pieces of a shattered life.
"He's an innocent man," Parham said, noting that his office investigated the case for five months. "There is nothing that connects Anthony Graves to this crime. I did what I did because that's the right thing to do."
Graves was convicted of assisting Robert Earl Carter in killing a 45-year-old woman, her daughter, and her four grandchildren in 1992. Carter initially implicated Graves, but later recanted. Carter again insisted Graves was innocent just before he was executed in 2000. The man who prosecuted Graves apparently still believes he is guilty.
Charles Sebesta, then the district attorney, did not believe Carter. Even after he no longer held the post, Sebesta held to his beliefs, calling Graves "cold-blooded" and taking out an ad in two Burleson County newspapers in 2009 to dispute media reports criticizing the conduct of prosecutors.
The evidence against Graves was never overwhelming, depending mostly on Carter's earlier accusation and jailhouse statements purportedly overheard by law enforcement officers. Even Sebesta acknowledged it was not his strongest case.
"I've had some slam-dunk cases," he said in 2001. "It was not a slam-dunk case."
Yet he still sought—and won—a death sentence. (Sebesta has had problems in other cases, too.)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned Graves' conviction, noting the considerable weakness of the state's case against him. That court also found that Sebasta withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense and knowingly put on false testimony. Yet as late as last year, prosecutors were still seeking to retry Graves anyway, this time based largely on a "scent lineup," in which they used dogs to sniff out burnt clothing removed from a 17-year-old crime scene.
...prosecutors this summer brought in Fort Bend County Deputy Keith Pikett to conduct a "scent lineup" – a practice of dubious scientific validity that was recently the subject of a scathing report from the Lubbock-based Innocence Project of Texas. This type of lineup, with dogs supposedly matching a scent from a crime scene to a scent collected from a suspect, is junk science, the Innocence Project charges, while questioning Pikett's techniques in conducting the dog-led lineup. The procedure has indeed been implicated in a number of wrongful arrests and convictions. According to the report, released Sept. 21, Pikett has no formal training in the practice – nor does he apparently think any is necessary. Pikett has testified in court (in a matter unrelated to Graves) that there is no need for formal training or for scientific rules or protocols when conducting such lineups, and Pikett has rejected the importance of scientific studies regarding scent identification. Nonetheless, prosecutors across the state – including with the Texas Attorney General's Office – have relied on Pikett for "expert testimony" in a number of criminal cases.
I've previously written about Deputy Pikett and the junk science of scent linups here and here.
But hey, Graves was eventually exonerated and released, right? As Justice Scalia would assure us, this case is just more proof that the system is working."
The post can be found at:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/28/this-week-in-innocence
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
BRENDA WAUDBY: CLEARED WOMAN CHALLENGES CONVICTION UNDER FAMILY LAW LEGISLATION BASED ON OPINION OF DR. CHARLES SMITH; FRESH EVIDENCE CITED;
"Unlike the criminal charges of which she has already been cleared, these charges arise from the Children and Family Service Act.
"There's fresh evidence," says Ms Kirkpatrick.
Ms Waudby was charged 13 years ago with the murder of her 21-month-old daughter, Jenna Mellor. Evidence from pathologist Dr. Charles Smith contributed to her charges since he erroneously pinpointed the time of her fatal injury to have been while her daughter was in her care. The work of Dr. Smith has since been questioned in many cases and a number of convictions overturned.
It was later determined that the teenaged babysitter was responsible for the crime. He served a 22-month jail term and has since been released."
PETERBOROUGH THIS WEEK;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"(PETERBOROUGH) Despite being cleared of murdering her daughter, Brenda Waudby has lived more than a decade under the conviction of child abuse," the Peterborough This Week story published earlier today under the heading, "Waudby appeals child-abuse conviction: Brenda Waudby wants her child abuse conviction overturned," begins.
"Now, she's trying to change that by appealing that conviction," the story continues.
"Ms Waudby made a brief court appearance Thursday morning with her lawyer, Julie Kirkpatrick, looking to get more time for an appeal, which was awarded since a Crown attorney from Toronto hasn't yet been assigned to her case, which is expected to happen next week.
The local Crown's office is unable to deal with her case due to their history prosecuting her with evidence that later pointed to another suspect.
Unlike the criminal charges of which she has already been cleared, these charges arise from the Children and Family Service Act.
"There's fresh evidence," says Ms Kirkpatrick.
Ms Waudby was charged 13 years ago with the murder of her 21-month-old daughter, Jenna Mellor. Evidence from pathologist Dr. Charles Smith contributed to her charges since he erroneously pinpointed the time of her fatal injury to have been while her daughter was in her care. The work of Dr. Smith has since been questioned in many cases and a number of convictions overturned.
It was later determined that the teenaged babysitter was responsible for the crime. He served a 22-month jail term and has since been released.
Ms Waudby is seeking compensation for her ordeal.
Ms Kirkpatrick says a lot of time has passed and Ms Waudby wants to see justice done and her name cleared.
"It's time for the court to take a fresh look," Ms Kirkpatrick says, adding there are too many assumptions out there about her client.
She has filed an affidavit that tells the whole story. Unfortunately, Peterborough This Week was unable to get a copy of the statement before deadline on Thursday. Check www.mykawartha.com for an update.
Ms Waudby returns to court Dec. 9."
The story can be found at:
http://www.mykawartha.com/news/article/895036--waudby-appeals-child-abuse-conviction
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
"There's fresh evidence," says Ms Kirkpatrick.
Ms Waudby was charged 13 years ago with the murder of her 21-month-old daughter, Jenna Mellor. Evidence from pathologist Dr. Charles Smith contributed to her charges since he erroneously pinpointed the time of her fatal injury to have been while her daughter was in her care. The work of Dr. Smith has since been questioned in many cases and a number of convictions overturned.
It was later determined that the teenaged babysitter was responsible for the crime. He served a 22-month jail term and has since been released."
PETERBOROUGH THIS WEEK;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"(PETERBOROUGH) Despite being cleared of murdering her daughter, Brenda Waudby has lived more than a decade under the conviction of child abuse," the Peterborough This Week story published earlier today under the heading, "Waudby appeals child-abuse conviction: Brenda Waudby wants her child abuse conviction overturned," begins.
"Now, she's trying to change that by appealing that conviction," the story continues.
"Ms Waudby made a brief court appearance Thursday morning with her lawyer, Julie Kirkpatrick, looking to get more time for an appeal, which was awarded since a Crown attorney from Toronto hasn't yet been assigned to her case, which is expected to happen next week.
The local Crown's office is unable to deal with her case due to their history prosecuting her with evidence that later pointed to another suspect.
Unlike the criminal charges of which she has already been cleared, these charges arise from the Children and Family Service Act.
"There's fresh evidence," says Ms Kirkpatrick.
Ms Waudby was charged 13 years ago with the murder of her 21-month-old daughter, Jenna Mellor. Evidence from pathologist Dr. Charles Smith contributed to her charges since he erroneously pinpointed the time of her fatal injury to have been while her daughter was in her care. The work of Dr. Smith has since been questioned in many cases and a number of convictions overturned.
It was later determined that the teenaged babysitter was responsible for the crime. He served a 22-month jail term and has since been released.
Ms Waudby is seeking compensation for her ordeal.
Ms Kirkpatrick says a lot of time has passed and Ms Waudby wants to see justice done and her name cleared.
"It's time for the court to take a fresh look," Ms Kirkpatrick says, adding there are too many assumptions out there about her client.
She has filed an affidavit that tells the whole story. Unfortunately, Peterborough This Week was unable to get a copy of the statement before deadline on Thursday. Check www.mykawartha.com for an update.
Ms Waudby returns to court Dec. 9."
The story can be found at:
http://www.mykawartha.com/news/article/895036--waudby-appeals-child-abuse-conviction
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
FACEBOOK SITE SET UP TO PRESS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION IN AUSTRALIA;
A group, including the youngest daughter of Henry Keogh, has gone to the Internet through Facebook to gain support for the establishment of a Criminal Cases Review Commission in Australia.
The group says it has been motivated by, "a spate of highly publicized cases have led many to question how a justice system, meant to be impartial & professional, with all its apparent safeguards, get things so wrong and for so long."
Readers of this Blog are encouraged to register their support at:
http://www.causes.com/causes/539113?recruiter_id=77032847
In the "About" section of the Facebook page, we are told that:
"When someone is wrongfully imprisoned, there are many hidden victims. It’s not only the convicted person who does the time, whose life gets put on hold and turned upside down; it’s every member of their family too. So even if some people don’t care about the person in prison, they need to know, and remember that the collateral damage is very real and is just as, if not more devastating. And, it’s totally unacceptable.
I am the youngest daughter of Henry Keogh, who has been in prison for 15 years - convicted & imprisoned not just for a murder he didn’t commit, but for a murder that never even happened. It has been known for a very long time now there were grave mistakes; but what has the system done?
Ignored us, then fobbed us off in a multitude of shabby & dishonest ways, misled or even lied to the courts, the media, the parliament & public & continue to ignore us year after year.
In Britain, they established a CCRC in 1997 which has led to the overturning of convictions in some 300 cases. Of those, around 50 were murder cases and 4 involved people who had been hanged. The review of cases is completely independent of Parliament, the Government, the Crown and the Defence.
A CCRC subjects cases to a robust and thoroughly impartial review to consider whether there is new evidence or argument that may cast doubt on the safety of an original decision, but as it stands here in Australia, the people in power who can, and are supposed to put these things right:
* Don’t want to know, or won’t talk to you.
* Simply won’t accept that a mistake has been made
* And seem to lack the courage, any compassion and perhaps the integrity to correct a wrong no matter how obvious it may be.
My dad is not an isolated case, proving the point if it can happen once, it can happen again and again.
What I want to know, and what everyone should want to know is exactly what our political leaders, who have a statutory and moral duty to protect ALL citizens, are going to do to right this wrong & more importantly prevent this from happening again.
Too many politicians hide behind the cliché’: the system isn’t perfect, but it’s the best we’ve got.” Well there are many eminent legal, forensic & medical experts who are telling us that our application & execution of the justice system isn’t the best. In fact, it’s far from it. I am so sick of the same old hollow rhetoric that just buys time or fills a snappy little sound bite. Surely as a democratic community we deserve some honest & meaningful answers, followed up with real and immediate action? I refuse to be fobbed off anymore by the usual cliché’ cop outs, such as “the system gets it right more often that it gets it wrong” Seriously, is that really supposed to be good enough? After 15 years fighting for my dad I say NO. I wish our leaders would remember and use this cliché: “Evil prevails when good men do nothing.”
Another predictable little gem that gets trotted out with nauseating regularity is “Well the accused was judged by their peers and found to be guilty”. Surely that or any other judgement by one’s peers can only be fair, just, and reliable when the evidence presented to them is honest and factual. And in my dad’s matter, that just wasn’t the case. It wasn’t even close.
We need to constantly remind ourselves that this or any other system is not some amorphous, faceless entity that can’t be taken to task...unless we allow it. It’s made up of actual people who have real & specific responsibilities and obligations to ALL of us and when they don’t live up to their sworn duties they do serious damage to individuals, families and the community as a whole.
Please show your support by joining and inviting your friends, talking about it at your workplace, with your families, write about it in your blogs, call up talkback radio or email members of the legislative council – anything to support the Bill for the establishment of a CCRC.
Positions
1. Are you aware that Australia does not have any legal review procedure once a person has been convicted and has had an unsuccessful appeal?
2. Even where there is compelling evidence of innocence, the court of appeal cannot reopen the appeal. The High Court will not receive the evidence.
3. When the system has failed, it has failed spectacularly because of proven incompetence & negligence that was known and allowed to continue unchecked
4. Ann Bressington MLC will soon be introducing a private members Bill into the South Australian Parliament for the introduction of a review committee.
5. The CCRC is an independent body set up to review possible miscarriages of justice and decide if they should be referred to an appeal court."
There has also been a push for a Criminal Cases Review Commission in Canada - a country which has also seen spate of wrongful convictions in recent years - in which reviews are conducted internally by the Department of Justice.
Bibi Sangha, Kent Roach and Robert Moles, point out in their recently published book "Forensic Investigations and Miscarriages of Justice: the Rhetoric Meets the Reality," published by Irwin Law in Toronto, that six judicial inquiries have called for a review process which is independent of government such as a Criminal Review Commission. (I, for one, cannot think of any other recommendation which has received the support of so many inquiries?)
Sangha, Roach and Moles cite former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Peter Cory's recommendation in his report on the Sophonow Inquiry that, a "completely independent entity" such as the Criminal Cases Review Commission be established to "effectively, efficiently and quickly review cases in which wrongful conviction is alleged....if the State commits significant errors in the course of the investigation and prosecution, it should accept the responsibility for the sad which will inevitably flow from them."
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
The group says it has been motivated by, "a spate of highly publicized cases have led many to question how a justice system, meant to be impartial & professional, with all its apparent safeguards, get things so wrong and for so long."
Readers of this Blog are encouraged to register their support at:
http://www.causes.com/causes/539113?recruiter_id=77032847
In the "About" section of the Facebook page, we are told that:
"When someone is wrongfully imprisoned, there are many hidden victims. It’s not only the convicted person who does the time, whose life gets put on hold and turned upside down; it’s every member of their family too. So even if some people don’t care about the person in prison, they need to know, and remember that the collateral damage is very real and is just as, if not more devastating. And, it’s totally unacceptable.
I am the youngest daughter of Henry Keogh, who has been in prison for 15 years - convicted & imprisoned not just for a murder he didn’t commit, but for a murder that never even happened. It has been known for a very long time now there were grave mistakes; but what has the system done?
Ignored us, then fobbed us off in a multitude of shabby & dishonest ways, misled or even lied to the courts, the media, the parliament & public & continue to ignore us year after year.
In Britain, they established a CCRC in 1997 which has led to the overturning of convictions in some 300 cases. Of those, around 50 were murder cases and 4 involved people who had been hanged. The review of cases is completely independent of Parliament, the Government, the Crown and the Defence.
A CCRC subjects cases to a robust and thoroughly impartial review to consider whether there is new evidence or argument that may cast doubt on the safety of an original decision, but as it stands here in Australia, the people in power who can, and are supposed to put these things right:
* Don’t want to know, or won’t talk to you.
* Simply won’t accept that a mistake has been made
* And seem to lack the courage, any compassion and perhaps the integrity to correct a wrong no matter how obvious it may be.
My dad is not an isolated case, proving the point if it can happen once, it can happen again and again.
What I want to know, and what everyone should want to know is exactly what our political leaders, who have a statutory and moral duty to protect ALL citizens, are going to do to right this wrong & more importantly prevent this from happening again.
Too many politicians hide behind the cliché’: the system isn’t perfect, but it’s the best we’ve got.” Well there are many eminent legal, forensic & medical experts who are telling us that our application & execution of the justice system isn’t the best. In fact, it’s far from it. I am so sick of the same old hollow rhetoric that just buys time or fills a snappy little sound bite. Surely as a democratic community we deserve some honest & meaningful answers, followed up with real and immediate action? I refuse to be fobbed off anymore by the usual cliché’ cop outs, such as “the system gets it right more often that it gets it wrong” Seriously, is that really supposed to be good enough? After 15 years fighting for my dad I say NO. I wish our leaders would remember and use this cliché: “Evil prevails when good men do nothing.”
Another predictable little gem that gets trotted out with nauseating regularity is “Well the accused was judged by their peers and found to be guilty”. Surely that or any other judgement by one’s peers can only be fair, just, and reliable when the evidence presented to them is honest and factual. And in my dad’s matter, that just wasn’t the case. It wasn’t even close.
We need to constantly remind ourselves that this or any other system is not some amorphous, faceless entity that can’t be taken to task...unless we allow it. It’s made up of actual people who have real & specific responsibilities and obligations to ALL of us and when they don’t live up to their sworn duties they do serious damage to individuals, families and the community as a whole.
Please show your support by joining and inviting your friends, talking about it at your workplace, with your families, write about it in your blogs, call up talkback radio or email members of the legislative council – anything to support the Bill for the establishment of a CCRC.
Positions
1. Are you aware that Australia does not have any legal review procedure once a person has been convicted and has had an unsuccessful appeal?
2. Even where there is compelling evidence of innocence, the court of appeal cannot reopen the appeal. The High Court will not receive the evidence.
3. When the system has failed, it has failed spectacularly because of proven incompetence & negligence that was known and allowed to continue unchecked
4. Ann Bressington MLC will soon be introducing a private members Bill into the South Australian Parliament for the introduction of a review committee.
5. The CCRC is an independent body set up to review possible miscarriages of justice and decide if they should be referred to an appeal court."
There has also been a push for a Criminal Cases Review Commission in Canada - a country which has also seen spate of wrongful convictions in recent years - in which reviews are conducted internally by the Department of Justice.
Bibi Sangha, Kent Roach and Robert Moles, point out in their recently published book "Forensic Investigations and Miscarriages of Justice: the Rhetoric Meets the Reality," published by Irwin Law in Toronto, that six judicial inquiries have called for a review process which is independent of government such as a Criminal Review Commission. (I, for one, cannot think of any other recommendation which has received the support of so many inquiries?)
Sangha, Roach and Moles cite former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Peter Cory's recommendation in his report on the Sophonow Inquiry that, a "completely independent entity" such as the Criminal Cases Review Commission be established to "effectively, efficiently and quickly review cases in which wrongful conviction is alleged....if the State commits significant errors in the course of the investigation and prosecution, it should accept the responsibility for the sad which will inevitably flow from them."
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
DR. CHARLES SMITH; HOW DO YOU COMPENSATE INNOCENT, GRIEVING MOTHERS WHOSE REMAINING CHILDREN WERE SEIZED FROM THEM - SOME FOREVER - BY THE STATE?
"One question that cries out for an answer is how do you compensate the innocent mother's - like Louise Reynold's and Sherry Sherrett - whose remaining children were seized from them when they were charged on the basis of Dr. Charles Smith's flawed opinions and then put up for adoption by the state? (And how do you compensate the other innocent mother's such as Brenda Waudby and Liane Thibeault, who were put through the horror of having their not-yet-born children apprehended by the State?)
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: The inquiry focused largely on the flawed work of Dr. Smith — formerly the province's chief pediatric pathologist and a self-styled member of the prosecution team — whose "errors" led to innocent people being branded as child murderers. The 1,000-page report by Justice Stephen Goudge slammed Dr. Smith, along with Ontario's former chief coroner and his deputy, for their roles in wrongful prosecutions and asked the province to consider compensation. The provincial coroner's office found evidence of errors in 20 of 45 autopsies Dr. Smith did over a 10-year period starting in the early 1990s. Thirteen resulted in criminal charges. William Mullins-Johnson, who was among those cases, spent 12 years in prison for the rape and murder of his four-year-old niece, whose death was later attributed to natural causes. In another case, Dr. Smith concluded a mother had stabbed her seven-year-old girl to death when it turned out to have been a dog mauling. The inquiry heard that Dr. Smith's failings included hanging on to crucial evidence, "losing" evidence which showed his opinion was wrong and may have assisted the accused person, mistating evidence, chronic tardiness, and the catastrophic misinterpretation of findings. The cases, along with other heart-rending stories of wrongful prosecutions based in part on Smith's testimony, also raised a host of issues about the pathology system and the reliance of the courts on expert evidence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I was very pleased about the recently announced $4.25 million compensation the Ontario government has awarded to William Mullins-Johnson. (Except to add that if it were up to me I would award him twice as much, and even that would not properly compensate him for the horror he and his family were put through by the Government and its agents in our name); One question that cries out for an answer is how do you compensate the innocent mother's - like Louise Reynold's and Sherry Sherrett - whose remaining children were seized from them when they were charged on the basis of Dr. Charles Smith's flawed opinions and then put up for adoption by the state? (And how do you compensate the other innocent mother's such as Brenda Waudby and Liane Thibeault, who were put through the horror of having their not-yet-born children apprehended by the state.) These things happened to these mothers on top of the horror of being wrongly branded as child-killers by the state and by the media, while trying at the same time to bear the grief and loss of a child. I am concerned that existing compensation systems for wrongful convictions are far too narrowly focused on the term of incarceration the wrongly convicted person has experienced - as contrasted with the loss of another child forever as a result of the State's horrific error, which I believe constitutes nothing less than a life-sentence experienced day after day. In my view, compensation for the latter should therefore be at least at the same level as the compensation awarded for lengthy wrongful imprisonment. There is something else going on here. The evidence at the Goudge Inquiry into many of Dr. Smith's cases established that Dr. Smith tended to pick on single women who did not fit into his view of the wholesome Christian family unit. I am also concerned that the Ontario government will re-victimize these women by branding them as bad mothers who, according to Smith's logic, would not have lost their child unless they were bad mothers anyway - and therefore don't deserve to be generously compensated for the brutal treatment they received at the hands of the State and its agents. How fair is that? How cruel?
HAROLD LEVY: PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
