the charles smith blog

Monday, March 28, 2011

DR. FREDDY PATEL; 1; INQUEST INTO G20 DEATH OF NEWSPAPER VENDOR IAN TOMLINSON BEGINS: WILL EXPLORE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PATHOLOGISTS AND THE POLICE;

"Pathologist Dr Freddy Patel originally found that Mr Tomlinson died of natural causes but amateur video footage emerged showing him being pushed to the ground by a police officer.........

Pc Simon Harwood, a member of the Metropolitan Police's territorial support group who was seen pushing Mr Tomlinson, faces misconduct proceedings after the inquest and could be sacked from the force.

At a hearing held at City of London Coroner's Court in December, Matthew Ryder QC, representing Mr Tomlinson's family, said the inquest would require "fairness and fearlessness".

It is likely to examine the actions of police, the pathologist, the coroner and independent investigators in the aftermath of Mr Tomlinson's death."

THE U.K. PRESS ASSOCIATION; (The U.K. Press Association describes itself as: "The leading multimedia content provider and national news agency offering unrivalled content and digital media services. As home to the national news agency of the UK and Ireland, the Press Association proudly takes its place at the heart of the UK media news providing a continuous feed of text, pictures, video and data into newsrooms around the country.")

A thorough account of "The death of Ian Tomlinson" can be found on Wikipedia at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson

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

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: If Dr. Freddy Patel had the last word, a 47-year-old newspaper vendor named Ian Tomlinson's death after he collapsed on the pavement on the fringes of protests at the G20 on April 1, 2009 would have been written off as "natural causes." However amateur video footage emerged showing him being pushed to the ground by a police officer who faces misconduct proceedings after an inquest beginning in March 2011 is completed. As noted on Wikipedia: "Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died in the City of London on his way home from work during the 2009 G-20 summit protests. A first postmortem examination indicated that he had suffered a heart attack brought on by coronary artery disease, and had died of natural causes. His death became controversial a week later when The Guardian obtained footage of his last moments, filmed by an American investment fund manager who was visiting London. The video showed Tomlinson being struck on the leg from behind by a police officer wielding an extendable baton, then pushed to the ground by the same officer. It appeared to show no provocation on Tomlinson's part—he was not a protester, and at the time he was struck, the footage showed him walking along with his hands in his pockets. He walked away after the incident, but collapsed and died moments later. After The Guardian published the video, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) began a criminal inquiry. A second postmortem indicated that Tomlinson had died from internal bleeding caused by a blunt force trauma to the abdomen, in association with cirrhosis of the liver. A third postmortem was arranged by the defence team of the accused officer, PC Simon Harwood; the third pathologist agreed that the cause of death was internal bleeding. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced in July 2010 that no charges would be brought, because medical disagreement about the cause of the death meant prosecutors could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a causal link between the death and the alleged assault. The first pathologist, Dr Freddy Patel, was suspended for three months in August 2010 for "deficient professional performance" in several unrelated cases." As the Guardian reported on March 19, 2011, Patel, who had been previously suspended for incompetence in a series of high profile autopsies, was found guilty of professional misconduct after failing to spot that a murder victim had been suffocated. He now faces being struck off the medical register. A disciplinary panel of the General Medical Council ruled that his "fitness to practise was impaired" because of his reluctance to consider asphyxiation in the murder case, the falsification of his professional CV, and his failure to redress previous professional shortcomings. The UK Press Association says that the inquest, "is likely to examine the actions of police, the pathologist, the coroner and independent investigators in the aftermath of Mr Tomlinson's death." The Goudge Inquiry into many of former Dr. Charles Smith's cases also examined relationships between pathologists and police - particularly a case in which Smith agreed to interview a woman suspected of murdering her baby at her home while fully aware that the home had been secretly bugged by the authorities. The inquest is expected to last six weeks. This Blog will follow it closely.

HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;

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

"The inquest into the death of Ian Tomlinson is due to start, nearly two years after he collapsed at the G20 protests," The Press Association story filed earlier today under the heading, "G20 newspaper-seller inquest begins," begins.

"The 47-year-old newspaper-seller died after collapsing on the pavement on the fringes of protests on April 1 2009," the story continues.

"Pathologist Dr Freddy Patel originally found that Mr Tomlinson died of natural causes but amateur video footage emerged showing him being pushed to the ground by a police officer.

Judge Peter Thornton QC, sitting as assistant deputy coroner, will hear evidence at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street, London. The jury inquest is expected to last for up to six weeks.

Pc Simon Harwood, a member of the Metropolitan Police's territorial support group who was seen pushing Mr Tomlinson, faces misconduct proceedings after the inquest and could be sacked from the force.

At a hearing held at City of London Coroner's Court in December, Matthew Ryder QC, representing Mr Tomlinson's family, said the inquest would require "fairness and fearlessness".

It is likely to examine the actions of police, the pathologist, the coroner and independent investigators in the aftermath of Mr Tomlinson's death.

Mr Tomlinson's family has accused the authorities of a cover-up and supported moves to bring in a senior judge to oversee the inquest.

City of London coroner Paul Matthews asked that a senior judicial figure take over the case because of its potentially wide-ranging implications.

Mr Thornton is an expert on public order law who has overseen several high-profile trials and was appointed assistant deputy coroner for the case in November."

The story can be found at:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jtChYB3azh7pz4NS1p128kfPOOoQ?docId=N0249981301277241724A

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 found 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 MONFILS CONSPIRACY (5); MICHAEL JOHNSON DENIED PAROLE: CANNOT RE-APPLY UNTIL SEPTEMBER 2012; WLUK TV;

"Michael Johnson’s request was denied last Friday by the Early Release Review Commission.

Johnson can ask for parole again in Sept. 2012.

He is one of the six men who were convicted for the 1992 murder of Tom Monfils.

Five of those convicted are currently serving life sentences.

One man, Mike Piaskowski, was released after six years in prison when his conviction was overturned."

WLUK TV;

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

Sunday, March 27, 2011

THE MONFILS CONSPIRACY (4); THE CONVICTION OF SIX INNOCENT MEN; THE DAMAGE REAPED BY SIMPLE HUMAN FLAWS; JOAN VAN HOUTEN; "4 JUSTICE DENIED."

"By the time the police department showed up in the room the vat was located in, numerous people had been in and out, walking through. And even during the body removal, there was chaos everywhere, by investigative standards. This was a crime scene (at least that is how the scene should have been treated) which could very well contain crucial evidence to determine whether a murder was committed, an accident happened or whether this was a case of suicide.

There was no tape closing off the area. Civilians were asked to watch the entrances. The fire department personnel walked all over the area along with police officers. And while working to retrieve the body, grappling hooks were used, attempt after failed attempt, doing untold damage. When it was finally decided that emptying the vat would be more effective, there was little done to preserve what evidence may have been lost down the drain. Though some items were caught in the filter screen, the fact that foreign material was found in the products produced tells us that not all evidence would have been trapped on the screen.

Countless people wandered throughout the area, peering over the vat edge, leaning on walls, moving items around. And a police officer in audible distance to mill workers making the statement, “Way to go, Kutska.” Already placing a target on Keith Kutska before an investigation had even begun."

4 JUSTICE DENIED; JOAN VAN HOUTEN; STEPDAUGHTER OF MICHAEL JOHNSON, ONE OF THE CONVICTED MEN.

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

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: "The Monfils Conspiracy: The Conviction of Six Innocent Men" by Dennis Gullickson and John Gaie", raises huge doubts about the conviction of six men (one since exonerated) convicted in the murder of a paper mill worker named Tom Monfils in 1992. The book, published by IUniverse in 1992, raises genuine concern over the autopsy and other forensic issues involved in the case. Prof. Larry Marshall of Stanford Law School (former Legal Director of the Northwestern University Centre on Wrongful Convictions) says, "The Monfils Conspiracy tells the story of a grave human tragedy. It is a story of a profound injustice which continues to destroy the lives of several wrongly convicted men and their families." This Blog will follow developments.

HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;

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

"It begins with the little things,", post by Joan Van Houten published on December 7, 2010 begins, under the heading, "Simple Human Flaws - The Damage They Reap."

"Tracing this case back to the very beginning is quite a job, and once that is done, it is hard to imagine that such basic flaws in human nature could have created such devastating effects," the post continues.

"Pettiness, laziness and need for revenge are at the very core of this tragic story and the flaws circle out quite symmetrically from there to include self-importance, fear and self-servitude. The Monfils Six (so dubiously named by the Green Bay, WI media) are the unwilling martyrs of our time, caught in this wretched net of human weakness.

While putting in another routine day at the paper mill, Keith Kutska saw a spool with some scrap wire still wrapped around it. He wanted it, but decided it was too much of a bother to get a simple scrap pass from the supervisor. He didn't need it all...just a bit of it...so, what would be the harm? Everyone was doing it.

Tom Monfils saw Kutska take the wire. Exactly why Monfils decided to make an issue of this will never truly be known, but he was not going to let Kutska walk out free and clear. And thinking back on it now, Monfils had to have kept an eye on Kutska throughout the work hours to know that there was no scrap pass...had to have been watching to see if Kutska would take the steps to get that pass. If not, then how would he have known that he could report Kutska? Had that pass been gotten, there would have been nothing to report.

Monfils, instead of going to the supervisor, and instead of calling the guards at the gatehouse, decided to call the Green Bay Police Department. He wanted to report a theft, and he wanted to stay anonymous. They informed him that this was not a matter for the police department, that it was an employee/employer matter. Monfils indicated that he did not want Kutska to know that he (Monfils) was reporting the theft. Monfils indicated that they should not come with sirens on, that it should be an unmarked car...Kutska would run or hide the goods. But instead of coming down to the James River Paper paper mill, the police called the gatehouse.

At the gatehouse, Kutska was asked to open his bag. He refused. He was asked again. He still refused. He then walked off very quickly, stating that his wife needed to be somewhere, and he needed to get home. Kutska left the mill. A report was written up and given to his supervisors. One cannot refuse to be searched at the mill. One will be punished. And he was.

So, now we have Kutska wanting to know what the hell happened. All he wanted was a piece of scrap wire. For this, he was reprimanded at work and told there had been a call to the police. The police? Really? Well, then that's where he was going to go. Kutska began talking about how he was going to go to the police and find out who falsely accused him of theft. He was insulted. He was angry that someone would do this and not step up.

Having heard about Kutska going to the police department and asking them for a copy of the anonymous call, Monfils contacted the police department and pleaded with them not to release that tape. He called the district attorneys office and pleaded with them to make sure that tape was not released. The district attorneys office and the city attorneys office informed the Green Bay Police Department Chief of Police not to release that tape. And when Keith Kutska walked back in to the police station, the very nice officer behind the desk handed Kutska a copy of the 911 tape.

Well, then – there it was – all that Kutska needed to figure out who hated him so much that he/she would go through all of this to get him into trouble at work. He recognized the voice. Tom Monfils was the secret caller. After making a few calls himself, Kutska arranged to get Monfils to admit he was the culprit. This, Kutska was told, would be enough evidence to bring to the Union Committee to file a grievance that Monfils wrongfully accused him of theft and created a negative environment for Kutska at work because of it. Kutska lined up two co-workers who would be present and made plans to play the tape for Monfils while at work. This was done. Monfils admitted it was him...that he had a stake in the company. After a few words with Monfils, the men walked out of the break room, leaving him to stand there alone.

Monfils was last seen working about his machine. No one knows just when he walked away. No one knows which direction he went or if he went alone. There exists absolutely no eyewitness of Monfils leaving the area at all. But when it came time to change a very large paper roll over to an empty core, his absence was finally noticed. And reported.

Some time went by before an all out search began. First there were quick walks around the paper rolling area, then circling out a bit. Nothing. There were phone calls to the gatehouse to see if Monfils left. No. His car was still in the parking lot. Now, concern was growing. Was he hiding? Was he sitting in some remote corner of the plant to get away from accusing eyes?

Eventually, a full blown search ensued and the police department was called with a report of a missing person. Monfils wife was called in. Production basically halted as the search went on. The manhunt ended when Monfils body was spotted in a two story paper pulp vat. Speculation began...suicide? Murder?

By the time the police department showed up in the room the vat was located in, numerous people had been in and out, walking through. And even during the body removal, there was chaos everywhere, by investigative standards. This was a crime scene (at least that is how the scene should have been treated) which could very well contain crucial evidence to determine whether a murder was committed, an accident happened or whether this was a case of suicide.

There was no tape closing off the area. Civilians were asked to watch the entrances. The fire department personnel walked all over the area along with police officers. And while working to retrieve the body, grappling hooks were used, attempt after failed attempt, doing untold damage. When it was finally decided that emptying the vat would be more effective, there was little done to preserve what evidence may have been lost down the drain. Though some items were caught in the filter screen, the fact that foreign material was found in the products produced tells us that not all evidence would have been trapped on the screen.

Countless people wandered throughout the area, peering over the vat edge, leaning on walls, moving items around. And a police officer in audible distance to mill workers making the statement, “Way to go, Kutska.” Already placing a target on Keith Kutska before an investigation had even begun.

This was the beginning. Human weakness playing out. Kutska refusing to take responsibility for taking the wire. The Green Bay Police Department unwilling to acknowledge their blatant error in releasing a 911 tape, and the Brown County District Attorney and Green Bay City Attorney refusing to hold the police department accountable to the community – to Thomas Monfils. And the race was on. Each responsible party searching for a way to save face – to save themselves. Never mind the damage being done. Never mind the havoc reaped. The truth be damned and innocent men along with it.

Yes, it is hard to imagine that such basic flaws in human nature could have created such devastating effects. Yet, it did...it does. And until we begin to hold ourselves accountable to the impact of those basic flaws, hell will continue to be unleashed. It's the little things that get past us, but it's the little things that make the biggest difference in our lives. Truthfulness, awareness, accountability. Integrity. These things have to mean something again - these simple little things that are the keys to delivering these men back to their families where they belong.

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

The story can be found at:

http://4justicedenied.blogspot.com/2010_12_07_archive.html

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

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 found 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, March 26, 2011

THE MONFILS CONSPIRACY (3); THE CONVICTION OF SIX INNOCENT MEN; RECENT DEVELOPMENT; REY MOORE DENIED PAROLE;

"Rey Moore, 64, an inmate at the Oshkosh Correctional Institution, won’t be eligible to apply again for another year, according to Tim LeMonds, a Wisconsin Department of Corrections spokesman. Moore's bid for parole was denied earlier this week.

Moore’s case remains under appeal. He’s seeking a new trial based on information that a jailhouse informant, whose testimony helped convict Moore originally, has since changed his story.

Another of the defendants in the case, Michael Hirn, 46, was denied parole earlier this month. Another defendant, Michael Johnson, 63, has his parole hearing in March.

Two other men who remain imprisoned for the crime — Dale Basten, 69, and Keith Kutska, 59 — aren't eligible for early release until 2012 and 2015, respectively.

A sixth man convicted in the case, Michael Piaskowski, was released April 2001 after a federal judge in Milwaukee overturned his conviction on the grounds of insufficient evidence."

REPORTER PAUL SRUBAS; GREEN BAY PRESS;

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

Friday, March 25, 2011

REQUIEM FOR A FLAWED PATHOLOGIST; THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS REPRIMANDS CHARLES SMITH IN HIS ABSENCE; THE REPRIMAND;

'Your misconduct has resulted in unmitigated pain and suffering for so many people and their families. You have subjected these individuals to emotional, financial and social devastation.

From the very beginning of our medical education we learned the principle of "Primum non nocere", First of all, do no harm. No matter what we learned thereafter, that remained the basic foundation governing our practice. You clearly ignored this fundamental principle."

FROM THE REPRIMAND ADMINISTERED TO CHARLES SMITH IN HIS ABSENCE BY THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO;

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

BACKGROUND: The Goudge inquiry focused largely on the flawed work of Charles 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. (He has since been thrown out of the medical profession in Ontario);

The 1,000-page report by Justice Stephen Goudge slammed 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 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, 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 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 Ontario's forensic pathology system and the reliance of the courts on expert evidence."

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

PUBLISHER'S NOTE; There were several empty chairs at the hearing of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to which Charles Smith had been ordered to attend this morning in order to receive his public reprimand; One belonged to Smith; The others, to his lawyers. Dr. Marc Gabel, Chairman of the five-person panel which had previously found Smith guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence, said the panel was "very disappointed" that Smith had chosen not to attend as directed. College Prosecutor Caroline Silver read a blunt one paragraph letter she had received from Smith's lawyers saying only that he would not be attending. (Smith had also chosen not to attend the hearing on February 1, 2011, at which he did not contest the charges laid against him by the College); Ms. Silver told the panel she called the lawyers and was informed that they would not be attending. Gabel stressed that revocation of Smith's licence to practice medicine in Ontario was "the most serious penalty" that the College could order, that the reprimand was the College's opportunity "to express on behalf of the profession and the public our abhorrance of Dr. Smith's misconduct," and that the panel had decided to read the reprimand it would have administered were he in attendance. Although, in this Blog's view the College failed to properly protect the public from Smith years ago when it had the opportunity, the reprimand administered by this panel this morning appears to me to ring true and from the heart in recognition of the horrible irreparable harm that Smith has caused to so many parents and caregivers.

HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;

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

THE REPRIMAND;

"Dr. Smith, this panel has heard the uncontested facts concerning your professional misconduct and incompetence and the effects of this behaviour on so many people.

In your practice of forensic pediatric pathology:

0: You failed to gather relevant information, undertake
appropriate investigations, and properly detail relevant
information;

0: You expressed opinions about the cause of injuries or death
that were either contrary to or not supported by the pathology
evidence.

0: You expressed erroneous opinions about the cause of death based
on non-specific findings, and misinterpreted autopsy
findings;

0: You referenced aspects of the social history of the parents
or caregivers of the deceased child which were irrelevant to the
pathology;

0: You attempted to unfairly shift responsibility for your failures to others;

0: You failed to create, maintain and preserve pathology
materials relevant to criminal investigations in the manner
expected of a pathologist.

0: You offered opinions outside of the area of your expertise, and gave evidence that was unbalanced or overly dogmatic.

0: You gave opinions that were unscientific, speculative, unsubstantiated and not
based on pathological findings;

0: You provided opinions to coroners, the police, Crown Attorneys and the Court in a manner that was misleading and unfairly critical of other experts.

0: You acted as an advocate in cases rather than expressing an unbiased opinion;

0: You failed to adequately prepare for court;

0: You failed to respond to inquiries from regulating bodies, including the CPSO, (the College) with the candour expected of a physician, regarding your involvement in cases under investigation;

0: Your many failures compromised the administration of justice and caused harm to many individuals and their families.

You had a duty to the public, to the administration of justice and to your profession. Your failure in all these aspects is abominable to this Panel to your fellow physicians and, as importantly, to the public.

Your misconduct has resulted in unmitigated pain and suffering for so many people and their families. You have subjected these individuals to emotional, financial and social devastation.

From the very beginning of our medical education we learned the principle of "Primum non nocere", First of all, do no harm. No matter what we learned thereafter, that remained the basic foundation governing our practice. You clearly ignored this fundamental principle.

Your transgressions were egregious in nature, repulsive in result, and caused irreparable harm to many innocent victims.

The medical profession strives to act morally, ethically, and with the best interest of our patients in the forefront of our actions. As physicians we are sometimes called upon to serve the administration of justice in our courts. By your actions you abysmally failed to do so in these areas and have subsequently disgraced our profession. We publicly deplore and denounce your behaviour, Nothing we can do or say will repair the damage you have caused to the lives of the persons you have injured. What we can do is express, through this reprimand, the abhorrence of your profession and the public for your misconduct."

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

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

THE MONFILS CONSPIRACY; (2); THE CONVICTION OF SIX INNOCENT MEN; A GRASS ROOTS PERSPECTIVE; SCENE; WISCONSIN;

"Any book with “conspiracy” in the title instantly stiffens my skeptical spine, conjuring images of cryptozoologists and the grassy knoll. Nevertheless, I gave it a go. Besides, the authors were due to speak at the Titletown Brewing Company, and I wanted to dismantle their conspiracy so I could spike it back in their face in front of an audience.

The 400-page polemical attack against the conviction of these “innocent men” accuses the Green Bay police department, the Press-Gazette, and the district attorney’s office of sharing guilt in the gang rape of Lady Justice. But the book is riddled with one-sided language, oversimplified speculations and transparent biases, from brief biographies painting the convicted murderers as all-American men to describing their innocence as “painfully obvious.”

In fact, the co-author, John Gaie, used to be a son-in-law to one of the accused. Odd…I scribbled in the margin.

But the further I delved into the book – which at times felt like watching an episode of Matlock in slow motion – the more skeptical I became of my skepticism."

RYAN BENSON: SCENE;

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

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: "The Monfils Conspiracy: The Conviction of Six Innocent Men" by Dennis Gullickson and John Gaie", raises huge doubts about the conviction of six men (one since exonerated) convicted in the murder of a paper mill worker named Tom Monfils in 1992. The book, published by IUniverse in 1992, raises genuine concern over the autopsy and other forensic issues involved in the case. Prof. Larry Marshall of Stanford Law School (former Legal Director of the Northwestern University Centre on Wrongful Convictions) says, "The Monfils Conspiracy tells the story of a grave human tragedy. It is a story of a profound injustice which continues to destroy the lives of several wrongly convicted men and their families." This Blog will follow developments.

HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;

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

"New to the area, I was surprised to hear that a death in a paper mill turned the charming city of Green Bay upside down in 1993. The mysterious death of Tom Monfils left six of his co-workers in prison, convicted of murder," the "Scene" story by Ryan Benson begins under the heading, "Beyond a reasonable doubt?: The Monfils Conspiracy."

"Yearning to know more, I did what any responsible journalist in pursuit of the solid facts would do: I asked a room full of naked men," the story continues.

"“The Monfils Six: They were big union guys,” scoffed a stocky man closing his locker. “Monfils ratted one of them out for stealin’ some electrical wire or something. Guilty as charged, I heard.”

“They tied a weight around his neck; dropped him in a fucking paper vat,” said a gentleman tying his swim trunks. “Bastards…”

“Those nuts are still fighting it, though; ain’t they?” asked another man, rinsing his razor.

Still fighting, indeed, and authors Denis Gullickson and John Gaie have thrown an ammo chest at their feet in The Monfils Conspiracy: The Conviction of Six Innocent Men.

Any book with “conspiracy” in the title instantly stiffens my skeptical spine, conjuring images of cryptozoologists and the grassy knoll. Nevertheless, I gave it a go. Besides, the authors were due to speak at the Titletown Brewing Company, and I wanted to dismantle their conspiracy so I could spike it back in their face in front of an audience.

The 400-page polemical attack against the conviction of these “innocent men” accuses the Green Bay police department, the Press-Gazette, and the district attorney’s office of sharing guilt in the gang rape of Lady Justice. But the book is riddled with one-sided language, oversimplified speculations and transparent biases, from brief biographies painting the convicted murderers as all-American men to describing their innocence as “painfully obvious.”

In fact, the co-author, John Gaie, used to be a son-in-law to one of the accused. Odd…I scribbled in the margin.

But the further I delved into the book – which at times felt like watching an episode of Matlock in slow motion – the more skeptical I became of my skepticism.

First, these six men were tried together, despite pretrial motions requesting separate trials. Why? To save taxpayer money and to prevent further stress for the Monfils family. This means one jury for all six of them, making it difficult for the defendants to build independent cases.

During the joint trial, the prosecution’s star witness was Brian Kellner, who testified to seeing one of the accused, Keith Kutska, role-playing a confrontation between Monfils and the six men, which supposedly happened by a water fountain at the paper mill. The role-play took place at a bar – the Fox Den – on a drunken 4th of July weekend; Kellner said Kutska used bar patrons to reenact the skirmish.

This clash by the fountain is where the six men are accused of beating up Monfils before throwing his body into the vat. Not only was Kellner’s testimony hearsay, but today he denies the role-play at the Fox Den ever took place; he claims to have been bullied into the testimony by the lead detective, Randy Winkler.

Without Kellner’s testimony (which, by the way, would not have been allowed in five of the six trials if the requests for separate trials had been granted), there is no evidence that the confrontation at the drinking fountain ever took place. All six men denied it during the trial, despite offers of immunity, and they continue to deny the “bubbler” incident to this day.

In 1997, Detective Winkler was issued a 26-page letter from Police Chief James Lewis, suspending Winkler from active duty and demanding his resignation; the letter was not released to the public. Even District Attorney John Zakowski says, “Winkler became an issue during the course of the investigation in the trial. There was scuttlebutt in terms of Winkler’s methods.” The authors argue that there was more than mere “scuttlebutt,” depicting Winkler as a crooked cop to the core, hell-bent on catching his man, or in this case: men.

David Wiener, another key witness for the prosecution, shot and killed his brother 13 months after Monfils’ mysterious death. Wiener was accused of reckless homicide and released on a signature bond the morning after his arrest. Judge Bayorgeon did not allow this information to surface in the Monfils case; the jury was not to know that the incriminating witness was a convicted killer.

In 2001, Mike Piaskowski, one of the Monfils Six, won an appeal and he was granted a writ of habeas corpus by U.S. District Court Judge Myron Gordon. In the decision, Judge Gordon explained that, “The ultimate finding of guilt in this case required the jury to pile speculation on top of inferences drawn from other inferences. Each step along the way required the jury to eliminate one or more of the alternatives, thus multiplying the risk of error. Such a verdict is not rational.”

The eyebrow-raising information continues to come in bursts throughout the book, and this is but a sliver of it.

So I went to the Titletown Brewery Company on Feb. 17 to hear what the authors had to say in person, knowing there would be no conspiracy spiking on my part.

The talk took place in the party room on the top floor of the brewery; about 60 people were in attendance. As latecomers crowded in and the doors shut, I took a spot back in a corner, pint of stout in hand. With author Denis Gullickson running the show, the evening began.

The first speaker was Cal Monfils, Tom Monfils’ brother. Cal was humble and bashful, but he was sincere in describing his friendship with the authors and his support for their work. “If there are people that feel that by buying the book they’re giving money to a bad cause, then they can check one out for free from the library, or I’ll borrow them my copy.”

He admitted to taking heat for his position from some family members, who must view his support for The Monfils Conspiracy as either high treason or naive involvement with a brainwashing cult. Cal also contributed a brief forward in the book, in which he writes, “To me, Tom’s death is still a mystery….With the amount of questionable investigating, I would not object to a review of this case on both sides of justice.”

Next came Attorney Avram Berk, Dale Basten’s defense lawyer in the Monfils case. “Good evening,” began Berk, shifting back and forth behind the podium, searching for the appropriate words. “This is difficult. I have not spoken publicly about this case since the trial.”

For the next 40 minutes, the audience became Berk’s pillow to punch as he vented a scattered barrage of grievances. Although Berk is an experienced trial lawyer – likely to be skilled in the art of audience manipulation – I couldn’t help believing the emotion he displayed was genuine.

“This is the case that just – I’ve never been able to reconcile…” he said. “I think the justice system failed. I think it failed the Monfils family. I think it failed the family of those people serving time in prison. I think it failed the community.”

Then came a pep talk from Byron Lichstein, a staff attorney for the Wisconsin Innocence Project, an organization that aids inmates who may be wrongfully convicted. Lichstein explained why many of his exonerated clients were convicted in the first place, and how those cases were overturned after long, uphill battles. He currently represents Reynold Moore, another of the Monfils Six.

About the Monfils trial specifically, Lichstein said, “We live in a system that says we only send people to prison when there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This case, to me, gives a lie to that idea of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I just don’t think there is really any way in a system that claims to live by that standard that you can say these defendants ought to be in prison for the rest of their lives.”

Lichstein emphasized that persistence is the key to success. After spending eight years and “the cost of a luxury car” on their book, Gullickson says, “We intend, as we move forward with this book and particularly this case, to continue doing what we are doing tonight.” They have sent books to national media outlets and lobbied activists to write letters for upcoming parole hearings. Persistence: check.

I am far from certain that the Monfils Six are completely innocent of wrongdoing, but The Monfils Conspiracy has given me plenty of reasons to doubt."

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

The story can be found at:

http://www.scenenewspaper.com/news-views/19-news-view/355-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-the-monfils-conspiracy.html

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

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 found 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, March 24, 2011

"THE MONFILS CONSPIRACY; (1) THE CONVICTION OF SIX INNOCENT MEN;" BOOK LEADS TO CAMPAIGN TO FREE THE FIVE MEN STILL BEHIND BARS; GREEN BAY PRESS;

"So far the strategy has involved trying to raise public awareness through writing letters and promoting the book. Gullickson said they've gotten the book into the hands of several elected leaders and judges, and it helped them enlist a Minneapolis private investigator to look more deeply into the case.

The investigator, John Johnson, said he's helping the effort at no charge after having read the book three times. He said he has put together a task force of engineers, a forensics expert and three retired federal investigators to look at evidence in the case."

REPORTER PAUL SRUBAS: THE GREEN BAY PRESS;

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

the charles smith blog

Monday, March 28, 2011

DR. FREDDY PATEL; 1; INQUEST INTO G20 DEATH OF NEWSPAPER VENDOR IAN TOMLINSON BEGINS: WILL EXPLORE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PATHOLOGISTS AND THE POLICE;

THE MONFILS CONSPIRACY (5); MICHAEL JOHNSON DENIED PAROLE: CANNOT RE-APPLY UNTIL SEPTEMBER 2012; WLUK TV;

Sunday, March 27, 2011

THE MONFILS CONSPIRACY (4); THE CONVICTION OF SIX INNOCENT MEN; THE DAMAGE REAPED BY SIMPLE HUMAN FLAWS; JOAN VAN HOUTEN; "4 JUSTICE DENIED."

Saturday, March 26, 2011

THE MONFILS CONSPIRACY (3); THE CONVICTION OF SIX INNOCENT MEN; RECENT DEVELOPMENT; REY MOORE DENIED PAROLE;

Friday, March 25, 2011

REQUIEM FOR A FLAWED PATHOLOGIST; THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS REPRIMANDS CHARLES SMITH IN HIS ABSENCE; THE REPRIMAND;

THE MONFILS CONSPIRACY; (2); THE CONVICTION OF SIX INNOCENT MEN; A GRASS ROOTS PERSPECTIVE; SCENE; WISCONSIN;

Thursday, March 24, 2011

"THE MONFILS CONSPIRACY; (1) THE CONVICTION OF SIX INNOCENT MEN;" BOOK LEADS TO CAMPAIGN TO FREE THE FIVE MEN STILL BEHIND BARS; GREEN BAY PRESS;

Blog Nation Badge

Followers

The Charles smith blog

Blog Archive

About Me

Search This Blog

https://forensicresources.org/

http://www.personal.psu.edu/dhk3/blogs/DoubleHelixLaw/