Bulletin: Shaken baby syndrome: Sandra Higgins; UK based neuro pathologist Dr. Waney Squier questions shaken baby syndrome in "childminder's" case: "Dr Squier, who gave evidence for the defence, said that 15 years ago she began to question the diagnoses of suspected shaken baby syndrome and now does not agree it is a syndrome with any scientific validation. She said CT and MRI scans of the baby in this case supported a suggestion of impact to the head or a prior injury. She said this was more likely the cause of the baby's injury than shaking." (Evidence is completed; Jury will soon begin deliberations);

A UK-based neuropathologist has told the Circuit Criminal Court she no longer believes there is scientific validation to support what is known as shaken baby syndrome. Dr Waney Squier was giving evidence in the trial of 34-year-old childminder Sandra Higgins of The Beeches, Drumgola Wood, Cavan town. Ms Higgins denies causing serious harm to a ten-month-old baby at her home on 28 March, 2012. Closing arguments in the case will be heard tomorrow. Dr Squier, who gave evidence for the defence, said that 15 years ago she began to question the diagnoses of suspected shaken baby syndrome and now does not agree it is a syndrome with any scientific validation. She said CT and MRI scans of the baby in this case supported a suggestion of impact to the head or a prior injury. She said this was more likely the cause of the baby's injury than shaking. She said the bleeding on the brain could have been several weeks old and could also have been a re-bleed or reactivation of a prior injury caused by trauma or spontaneously. Dr Squier also said she did not believe it was possible to time the baby's injury because there were bruises of varying ages found on her. She also said it was possible for a baby to appear well for some time after a head injury before showing catastrophic symptoms.........She denied having "a deep seated conviction or fixed belief" about shaken baby syndrome. She said after 15 years of research, many of the elements of syndrome had been overturned by research. She believed the so-called "triad of symptoms" including brain injury, brain bleed and retinal bleeding was no longer reliable. "We cannot be sure these symptoms can be caused by shaking or only by shaking," she said.........

The evidence in the case has now concluded. The jury will hear closing arguments tomorrow."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0622/709747-sandra-higgins/

Bulletin: John Salmon: Ontario; The historic document his lawyers drafted to attain his exoneration after 45 years. National Post; (Publisher's view: The Ontario Court of Appeal decision is a tribute to AIDWYC - The Association in defence of the wrongly convicted. Once again, as in the many Charles Smith cases AIDWYC has successfully fought, it has secured an exoneration in a most difficult case and secured justice for someone who desperately needed and deserved it.") Harold Levy. Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

Click on the following link; The scrollable document is located  after the line "The prosecution also apologized to Salmon for a miscarriage of justice that sent him to prison for four years." (Third paragraph); Go to the 'scribd' line. (Download...share...embed...tiny dark box within light box); Click  on the tiny dark  box  within the  light  box  on the far square. That will allow the document to fill the entire screen and make it easily readable. HL.

 http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/ontario-man-exonerated-45-years-after-being-wrongly-convicted-of-killing-wife

PUBLISHER'S VIEW: " Despite the fact the document bears such a bland name "the factum" it is is a fascinating account of how an unfortunate medical event becomes twisted into an act of violence right from the outset where the pathologist "thinks dirty," how modern science - and impartial scientists - can reveal the medical truth, and how a noble individual can persist in asserting his innocence for decades in spite of a wall of disbelief. As lawyer James Lockyer says at the end  of the  factum: “Although he has  endured these indignities with grace, Mr. Salmon should not have to face them any  longer. He told the truth about Maxines’s death on the day it occurred and for the 45 years since then has tenaciously maintained his innocence. Modern medical science confirms the account of Maxine’s death that he gave to his family, the doctor, the police and the jury in 1971 and he respectfully requests an acquittal.”  The Ontario Court of Appeal decision is a tribute to AIDWYC - The Association in defence of the wrongly convicted. Once again, as in the  many Charles Smith cases it has successfully fought, it has secured an exoneration in a most difficult case and secured justice for someone who desperately needed and deserved it.

Harold Levy: Publisher. The Charles Smith Blog.

Bulletin: John Salmon: (Ontario); Extraordinary development. He is expected to be cleared (and was in fact cleared) by the Ontario Court of Appeal this morning for manslaughter in the death of his wife, in the light of new medical evidence including that of a neuropathologist and two pathologists; (hearing set for 10.30 AM) Lawyer James Lockyer: "Mr. Salmon's wrongful conviction is another case of bad science causing a miscarriage of justice. It has taken 45 years for it to be fully exposed. Mr. Salmon has paid a terrible price. On the same day he, lost the woman he loved and was wrongly charged with her murder. Let us hope that today will see the end of this injustice." Toronto Star story (Reporter Rachel Mendelson): "The Crown agreed in its submissions that the fresh evidence in the case is "unquestionably admissible," and removes "the very foundation for a circumstantial case against (Salmon)." So convincing is the evidence, that had it been proffered initially, it “would not just have affected the verdict, it would have eliminated the basis for a criminal prosecution,” the Crown said. "

Lawyer James Lockyer of the Association in Defence of the Wrongly convicted says in a release at the link below: "Mr. Salmon's wrongful conviction is another case of bad science causing a miscarriage of justice. It has taken 45 years for it to be fully exposed. Mr. Salmon has paid a terrible price. On the same day he, lost the woman he loved and was wrongly charged with her murder. Let us hope that today will see the end of this injustice." (Keep an eye on this post during the day for developments. HL);

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/14e1acb086ce067c?projector=1

See Toronto Star story on Salmon's 45 year journey  to exoneration: "For nearly forty-five years, John Salmon has tried to push the burden of his conviction for killing his common-law wife, a crime he has always insisted he didn’t commit, to the back of his mind. Rather than dwell on the frustration and the stigma, Salmon, 75, has tried to keep busy, first pulling double shifts in the prison kitchen, then pouring himself into his job as a welder after his release. “If you work all the time, you don’t think about stuff,” he says. But recently, Salmon has allowed hope to creep in. A decade after he approached the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted for help with his case, the Crown has agreed that Salmon should be absolved of killing Maxine Ditchfield on the basis of fresh medical evidence, which shows she died of a stroke caused by a fall. A Toronto Court of Appeal is expected to exonerate him on Monday. “It’s exhilarating,” said Salmon, now a grandfather living in Coldwater, Ont. “The legal system is flawed. Back then it was really flawed. But I believe now, since they got all these new forensics, it’s going to be a lot better.” Reports from four medical experts, including a neuropathologist retained by the Crown, arrived at a unanimous conclusion. Rather than being killed by a forceful blow to the head, as the Crown’s expert had argued at trial in 1971, Ditchfield, they found, died from a fall — an explanation that aligns closely with what Salmon himself has always said. “He told the truth about Maxine’s death on the day it occurred and for the 45 years since then has tenaciously maintained his innocence,” Salmon’s lawyers, James Lockyer and Marie Henein, wrote in their submissions to the court. “Modern medical science confirms the account of Maxine’s death he gave to his family, the doctor, the police and the jury in 1971.” The Crown agreed in its submissions that the fresh evidence in the case is “unquestionably admissible,” and removes “the very foundation for a circumstantial case against (Salmon).” So convincing is the evidence, that had it been proffered initially, it “would not just have affected the verdict, it would have eliminated the basis for a criminal prosecution,” the Crown said.

 http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/06/22/john-salmon-to-be-exonerated-after-45-years.html

See CBC news story on the court's decision exonerating Mr. Salmon. "New evidence indicates 1970 death of common-law wife Maxine Ditchfield caused by stroke."..."A man who fought for 45 years to clear his name of a manslaughter conviction was exonerated by an Ontario court today after experts said his common-law wife's death was linked to her having suffered a stroke. On Monday morning, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned John Frederick Salmon's conviction in the 1970 death of Maxine Ditchfield."

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/john-salmon-s-manslaughter-conviction-overturned-1.3122365

Insightful quote of the day: Lawyer James Lockyer, talking about  the reaction of family members of the victim to an exoneration that comes after many years when that initial mistake has been made by the pathologist: (From Toronto Star): "Salmon’s lawyer, James Lockyer, senior counsel for the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, said the reaction of Ditchfield’s children shows you “the problems that happen when that initial mistake is made by the pathologist.” “It doesn’t just set up a chain of events for the person that’s wrongly convicted. It sets up a chain of events for family members of the deceased,” Lockyer told reporters. “They get trapped into the same wrong conclusions . . . It’s not unusual in the cases that we’ve done.”
--
Posted By Harold Levy to the charles smith blog at 6/22/2015 07:14:00 AM

Harry Gleason: Anatomy of the first post-humous exoneration in Ireland's history; Bravo to the Irish Innocence Project (David Langwallner and Tertius Van Eeden) and to American pathologist Dr. Peter Cummings who reviewed the autopsy and made a crucial finding as to the time of death. (Must Read. HL;)

STORY: Harry Gleason hanged, but was innocent," by Rozena Ceossman, pubished by OZY on June 19, 2015.

GIST:  "Late one night in April 1941, an Irish farmhand called for his lawyer, Seán MacBride, to share a final few words with the man who’d desperately tried to save him. “I will pray tomorrow that whoever did it will be discovered … I rely on you, then, to clear my name.” Harry Gleeson added that he had no confession to make because he simply didn’t do it. But he swung just hours later.
MacBride would accomplish great things, like helping found Amnesty International and winning the Nobel Peace Prize, but he was not able to clear Gleeson’s name. That task fell to David Langwallner and Tertius Van Eeden of the Irish Innocence Project, whose research shone a light on a shameful miscarriage of justice and led to Gleeson’s exoneration this year — the first posthumous pardon in the history of the Free State of Ireland. Gleeson could not possibly have killed her, and the authorities knew it.........When the Irish Innocence Project took on the case in 2012 at the behest of the Justice for Harry Gleeson group, they did so with new evidence, modern technology and political stability — all of which were lacking 70 years ago. American pathologist Dr. Peter Cummings was called on to review McCarthy’s autopsy, and he confirmed that the time of death was in the early morning, when it had been established that Gleeson was making his rounds. By poring over trial manuscripts, Van Eeden discovered that the judge had asked for a gun register that recorded Gleeson’s ammunition, but the prosecution never provided it. But the Justice for Harry Gleeson group, composed of Gleeson’s remaining family and friends, had found the document, which showed that the defendant’s gun used different bullets than those fired by the killer......... Elated by its success, the Irish Innocence Project will host its first International Conference on Wrongful Convictions and film festival on June 26 and 27 in Dublin. Invited guests include actors Aidan Quinn, Bob Balaban and Tony Goldwyn and director Ken Burns. Driscoll hopes the events “will increase public awareness, promote the role of law and the media in addressing this issue, and inspire a new generation of young people to get involved.” Films, after all, are a great vehicle for helping folks “understand a complex social issue like wrongful convictions,” she says. Gleeson’s is not the only posthumous victory. Describing the trial as “one of the most traumatic cases” he was ever involved in, MacBride continued to campaign against Ireland’s death penalty, which was eventually abolished in 1990 — two years after his own death."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.ozy.com/flashback/harry-gleeson-hanged-but-was-innocent/60694

Bulletin: Major development: Texas junk science writ: Governor Abbott signs bill codifying s court decision that Texas' new junk science writ applies both to bad science and bad scientists. "Going forward, the statute will allow defendants to challenge false convictions whenever they relied on either bad science or a bad scientist at trial. And given the revelations in recent years regarding high error rates and a lack of scientific grounding regarding numerous forensic fields, the implications of the legislation may become even more significant over time than they seem today." Grits for Breakfast post;

"I'm out of town and won't have time to focus on recent veto announcements until later, but I couldn't resist passing along the excellent news that Gov. Greg Abbott signed HB 3724 codifying the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision in Ex Parte Robbins, holding that Texas' new junk science writ applies both to bad science and bad scientists. For me, this completes a process begun seven years ago when the original statute was first conceived, and it's been a remarkable roller coaster ride since then. Going forward, the statute will allow defendants to challenge false convictions whenever they relied on either bad science or a bad scientist at trial. And given the revelations in recent years regarding high error rates and a lack of scientific grounding regarding numerous forensic fields, the implications of the legislation may become even more significant over time than they seem today. What terrific news! Congratulations and many thanks to everyone who helped make this possible, including to Gov. Abbott for signing the thing."

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.ca/2015/06/abbott-signs-bill-codifying-broad.html

Eddie Lee Howard Jr: Mississippi: On Tuesday (June 23) lawyers from the Mississippi Innocence Project will argue to the state Supreme Court that Howard deserves a new trial. The evidence of forensic odontologist Michael West of Hattiesburg whose bite-mark evidence led a jury to put Eddie Lee Howard Jr. on Mississippi’s death row will take center stage. Jerry Mitchell reports in the Clarion-Ledger that: "The expert whose bite-mark evidence led a jury to put Eddie Lee Howard Jr. on Mississippi’s death row now believes such evidence should be tossed. “I no longer believe in bite-mark analysis,” forensic odontologist Michael West of Hattiesburg testified in a 2012 deposition. “I don’t think it should be used in court. I think you should use DNA. Throw bite marks out.” (Must Read. HL);

STORY: "Bite-mark expert dismisses own testimony," by reporter Jerry Mitchell, published by the Clarion-Ledger on June 20, 2015.

GIST: "The expert whose bite-mark evidence led a jury to put Eddie Lee Howard Jr. on Mississippi’s death row now believes such evidence should be tossed. “I no longer believe in bite-mark analysis,” forensic odontologist Michael West of Hattiesburg testified in a 2012 deposition. “I don’t think it should be used in court. I think you should use DNA. Throw bite marks out.” On Tuesday,  lawyers from the Mississippi Innocence Project will argue to the state Supreme Court that Howard deserves a new trial. The state says justices have already rejected these arguments in a previous appeal. Howard, who turns 62 on Saturday, remains on death row, convicted of the 1992 rape and stabbing death of 84-year-old Georgie Kemp of Columbus. Recently performed DNA tests reveal the presence of male DNA (other than Howard) on the bloody knife found at the murder scene. DNA tests on the nightgown and the rape kit have excluded Howard as well. There was no DNA evidence presented at his trial. Instead, West became the major witness to link Howard to the crime, testifying a bite mark he found on her body — after it had been exhumed —uniquely matched Howard’s teeth. West told jurors he could tell from another mark that Kemp was “fighting for her life” when this bite was inflicted. It was unclear how he supposedly knew this. For many years, much of West’s work went unchallenged, and he bragged of his accuracy, once declaring his error rate was “something less than my Savior, Jesus Christ.” But in the years since, his work has been discredited. His bite-mark identifications implicating Levon Brooks and Kennedy Brewer led to their wrongful convictions. Together, the two Mississippi men spent a total of more than three decades behind bars until DNA proved them innocent and identified the real culprit, Justin Albert Johnson, now imprisoned for raping and killing the two 3-year-old girls. Even after their exonerations in 2008, West insisted to The Clarion-Ledger that his bite-mark identifications of Brooks and Brewer were correct. For decades, courts recognized him as an expert in bite marks, wound patterns, gunshot residue, crime scene reconstructions, blood spatters, ultraviolet photography and child abuse. In trial after trial, he told jurors dental impressions were as unique as fingerprints, giving jurors the idea crimes could be solved strictly by identifying bite marks on bodies. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report, concluding there was no basis in science for forensic odontologists to conclude someone is “the biter,” excluding all other suspects.
Four years later, the American Board of Forensic Odontology changed its guidelines to bar such testimony..........In his closing statement, District Attorney Forrest Allgood praised West as a visionary. “The progress of mankind has been carried forward on the backs of people like Michael West,” he said. “The church threatened to burn Copernicus (actually Galileo) because he dared to say that the planets didn’t revolve around the earth. So it was with Michael West.” The jury convicted Howard, and once again, he was sentenced to death. This time on appeal, the state Supreme Court upheld the conviction, rejecting the claim that defense counsel had been incompetent in failing to call a single witness, including a witness to rebut West’s identification. Three forensic odontologists, hired by the defense on appeal, concluded three bite marks West pointed out in this case aren’t visible in autopsy photographs, “nor were the alleged bite marks visible by the naked eye or noted in the autopsy report.” Instead, West testified he saw the marks by using an ultraviolent light — a technique they questioned.........If ever called to the witness stand again, West testified he would have to say that bite-mark identifications aren’t reliable enough to be used in court. “I can no longer rely on bite marks as a truth."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2015/06/20/bite-mark-expert-dismisses-testimony/29045605/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 
 
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.

I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.

The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
 
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
 
I look forward to hearing from readers at:

hlevy15@gmail.com.
 
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

Bulletin: Susan Neill-Fraser: Rally told that proposed right to appeal legislation does not go far enough: "It requires fresh and compelling evidence, now Sue Neill-Fraser's case will find it very difficult to find fresh evidence six years down the track," former Attorney-General, Labor MP Lara Giddings said. "It is very difficult in a case like that where you have the disappearance of a person, no body, no weapon, a lot of circumstantial evidence, to actually find fresh evidence.

Under the proposal, an amendment to the Criminal Code Act 1924 will provide a new right to appeal in cases where there is fresh and compelling evidence. Currently in Tasmania, a person who has been convicted and exhausted their appeal rights is able to petition the Attorney-General and the state's Governor to exercise mercy. Today supporters of convicted Hobart murderer Susan Neill-Fraser gathered on Parliament House lawns to urge the Government to make the amendments as a matter of urgency to allow her case to be re-heard. Neill-Fraser was found guilty of the 2009 murder of her partner, Bob Chappell, and has since exhausted all appeal avenues. Mr Chappell's body was never found. Neill-Fraser's family and supporters have maintained her innocence. Former Attorney-General, Labor MP Lara Giddings, told the rally the current laws were too stringent and the proposed amendments should go further. "It requires fresh and compelling evidence, now Sue Neill-Fraser's case will find it very difficult to find fresh evidence six years down the track," she said. "It is very difficult in a case like that where you have the disappearance of a person, no body, no weapon, a lot of circumstantial evidence, to actually find fresh evidence.  So there is a risk that a case like Susan Neill-Fraser's will not benefit from the Right to Appeal legislation the Attorney will bring forward."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-20/susan-neill-fraser-supporters-want-right-to-appeal-law-change/6560844