Jeffrey Havard: Mississippi; (Part two): Pending decision by Mississippi Circuit Court Judge Forest "Al" Johnson; Radley Balko's insightful commentary on the role played by controversial former medical examiner Steven Hayne in the case; (Balko sheds light on the sexual assault issue in the case (in addition to the shaken baby syndrome issue)..."At trial, Havard’s attorney requested funds to hire his own medical examiner to review Hayne’s work. The judge turned him down. After the conviction and death sentence, former Alabama state medical examiner Jim Lauridson submitted an affidavit on Havard’s behalf questioning Hayne’s conclusions about the sexual abuse. Lauridson pointed out that what the doctors, nurses and law enforcement officials likely saw during those frantic moments in the emergency room was a dilated anus, which often occurs in young children who are brain-dead, or shortly after death. Hayne’s own photos of the girl’s body, taken after she was cleaned up, showed no signs of sexual abuse. The Mississippi Supreme Court at first refused to even consider Lauridson’s affidavit. The court ruled that his critique of Hayne’s work was evidence that should have been introduced at trial. Of course, that was impossible, since the court refused to give Havard money to hire his own expert witness. The court didn’t consider Lauridson’s affidavit until Havard had exhausted his appeals and was in post-conviction — when such claims are much more difficult to win. When the court did finally consider Lauridson’s affidavit, in 2008, the court rejected it out of hand."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: "I have been following this case for years. Jeffrey Havard. On death row in Mississippi for the past 15 years. At the heart of the case, according to Circuit Court Judge Forrest  "Al" Johnson, is the now widely discredited so-called shaken-baby syndrome.  (Note the presence in the case of controversial former medical examiner Steven Hayne who has repudiated his initial opinion); Think of it, a man's life may be taken by the state of Mississippi because of a highly disputed theory on which experts are widely divided,  which has been repudiated by  the late British Dr. Norman Guthkelch, the pediatric neurosurgeon,  who propagated it in the first place. The good news is that Judge Johnson clearly recognizes the importance of this decision -  not just to Jeffrey Havard, whose life is in the balance. As Johnson is quoted: ""I don't anticipate sitting in this too long before I render a decision," Johnson said. "It's a pretty important case. It's a pretty big deal."  I will continue to monitor developments in this case closely.

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

-----------------------------------------------------------.

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Part of the problem is that Hayne is incredibly slippery. It’s true that at trial, he never explicitly said that Chloe Britt had been sexually assaulted. He merely failed to object when prosecutors suggested it — and he offered up that comment that her contusion was “consistent with” penetration by an object. He undoubtedly knew the impact that would have on the jury. In 2014, Hayne unleashed another bombshell. He told the Clarion-Ledger that he never thought Britt had been sexually assaulted. He later told Havard’s attorneys that he even told prosecutors his opinion before trial, more than once. This is hard to believe. If true, it would mean that the prosecutors moved forward with the sexual assault charge despite the fact that the only expert witness qualified to offer that conclusion didn’t believe it. That and the fact that Hayne’s alleged statement to prosecutors was never turned over to Havard’s defense attorneys would amount to some incredibly serious prosecutorial misconduct."

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

COMMENTARY:  "Controversial medical examiner backs off ‘shaken baby’ claim in death penalty case," by Radley Balko, published on his Blog 'The Watch' by The Washington Post, on  August 16, 2017. Balko, co-author of the recently published book 'The coroner and the country dentist, ' knows of what he speaks.  (He has been investigating Steven Hayne and discredited dentist Michael West for years);  Radley Balko blogs about criminal justice, the drug war and civil liberties for The Washington Post and is the author of the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces." (Bravo Radley. Great commentary!  PS: It is too tightly written to reduce in size. HL).
 
GIST: This week, the controversial former Mississippi medical examiner Steven Hayne testified at a hearing for Jeffrey Havard. Havard was convicted in 2002 of sexually assaulting and shaking to death Chloe Britt, the 6-month-old daughter of Havard’s live-in girlfriend. Havard has always maintained that the infant hit her head on the toilet after he dropped her while giving her a bath. But Havard made some mistakes. He first failed to tell his girlfriend — and later doctors and investigators — that he had dropped the girl. By the time he did, they understandably no longer believed him. But the evidence against Havard has always been thin. It has mostly consisted of testimony from Hayne that Chloe Britt died from shaking, not from a blow to the head consistent with Havard’s story. The symptoms Hayne cited to make that diagnosis have since been called into question in the medical and forensics communities. But the shaken baby syndrome (SBS) diagnosis alone probably wouldn’t have allowed the state to seek the death penalty. That’s perhaps why prosecutors also alleged the sexual assault. By the time of Havard’s trial, doctors, ER nurses, the county sheriff and the local county coroner all claimed to have seen significant damage to Chloe Britt’s rectum, damage they testified was consistent with abuse. Hayne, too, seemed to concur with the sexual abuse allegation. He claimed at trial to have found a found a one-inch contusion on the girl’s anus. When the prosecutor asked Hayne what could have caused the contusion, he replied, “penetration of the rectum by an object.” But Hayne’s autopsy on the girl showed no such abuse. The one-inch contusion he claimed at trial was actually only one centimeter (he claimed he misspoke). Since Havard’s conviction, multiple medical examiners and other experts have submitted affidavits on his behalf to dispute both the SBS diagnosis and the state’s claim of sexual abuse. The Mississippi Supreme Court hasn’t shown much interest. At trial, Havard’s attorney requested funds to hire his own medical examiner to review Hayne’s work. The judge turned him down. After the conviction and death sentence, former Alabama state medical examiner Jim Lauridson submitted an affidavit on Havard’s behalf questioning Hayne’s conclusions about the sexual abuse. Lauridson pointed out that what the doctors, nurses and law enforcement officials likely saw during those frantic moments in the emergency room was a dilated anus, which often occurs in young children who are brain-dead, or shortly after death. Hayne’s own photos of the girl’s body, taken after she was cleaned up, showed no signs of sexual abuse. The Mississippi Supreme Court at first refused to even consider Lauridson’s affidavit. The court ruled that his critique of Hayne’s work was evidence that should have been introduced at trial. Of course, that was impossible, since the court refused to give Havard money to hire his own expert witness. The court didn’t consider Lauridson’s affidavit until Havard had exhausted his appeals and was in post-conviction — when such claims are much more difficult to win. When the court did finally consider Lauridson’s affidavit, in 2008, the court rejected it out of hand. Justice George Carlson’s majority opinion badly misrepresented what Lauridson wrote. To give just one example, Carlson wrote that Lauridson stated in his affidavit that “there is a possibility that Chloe Madison Britt was not sexually assaulted.’” Carlson then added, “Taking this statement to its logical conclusion, this leaves open the possibility that she was.” That of course is not the logical conclusion. Worse, the phrase “there is a possibility” doesn’t appear anywhere in Lauridson’s affidavit. Here’s what Lauridson did write: “The conclusions that Chloe Britt suffered sexual abuse are not supported by objective evidence and are wrong.”  That seems pretty definitive. The only wiggle room Lauridson left was that he couldn’t completely rule out abuse until he saw the tissue slides Hayne took from the girl. Hayne had yet to turn them over. When he did, Lauridson found nothing in them to suggest sexual abuse. Nevertheless, the court voted 8-1 to uphold Havard’s conviction. The court found that, “Dr. Lauridson’s conclusion was not only contrary to that of Dr. Hayne, it was contrary to the sworn testimony from experienced emergency-room doctors and nurses.” The lone dissent was from a justice named Oliver Diaz. Regular readers of The Watch might recognize that name. When Diaz later ran for reelection to the court, an outside interest group took out TV ads attacking Diaz for his vote in that case, accusing him of voting to free a child rapist and murderer. Havard again petitioned the state Supreme Court in 2012. This time, he had an affidavit from Hayne himself. “Based upon the autopsy evidence available regarding the death of Chloe Britt,” Hayne wrote, “I cannot include or exclude to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that she was sexually assaulted.” That still wasn’t enough. The justices again voted to deny Havard’s petition. Justice Carlson again wrote the majority opinion. Incredibly, this time Carlson argued that Hayne’s affidavit was “duplicative” of his testimony at trial. But just four years earlier, Carlson wrote that Lauridson’s conclusion — which is basically the same conclusion Hayne finally came around to in 2012 — was “contrary” to Hayne’s testimony at trial. Both of these things can’t be true. And yet in the world of post-conviction litigation, they were. Part of the problem is that Hayne is incredibly slippery. It’s true that at trial, he never explicitly said that Chloe Britt had been sexually assaulted. He merely failed to object when prosecutors suggested it — and he offered up that comment that her contusion was “consistent with” penetration by an object. He undoubtedly knew the impact that would have on the jury. In 2014, Hayne unleashed another bombshell. He told the Clarion-Ledger that he never thought Britt had been sexually assaulted. He later told Havard’s attorneys that he even told prosecutors his opinion before trial, more than once. This is hard to believe. If true, it would mean that the prosecutors moved forward with the sexual assault charge despite the fact that the only expert witness qualified to offer that conclusion didn’t believe it. That and the fact that Hayne’s alleged statement to prosecutors was never turned over to Havard’s defense attorneys would amount to some incredibly serious prosecutorial misconduct. It isn’t that no prosecutor is capable of such misconduct. We’ve seen it before. But Hayne’s statement is hard to swallow because of Hayne’s own actions. If he never believed Britt was sexually assaulted, why would he let the state argue precisely the opposite at Havard’s trial? Why would he let it make that argument in order to have Havard executed? Why didn’t he object when prosecutors asked him leading questions that a reasonable person should have concluded were designed to get the jury to believe something Hayne didn’t believe was true? In his opening statement, the prosecutor told jurors that Hayne would “testify for you about his findings and about how he confirmed the nurses’ and doctors’ worst fears this child had been abused and the child had been penetrated.” Why didn’t Hayne speak up then? Why did he let the prosecutor attribute opinions to him that he didn’t believe? And why did he allow Jeffrey Havard to sit on death row for nine years before finally speaking up? The more plausible explanation here is that Hayne changed his story. Why would he change his story? It’s difficult to say. (Hayne has not responded to my attempts to interview him over the years.) Perhaps he had an attack of conscience. Perhaps, now that he’s no longer allowed to do autopsies on behalf of prosecutors, he has decided he needs to burnish his reputation with defense attorneys, who are still permitted to hire him. Perhaps he has seen the lineup of medical examiners who have said he was wrong about this case and is trying to salvage his credibility. In any case, as of 2012, there hasn’t been a single medical examiner who has looked at this case who thinks Chloe Britt was sexually assaulted, including the one who testified for the prosecution. And yet the Mississippi Supreme Court still denied Jeffrey Havard on his petition to throw out the sexual assault charge. In 2015, the court finally granted Havard permission to seek an evidentiary hearing on the validity of the shaken baby evidence. That’s the hearing that took place this week and in it, Hayne testified that he no longer believes Chloe Britt was shaken to death. But according to the Clarion-Ledger, the judge at the hearing noted that he could not allow Havard’s attorneys to question the validity of the sexual assault evidence — the state Supreme Court wouldn’t allow it. It may be hard to comprehend why the court would give Havard relief on the shaken baby evidence but deny him on the sexual abuse claim. But I have a theory: They couldn’t take the risk of what such a hearing might reveal. I’ve been reporting on Hayne’s reign in Mississippi for more than a decade now. For nearly 20 years, he did about 80 percent of the autopsies in Mississippi. He testified in thousands of cases. For years, state and federal courts have rejected challenges to his credibility. (Havard was rejected in federal court, too.) Beginning in 2007, the courts began to throw out his testimony in a handful of cases. They really had no choice, due to the absurdity of his testimony in those cases. But in those cases, the courts were careful to limit their decisions to the case at hand. They were careful to note that they weren’t ruling on Hayne’s credibility in general. More recently, a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit wrote in an opinion that Hayne had been “discredited.” That was in an opinion in which the judges found that a defendant’s challenge to Hayne’s credibility hadn’t been filed within the one-year deadline of when the defendant should have known that Hayne was no longer credible. The perverse thing about that decision, as I noted here at the time, is that the same court had repeatedly upheld Hayne’s credibility, including in opinions issued less than a year prior to the ruling. For years the courts told defendants that Hayne was a credible witness. Then the highest court to date to hear a challenge to his credibility suddenly reversed course, but in a way that slammed shut any opportunity for any future defendants to get any relief. This case risked exposing all of that. Here, Hayne claimed to have told prosecutors before trial that he didn’t believe Chloe Britt had been sexually abused. To let Havard pursue that allegation would presumably pit Hayne against not only those prosecutors but also the state of Mississippi. It would force the office of Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood — who has staunchly defended Hayne — to attack Hayne’s credibility. Its only real option here would be to argue that Hayne was lying about what he told Havard’s prosecutors. Once it admits that, what does it do with the thousands of other cases in which Hayne’s testimony helped prosecutors win a conviction? The SBS issue isn’t nearly as messy. Hayne can merely argue that he was relying on the research available at the time, and that the consensus in the forensics community was that the symptoms he saw in Chloe Britt were indicative of death by shaking. Since then, the consensus has changed. He was wrong, but so were a lot of other people. It was an innocent mistake. Even on the SBS issue, there are lingering questions. Hayne also testified to SBS in other cases. (It’s impossible to say how many.) Has he contacted the defendants in those cases to tell them he no longer believes in the diagnosis? In one 2009 case I wrote about here, Hayne claimed that critics of the SBS diagnosis were misinformed. To support that statement, he cited a study that doesn’t appear to exist, and cited a textbook whose author says that Hayne not only misquoted him, but also that Hayne gave jurors the precise opposite impression of what the textbook actually says, and that he believes Hayne could only have done so deliberately. How does Hayne address that? But the SBS issue is less threatening to the system than the sexual assault issue. If Havard gets a new trial on the SBS claim, it’s likely that Hood’s office won’t even bother to try him again. If they do, Hayne will likely explicitly testify that he does not believe Britt was sexually abused and that he no longer believes she was shaken to death. The state’s case will be weak, Havard will be acquitted, and justice will be served. At least for Havard. So it’s pretty clear why the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled the way it did. It’s just easier to take these cases one at a time, and to deflect from the larger problem. To grant Havard’s challenge to the sexual assault claims would force Mississippi officials to attack the credibility of the expert witness that most of the state’s prosecutors relied on for 20 years. It might expose the perverse incentives that propelled the state’s death investigation system from the late 1980s until the late 2000s and raise doubts about the  credibility of the state’s justice system. And it could show the courts’ complicity in it all — the Mississippi Supreme Court most of all. That’s all just too risky. Jeffrey Havard finally got his hearing, 15 years after he was sentenced to die. I suspect that the court will ultimately find that there isn’t any credible evidence that he shook Chloe Britt to death. Yet in the meantime, the courts will stand by the allegation that Havard sexually assaulted the girl, even though there isn’t a single medical examiner who believes it."

The entire commentary can be  found at:

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/08/16/controversial-medical-examiner-backs-off-shaken-baby-claim-in-death-penalty-case/?utm_term=.bb6ba91bec4b

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog."

Jeffery Havard; (Part One): Mississippi; Crucial decision by Circuit Court Judge in this life and death 'shaken baby syndrome' death row case is expected by summer... (Havard has been on Mississippi's death row for 15 years); Judge Forrest "Al" Johnson calls his upcoming decision one of the most important in his more than two decades on the bench, The Natchez Democrat reports. (Reporter David Hamilton; " In August 2017, a three-day hearing was held in Adam's County due to revised beliefs in the medical field about shaken baby syndrome, which medical examiners in 2002 determined as the cause of death of 6-month old Chloe Britt. From the outset, Havard has maintained his innocence and claimed the death resulted from him accidentally dropping the the baby while removing her from the bathtub, with Britt subsequently hitting her head on the toilet. Various medical professionals testified in August how contemporary beliefs about shaken baby syndrome could bring the initial 2002 conviction into question. One such testimony from Dr. Steven Hayne, a former medical examiner who conducted the 2002 autopsy and whose testimony lent towards Havard's conviction. This time around, Hayne said pinning Britt's death solely on shaken baby syndrome would be a mistake due to the observance of the baby's head injuries."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Jeffrey Havard.has been on Mississippi's death row for 15 years. At the heart of the case, according to Circuit Court Judge Forrest  "Al" Johnson, is the now widely discredited so-called shaken-baby syndrome.  (Note also  the presence  in the case of  controversial former medical examiner Steven Hayne who has repudiated his initial opinion); Think of it, a man's life may be taken by the state of Mississippi because of a highly disputed theory on which experts are widely divided,  which has been repudiated by  the late British Dr. Norman Guthkelch, the pediatric neurosurgeon,  who propagated it in the first place. The good news is that Judge Johnson clearly recognizes the importance of this decision -  not just to Jeffrey Havard, whose life is in the balance. As Johnson is quoted: ""I don't anticipate sitting in this too long before I render a decision," Johnson said. "It's a pretty important case. It's a pretty big deal."  I will continue to monitor developments in this case closely.

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

-----------------------------------------------------------.

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "This time around, Hayne said pinning Britt's death solely on shaken baby syndrome would be a mistake due to the observance of the baby's head injuries. Wayne State University professor Chris Van Ee also took the stand and claimed that data  produced over the last 15 years indicates that medical experts should not normally expect violent shaking to cause head injury to a  6-month to 1-year-old baby. University of Mississippi Medical Center  child abuse  pediatrician Dr. Scott Benton  however, said the blow Britt suffered to the head would not, by itself, be able  to have caused her death. Benton further stated that he believed violent shaking contributed to the fatality. Johnson has called his upcoming decision one of the most important in his more that two  decades on the bench.

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

STORY: Judge: Decision on Havard case approaches," by reporter David Hamilton, published by The Natchez Democrat on  Friday February 25, 208

GIST: "The judge who will decide the fate of a man on death row said Wednesday a decision should come in the next months. The case of Jeffrey Havard, convicted in the death of his girlfriend's 6-month-old daughter, currently awaits a decision from Circuit Court Judge Forrest "Al" Johnson on whether Havard deserves a new trial. Johnson said a delay in filing the court transcript caused the process to linger, but attorneys are now required to submit briefings in approximately the next 30 days, after which point Johnson can issue a ruling. The judge said he would have a ruling "clearly" by summer., though he said in less specific terms that he would not let the decision hang in the balance for long. "I don't anticipate sitting in this too long before I render a decision," Johnson said. "It's a pretty important case. It's a pretty big deal." In August 2017, a three-day hearing was held in Adam's County due to revised beliefs in the medical field about shaken baby syndrome, which medical examiners in 2002 determined as the cause of death of 6-month old Chloe Britt. From the outset, Havard has maintained his innocence and claimed the death resulted from him accidentally dropping the the baby while removing her from the bathtub, with Britt subsequently hitting her head on the toilet. Various medical professionals testified in August how contemporary beliefs about shaken baby syndrome could bring the initial 2002 conviction into question. One such testimony from Dr. Steven Hayne, a former medical examiner who conducted the 2002 autopsy and whose testimony lent towards Havard's conviction. This time around, Hayne said pinning Britt's death solely on shaken baby syndrome would be a mistake due to the observance of the baby's head injuries. Wayne State University professor Chris Van Ee also took the stand and claimed that data  produced over the last 15 years indicates that medical experts should not normally expect violent shaking to cause head injury to a  6-month to 1-year-old baby. University of Mississippi Medical Center  child abuse  pediatrician Dr. Scott Benton  however, said the blow Britt suffered to the head would not, by itself, be able  to have caused her death. Benton further stated that he believed violent shaking contributed to the fatality. Johnson has called his upcoming decision one of the most important in his more that two  decades on the bench. Havard has been on death row since his 2002 conviction."
 
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

The entire story can be found at:
http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2018/02/23/judge-decision-on-havard-case-approaches/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

Scott Peterson: Mark Godsey, author of 'Blind Injustice; asks, "Is Scott Peterson Innocent?" as he explores human lie detection and demeanour evidence...". I mean, as high-profile murder trials go, this one seemed even easier to crack than O.J. But A and E's new docuseries The Murder of Laci Peterson, which is based on newly discovered evidence revealed in recent court filings, makes you seriously question that assumption."...". But regardless of whether or not the docuseries convinces you that Peterson is innocent, it presents a fascinating case study of the human frailties—the psychological flaws—that often cause criminal investigations to go awry."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In recent years, the innocence movement has exposed more than 2,000 wrongful convictions in America, with the number growing at a rate of about three per week. And if we’ve learned anything from this movement, it’s that, contrary to popular belief, humans are really bad—really, really bad—at determining when someone else is telling the truth or lying. Despite what our intuition tells us, demeanor evidence just doesn’t mean that much and can’t be taken to the bank. And that’s been proven not just by the thousands of innocents who were wrongfully convicted after the police or jury disbelieved them and thought their demeanor indicated guilt, but by clinical studies as well."

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

COMMENTARY: "Is Scott Peterson Innocent? Part One: Human Lie detection and demeanour  evidence," by "Blind Injustice' author Mark Godsey, published by  Psychology Today on January 18, 2018. (Mark Godsey,J.D., a professor of law at the University of Cincinnati, was also a federal prosecutor in New York City before co-founding of the Ohio Innocence Project.)

GIST: "Back in 2004, when Scott Peterson’s trial was the courtroom media circus du jour, I was completely convinced—like just about everyone else—that Scott Peterson was stone cold guilty of murdering his pregnant wife Laci and their unborn son Connor. I mean, as high-profile murder trials go, this one seemed even easier to crack than O.J. But A and E's new docuseries The Murder of Laci Peterson, which is based on newly discovered evidence revealed in recent court filings, makes you seriously question that assumption. Even accounting for whether or not the show’s creators had an agenda to make Peterson look innocent, the new evidence—the actual evidence—now being considered by a federal court in California should cause any open-minded person to question the evidence that originally convicted him.  And I’m not just reacting to the provocative reexamination of evidence presented in the docuseries, I also read the court filings. The new evidence makes a persuasive case that numerous witnesses saw Laci alive and walking the family dog—after Scott Peterson had left home for the day to stop at work and then fish in the San Francisco Bay (which, if true, totally undermines the state’s case against him). The evidence also suggests that Laci, upon returning from her walk, confronted shady characters burglarizing the house across the street from the Peterson’s home and that this incident started a chain of events that most likely led to her murder.  And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. But regardless of whether or not the docuseries convinces you that Peterson is innocent, it presents a fascinating case study of the human frailties—the psychological flaws—that often cause criminal investigations to go awry.  I recently wrote about these psychological traps in my new book Blind Injustice:  A Former Prosecutor Exposes the Psychology and Politics of Wrongful Convictions. In the book, I focus on my own cases from my years as a prosecutor, and then more recently as an innocence lawyer with the Ohio Innocence Project (which has now freed 25 innocent people who served 471 years in prison for crimes they didn’t commit). In the book, I also apply principles of psychology to the police investigation depicted in the Netflix docuseries Making a Murderer. I wish The Murder of Laci Peterson had been released when I was still writing Blind Injustice, because it really highlights some of these psychological issues better than any other TV show or movie in recent memory. First, Scott Peterson was convicted primarily because of what we call “demeanor evidence.” Peterson undeniably appeared “aloof” and “unemotional” if not cocky when caught on camera by the paparazzi during the investigation and then at his trial. This caused America’s most famous prosecutor-journalist, Nancy Grace, to preach on an almost nightly basis that Peterson was “lying” and “hiding something” and therefore guilty. And the jurors said after the trial that Peterson’s remorseless demeanor was perhaps the most critical factor that caused them to convict him and send him to death row. In recent years, the innocence movement has exposed more than 2,000 wrongful convictions in America, with the number growing at a rate of about three per week. And if we’ve learned anything from this movement, it’s that, contrary to popular belief, humans are really bad—really, really bad—at determining when someone else is telling the truth or lying. Despite what our intuition tells us, demeanor evidence just doesn’t mean that much and can’t be taken to the bank. And that’s been proven not just by the thousands of innocents who were wrongfully convicted after the police or jury disbelieved them and thought their demeanor indicated guilt, but by clinical studies as well. As I highlight in Blind Injustice, study after study shows that we are about 54 percent accurate at divining the truth from watching someone’s demeanor.  Barely better than a coin flip. And cops fare no better. Things we have been told are indicative of dishonesty and guilt, such as appearing aloof or unemotional, or failing to make eye-contact, are actually not good barometers. Our collective psyches are embedded with the belief that humans are good lie detectors. But in reality, it’s just folklore—outdated pop psychology. Indeed, there is case after case where defendants were convicted for reasons similar to Peterson—they appeared “too unemotional” or “far too aloof”—but later were conclusively proven innocent. I detail many of these cases in Blind Injustice, such as Michael Morton of Texas, who spent 25 years in prison for the murder of his wife before DNA testing conclusively proved him innocent. Not only did Morton appear unemotional, if not cocky like Peterson, but he continued sleeping in the couple’s bed where she was murdered, including the first night after she had been bludgeoned to death on that very mattress. He also did other strange things, like mowing down all of his wife’s beloved flowers the morning of her funeral. These acts seemed callous and, along with his aloof demeanor, convinced the police, the public, and his jury that he was clearly guilty. Morton’s case is eerily similar to Peterson’s, except that Peterson does not have the good fortune of DNA evidence to test years later. And then there are the cases where everyone ganged up on the innocent person because his or her grief was so palpable that it was labeled as “over the top” and “staged.” With something as subjective as demeanor evidence, it’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t. There are other innocent explanations for unemotional reactions as well. Some people who lose loved ones may simply not be as upset about it as one might expect. Perhaps feeling for a spouse had faded, so the sudden loss was confusing and caused an aloof, emotionless outward appearance. While insensitive, an aloof reaction in these circumstances doesn’t equate with guilt. Everyone reacts differently to tragic situations. Fortunately, very few of us have experienced the trauma of having a loved one murdered. Some people appear aloof or emotionless because they are in shock or denial. Some people freak out. The assumption that there is an “appropriate” or “normal” way to act in an unfamiliar traumatic situation, and that those who do not respond that way are likely guilty, is simply bad psychology and bad law. Regardless of whether or not Peterson is, in fact, innocent or guilty, it is clear that everyone—the police, the public, the media, and ultimately the jury—gave way too much weight to his demeanor. While demeanor evidence can’t be ignored, it should be used with caution and given proper weight in light of modern understandings of psychology. Otherwise, it’s the tail wagging the dog. As Peterson attorney Mark Geragos says in The Murder of Laci Peterson, “There is no playbook for grief.” In follow-up stories, I’ll continue my discussion of The Murder of Laci Peterson with respect to the psychological phenomena of police tunnel vision (Part 2) and confirmation bias in the forensic sciences (Part 3)."

The entire post can be found at:

https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/02/using-mind-reading-criminal-cases-new-analysis-cautions-forensic-frontier-brain?et_cid=6254670&et_rid=979655504&type=headline&et_cid=6254670&et_rid=979655504&linkid=https%3a%2f%2fwww.forensicmag.com%2fnews%2f2018%2f02%2fusing-mind-reading-criminal-cases-new-analysis-cautions-forensic-frontier-brain%3fet_cid%3d6254670%26et_rid%3d%%subscriberid%%%26type%3dheadline

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog."

Susan Neill-Fraser: Australia: On-going "last chance" appeal. Significant Development? (Another twist in this suspicious death at sea case (among many others, including new DNA evidence): Police claim to have two films - said to have come into their posession in the last two weeks - which they say are important, ABC News reports. Adjournment granted. (Neill-Fraser is serving a 23-year jail sentence for the 2009 murder of her partner Bob Chappell onboard their yacht moored off Hobart.)..."The Crown had previously advised the court that they would not be calling any of its own witnesses in the appeal. But today the court heard four new Crown witnesses would be called, in addition to the cross-examining of Detective Shane Sinnitt. Detective Sinnitt was one of the investigators on the original murder investigation, and was also involved in last year's investigation into allegations that three people attempted to pervert the course of justice in relation to the appeal application. It is understood the two recordings were some of the items seized during raids on CJZ productions in Sydney in November last year. It was reported at the time that the seized footage had been for a Seven Network "true crime" series."

STORY: "Sue Neill-Fraser murder appeal: Police reveal new recordings and witnesses, delaying case, by reporter Edith Bevin, published by ABC News on February 21, 2018.

GIST: "The last-chance appeal of convicted killer Sue Neill-Fraser has been adjourned again after revelations police obtained two films that the DPP says are "significant and important evidence".

Neill-Fraser is serving a 23-year jail sentence for the 2009 murder of her partner Bob Chappell onboard their yacht moored off Hobart. She exhausted all other avenues of appeal, and is now relying on new last-chance appeal laws to have her convicted quashed. The application for the new appeal is part heard, and was due to return to court on Friday, but the court heard today the DPP will tender two films that have come into the possession of police. The DPP said the film recordings had only come to light in the past two weeks, but it meant Neill-Fraser's lawyers needed more time to see them and talk to people in them. The application will go back before the court in March. Crown will now call more witnesses; The Crown had previously advised the court that they would not be calling any of its own witnesses in the appeal. But today the court heard four new Crown witnesses would be called, in addition to the cross-examining of Detective Shane Sinnitt. Detective Sinnitt was one of the investigators on the original murder investigation, and was also involved in last year's investigation into allegations that three people attempted to pervert the course of justice in relation to the appeal application. It is understood the two recordings were some of the items seized during raids on CJZ productions in Sydney in November last year. It was reported at the time that the seized footage had been for a Seven Network "true crime" series. It is understood the Crown intends to tender the recordings to the court through Detective Sinnitt during cross-examination. Neill-Fraser team needs time to review films..." The hearing will now be set down for March 8 and 9, when the court will hear evidence from Neill-Fraser's winching expert, and the DPP's four witnesses. It will then be adjourned to a date yet to be set for Detective Sinnitt to give evidence and the recordings to be tendered."

The entire story can be  found at:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-21/police-reveal-recorded-tapes-in-neil-fraser-murder-appeal-case/9471254

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

National Commission of Forensic Science: (No big surprise here. HL); Innocence Project disappointed by the Department of Justice's approach to forensic science reform as set out by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in an address to the American Academy of Forensic Science..."While short on details, his remarks renew concerns that the DOJ is backtracking on progress to ensure that forensic disciplines are guided by the best science and that safeguards were enacted to insulate practitioners from law enforcement influence. “We’ve known since 2009 that there are problems with the scientific validity of forensic disciplines used to identify suspects with the exception of DNA evidence. Yet after this administration shut down the National Commission of Forensic Science — the first inclusive and transparent effort to address these fundamental flaws in evidence that is used in countless prosecutions across the nation — there was no mention by Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein of how the Department of Justice plans to address this core validity problem,” said Chris Fabricant, director of Strategic Litigation at the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law."

 QUOTE OF THE DAY: “The initial attempt by the DOJ to develop uniform language fell far short of meeting the standards for science. Although we support efforts to develop uniform language, we do not know if the DOJ’s efforts have adequately addressed the significant and critical concerns previously raised by independent statisticians and scientists, and we won’t know this without having the opportunity to review the revised language.”

Glinda Cooper, director of Science and Research for the Innocence Project.

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY:  "In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences issued a groundbreaking report warning that, with the exception of DNA evidence, none of the forensic practices that are used by law enforcement to identify a suspect from crime scene evidence have been scientifically validated.  These include firearms and spent ammunition, tool marks, shoe prints and bite marks. The NAS report called on an independent federal agency to conduct the research to validate those disciplines that could be scientifically validated.  It’s been nearly a decade since the NAS report, and the only effort to engage stakeholders outside of DOJ – creation of the National Commission on Forensic Science – was shuttered in early 2017 by Attorney General Sessions."

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

STORY: "Innocence Project responds to remarks by Deputy Attorney General before The American Academy of Forensic Science, posted by The Innocence Project on February 21, 2018.

GIST: "Today Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Rod Rosenstein gave a plenary address at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences where he outlined plans that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would be implementing regarding forensic sciences.  While short on details, his remarks renew concerns that the DOJ is backtracking on progress to ensure that forensic disciplines are guided by the best science and that safeguards were enacted to insulate practitioners from law enforcement influence. “We’ve known since 2009 that there are problems with the scientific validity of forensic disciplines used to identify suspects with the exception of DNA evidence.  Yet after this administration shut down the National Commission of Forensic Science — the first inclusive and transparent effort to address these fundamental flaws in evidence that is used in countless prosecutions across the nation — there was no mention by Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein of how the Department of Justice plans to address this core validity problem,” said Chris Fabricant, director of Strategic Litigation at the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law. In his remarks, DAG Rosenstein announced that DOJ was implementing uniform language for analysts to use when testifying or providing reports on latent fingerprint analysis. While he stated that the final document was informed by comments of experts outside of DOJ, this process was not described. “The initial attempt by the DOJ to develop uniform language fell far short of meeting the standards for science,” said Glinda Cooper, director of Science and Research for the Innocence Project.  “Although we support efforts to develop uniform language, we do not know if the DOJ’s efforts have adequately addressed the significant and critical concerns previously raised by independent statisticians and scientists, and we won’t know this without having the opportunity to review the revised language.” The need to implement uniform language for analysts arose after it was discovered that FBI agents provided erroneous statements or reports in more than 90 percent of cases reviewed where an analyst identified a suspect through microscopic hair analysis.  These were the preliminary findings from a review of FBI cases involving microscopic hair analysis initiated after three men were wrongly convicted and wrongly spent decades in prison based at least in part on erroneous FBI testimony. After these errors came to light, the DOJ agreed that in addition to establishing uniform language for all the forensic disciplines practiced by the DOJ, it would go back and review the prior testimony from a subset of the cases involving these disciplines between 2008 and 2012. In his remarks today, DAG Rosenstein seemed to back away from the previous commitment to review these past cases, only calling for a testimony monitoring program moving forward. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences issued a groundbreaking report warning that, with the exception of DNA evidence, none of the forensic practices that are used by law enforcement to identify a suspect from crime scene evidence have been scientifically validated.  These include firearms and spent ammunition, tool marks, shoe prints and bite marks. The NAS report called on an independent federal agency to conduct the research to validate those disciplines that could be scientifically validated.  It’s been nearly a decade since the NAS report, and the only effort to engage stakeholders outside of DOJ – creation of the National Commission on Forensic Science – was shuttered in early 2017 by Attorney General Sessions."

The entire post can be read at the link below;

https://www.innocenceproject.org/innocence-project-responds-remarks-deputy-attorney-general-american-academy-forensic-sciences/
  
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

William Amor: Illinois. Arson 'science.' False confession: Major Development: (A very welcome development. HL); He has been acquitted on retrial for murder, arson in mother-in-law’s 1995 death..." On Sept. 17, 1997, Amor was convicted of murder and aggravated arson for the fire that caused Miceli’s death, according to the statement. He was sentenced to 45 years in prison. Brennan vacated Amor’s conviction in April 2017 after his attorneys claimed he was convicted based upon a confession which was proven false and arson findings that are no longer scientifically reliable, the Innocence Project said. His confession was the basis for fire investigators to change their mind in 1995 to change their initial finding of an “undetermined” cause of the fire to arson."

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “While my office stands by our prosecution and we believe the evidence supported a finding of guilty, we certainly respect the Court’s decision. ” DuPage County State’s Attorney Robert Berlin said in a statement. “This was a very complicated case originally based on fire science available at the time,” Berlin said. “Since that time, more than twenty years later, fire science has improved dramatically and consequently the evidence presented at this trial has changed from that presented in 1995.”

DuPage County State’s Attorney Robert Berlin.

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

STORY: "Man acquitted in retrial for murder, arson in mother-in-law’s 1995 death," by reporter Luke Wilusz, published by The Chicago Sun-Times on February 21, 2018.

GIST: "A former Naperville man who spent 22 years in prison for the 1995 death of his mother-in-law was found not guilty in a retrial Wednesday. Following a seven-day bench trial, DuPage County Judge Liam C. Brennan found 61-year-old William Amor not guilty of murder and aggravated arson in connection with the death of Marianne Miceli, according to a statement from the DuPage County State’s Attorney’s Office.  “This is the end of a nightmare for me,” Amor said in a statement released by the Illinois Innocence Project, which represented him. “I have fought to clear my name for the last 22 years and I am so grateful that I was able to have my day in court for the truth to be heard,” Amor said. “I am looking forward to starting the next phase of my life as a free man, no longer labeled as a murderer, for the first time in a long time.” On the evening of Sept. 10, 1995, Amor and his wife left their Naperville apartment to go to a drive-in movie, according to the Innocence Project. They shared the apartment with Amor’s mother-in-law, Marianne Miceli, and when they returned, they found that a fire had broken out and Miceli had died from smoke inhalation. On Sept. 17, 1997, Amor was convicted of murder and aggravated arson for the fire that caused Miceli’s death, according to the statement. He was sentenced to 45 years in prison. Brennan vacated Amor’s conviction in April 2017 after his attorneys claimed he was convicted based upon a confession which was proven false and arson findings that are no longer scientifically reliable, the Innocence Project said. His confession was the basis for fire investigators to change their mind in 1995 to change their initial finding of an “undetermined” cause of the fire to arson. Amor was released from custody in May 2017 and has remained free on bond during his retrial, according to the Innocence Project. “While my office stands by our prosecution and we believe the evidence supported a finding of guilty, we certainly respect the Court’s decision,” DuPage County State’s Attorney Robert Berlin said in a statement. “This was a very complicated case originally based on fire science available at the time,” Berlin said. “Since that time, more than twenty years later, fire science has improved dramatically and consequently the evidence presented at this trial has changed from that presented in 1995.”

The entire story can be found at:

---

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/man-acquitted-in-retrial-for-murder-arson-in-mother-in-laws-1995-death/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

John Giuca: Brooklyn, New York. (A fascinating story of a troublesome murder case that has a big question mark hanging over it, by New York Times Reporter Alan Feuer..."Many murder cases are built on science — fingerprints, ballistics, DNA — but Mr. Giuca’s case was built from the start on something much more tenuous: the shifting stories of a group of privileged young people who were partying with him and Mr. Fisher on the late-night-into-morning when Mr. Fisher died. From the outset, the prosecution’s presentation was a kind of collegiate Rashomon: people lied, changed their statements and often contradicted one another. “This wasn’t really a forensic case,” said Mark Hale, the prosecutor who oversaw the probe by the district attorney’s office. “This was a case of who said what to whom, when.”

STORY: "A murder, a conviction and a never-ending case," by reporter Alan Feuer, published by The New York Times on February 21, 2018.

SUB-HEADING: "Fifteen years after a college student was found shot five times in a quiet Brooklyn neighborhood,  the circumstances of his death remain muddled. And a man convicted in the killing remains in limbo:

PHOTO CAPTION. (The photo captions tell much of the story);"A court recently through out the conviction of John Giuca. The Brooklyn District Attorney has vowed to retry him.

PHOTO CAPTION: "The murder victim Mark Fisher, who was a sophomore at Fairfield University in Connecticut."

PHOTO CAPTION:  "Frustrated at the pace of the investigation into Mark Fisher’s murder, members of the Fisher family hold a vigil on Argyle Road, where his body was found."

PHOTO CAPTION: "Charles J. Hynes, the Brooklyn district attorney at the time of the murder, was facing a difficult re-election and was under pressure to solve the case."

PHOTO CAPTION: "Nancy and Michael Fisher leaving Brooklyn State Supreme Court after the other defendant in the murder case, Antonio Russo, was found guilty."

PHOTO CAPTION: "Mr. Guica at court during the murder trial, with his mother, Doreen Giuliano, and a lawyer, James Kilduff."

PHOTO CAPTION:  "Doreen Giuliano posing as “Dee Quinn,” an alias she used to get close to Jason Allo, who was on the jury at her son’s murder trial."

PHOTO CAPTION: "A decade after Mr. Guica was convicted, John Avitto tearfully recanted what he said was false testimony he gave at the murder trial."

PHOTO CAPTION: "Ms. Giuliano at the recent hearing in Brooklyn after her son’s conviction was thrown out, with the actor Holt McCallany, one of her supporters."
 
GIST: "Just before sunrise, on Oct. 12, 2003, the residents of Argyle Road in Brooklyn were woken by gunfire. Then, as now, such a thing was virtually unheard-of. The quiet street is in Prospect Park South, an architectural enclave of hundred-year-old trees, landmark homes and an urban gentry of lawyers, chefs and jewelry designers.  With its air of Victorian charm, the neighborhood looks nothing like the rest of New York City. It seems like a nice Connecticut suburb, not the heart of Brooklyn. But that morning, as the police arrived on Argyle Road — not coincidentally, in minutes — the worst came to pass: the body of a young man was discovered in a driveway just outside a Queen Anne house toward the end of the block. He was lying facedown on a bloody yellow blanket. In the dawning daylight, it soon became apparent that he had been shot five times. Fifteen years later, the circumstances of how that man, Mark S. Fisher, a 19-year-old college student from New Jersey, wound up dead in the driveway remain the subject of a simmering debate in spite of nearly every fact-finding method the criminal-justice system has at its disposal. There was a two-week trial. There were several state appeals. There was a federal appeal. There were countless legal hearings. There was even an exhaustive inquiry by the Brooklyn district attorney’s office. But all of them have so far failed to silence the stubborn whispers questioning the case that have long been heard in the circles that surround the Brooklyn courts. Earlier this month, an appeals court addressed some of those whispers when it abruptly threw out the conviction of a man found guilty of killing Mr. Fisher, ruling that the prosecutors at his trial withheld evidence from his lawyers and relied on testimony from a witness who had lied in sending him to prison. Just a few days ago, at yet another hearing that raised more questions than it answered, the prosecutors suddenly announced that they were going to challenge the ruling that threw out the conviction, and if that failed they were prepared to retry the man, John Giuca. Many murder cases are built on science — fingerprints, ballistics, DNA — but Mr. Giuca’s case was built from the start on something much more tenuous: the shifting stories of a group of privileged young people who were partying with him and Mr. Fisher on the late-night-into-morning when Mr. Fisher died. From the outset, the prosecution’s presentation was a kind of collegiate Rashomon: people lied, changed their statements and often contradicted one another. “This wasn’t really a forensic case,” said Mark Hale, the prosecutor who oversaw the probe by the district attorney’s office. “This was a case of who said what to whom, when.” (Publishers note: This excellent article on a very troublesome case cannot be reduced. It is a reminder of the curious void which can exist when forensic evidence is lacking. Read on.  HL);

The entire story can be found at:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/nyregion/john-giuca-murder-trial-never-ending.html

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.