Saturday, November 26, 2016

David Temple; Texas; Prosecutor Kelly Siegler; Major Development; White Elephant Case? The former football coachas been granted a new trial by Texas's highest court - because the state - read 'Siegler' - had illegally withheld crucial information during his 2007 trial in the murder of his pregnant wife - and his lawyer says he will be eligible for release on bond in a few weeks barring appeals from the state..."It will be up to the incoming Harris County District Attorney, Kim Ogg, whether to appeal the court’s latest ruling or agree to go forward with a new trial. The court filing Wednesday said several hundred pages of police reports had been withheld from the defense until sometime during the trial in violation of legal precedent. “The prosecutor believed, as evidenced by her testimony at the writ hearing, that she was not required to turn over favorable evidence if she did not believe it to be relevant, inconsistent or credible,” the filing said."

›
In the years since I started publishing this Blog I have become increasingly disturbed by the 'white elephant' in the room:...

Kirk Odum; District of Columbia: Story on discredited hair analysis evidence touches on history of hair analysis in criminal investigations..."Analyzing hair as part of criminal investigations dates back at least to the early 1900s. "By the twentieth century it was not common, but it was certainly being attempted," said Skip Palenik, a senior microscopist at Microtrace LLC. Palenik says one can find this mirrored in detective fiction of the time, like Sherlock Holmes. Chris Fabricant, director of strategic litigation at the Innocence Project, has been tracing the origins of hair comparison in courts, and found an early example that involved eyeballing a hair. "One of the earliest recorded cases that involved the use of hair microscopy was a murder of a plantation owner in Mississippi in the late 1800s," said Fabricant. "And you can kind of see the probative value of a hair that appeared to be the same color as the victim's, and it was bloody and it was found in a noose...You could just take a look at it and decide for yourself how relevant that was to the prosecution." By the mid twentieth century, the FBI's crime lab had begun training experts in comparative hair techniques. This specifically involved examining strands of hair, side by side under the microscope, and then presenting those findings in court. Keep in mind, this was also before DNA testing was introduced in the late 1990s. The practice was used in cases like Kirk Odom's." Reporter Elana Gordon; WHHY;

›
STORY: "Hairy evidence: how a misconstrued forensic tool led to time behind bars," by reporter Elana Gordon, published by WHYY o...
Friday, November 25, 2016

René Bailey; Aaron Bruns; Dr. Waney Squier; Leo Ackley; Joshua Burns; Shaken Baby Syndrome: Blogger Sue Luttner writes in "On SBS" that "the shaking debate is back in the courts and in the news, in a post that is loaded with examples..."The landscape in the shaken baby debate is shifting again, with a series of developments that have locked in gains, slowed losses, and even claimed new ground in the struggle against unproven science in the courtroom."..." Other individual victories seem to have triggered a resurgence of press coverage highlighting the controversy. In Minnesota, for example, reporter Tom Lyden at Fox 9 pulled together a provocative treatment with the title “Critics, parents, question diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome,” featuring a local father acquitted at trial; a family whose own experts convinced the county to drop charges; and a mother now fighting the loss of her son. The treatment closes with a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which persists in shifting the question from whether the brain findings prove abuse (No, they do not) to whether shaking is even dangerous (Yes, of course); The assertions of the AAP notwithstanding, the real uncertainties about shaken baby theory were acknowledged this fall, briefly but officially, in a presidential report on forensic sciences in the courtroom, undertaken in the wake of the 2009 study that found “serious deficiencies” and called for “major reforms” of the nation’s forensic science system. The follow-up report, published this fall by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), notes that DNA evidence has disproved past forensic techniques like bite-mark matching and visual hair analysis, and it recommends strategies for bringing courtroom testimony in line with scientific knowledge. Footnote 15 cites an “urgent” need to examine shaken baby theory, which has not been addressed in past studies."

›
POST: "Shaking debate back in the courts and in the news," by Sue Luttner, on her Blog 'On SBS' published on November 20, ...

The San Antonio Four: Anna Vasquez. Elizabeth Ramirez, Kristie Mayhugh and Cassandra Rivera. Aftermath (1); Rolling Stone explores how junk forensic science was used in trial of four lesbians known as the "San Antonio Four."..."A recantation never should have been necessary to see the allegations were false, but child abuse expert Dr. Nancy Kellogg, who frequently testifies for prosecutors, lent them credence by first telling authorities deciding whether to prosecute, and then testifying in both trials, that a mark she observed on the hymen of one of the girls was a scar likely caused by painful penetration. However, as the American Academy of Pediatrics explained in a 2007 report, "torn or injured hymens do not leave scars as a matter of scientific fact." Variations like the ones Dr. Kellogg claimed were evidence of traumatic injury are normal and she has since admitted her testimony was flawed. She suggested her methods were accepted science back then, but other experts say they had been discredited at the time. What had definitely been debunked was the idea that satanic cults were preying on children. Yet Kellogg concluded that the alleged assault might be "satanic related" and shared her suspicions with authorities. Kellogg, who does not appear in the film, continues to be considered an expert in the field."

›
  STORY: "How junk forensic science was used in trial of four lesbians known as the "San Antonio Four," by Bridgette Dunlap,...

Susan Neill-Fraser case: Major Development: Bulletin: In a surprise move - in a case which has been paralleled with the notorious wrongful conviction and imprisonment of Lindy Chamberlain, famous for telling police a dingo had stolen her 10-week-old baby Azaria from a tent in Central Australia in 1980 - a judge has accelerated her appeal to March, 1917, reports "ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)"..."Pressure for an inquiry into the case came from Tasmanian federal independent politician Andrew Wilkie and QC Robert Richter, who in 2013 wrote to Attorney-General Brian Wightman claiming key witnesses and documents were not drawn to the jury's attention.Mr Richter likened the case to that of Lindy Chamberlain, whose conviction for murdering daughter Azaria at Uluru was quashed. "There's no dingo, but there's significant DNA and other evidentiary material to require answers which are not circumscribed by the adversarial and limited appellate processes," Mr Richter told documentary filmmakers. Attorney-General Wightman rejected Mr Richter's call and said if Neill-Fraser had new evidence she should take it to the courts. She will get that chance in March, 2017."

›
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The past two weeks have been marked by a mind-blogging series of 'Major Developments; in cases this Blog has been...
Thursday, November 24, 2016

The San Antonio Four: Elizabeth Ramirez, Cassandra Rivera, Kristie Mayhugh, and Anna Vasquez. Texas; Aftermath (2): Bulletin: Insightful Texas Monthly story: 'San Antonio 4' declared innocent and exonerated..."An outcome 22 years in the making, after the women spent more than fifteen years in prison for a crime they didn’t commit."..."It was the science that let the women appeal their convictions in the first place. In 2013, the Texas Legislature passed a law that allowed for state habeas applications on basis of so-called “junk science” being used to convict. The law was the first of its kind in the nation to allow for that kind of state-level appeal. The case had to show that scientific evidence known now wasn’t available at the time of the trial and that if the evidence had been presented the person wouldn’t have been convicted. In this case, that was the expert-witness testimony from pediatrician Nancy Kellogg about what she determined was physical evidence of sexual trauma. Kellogg later signed an affidavit stating that if the case was brought today she would have not reached the same conclusion. The plurality ruling, written by Judge David Newell, states that the scientific evidence was just part of why the court determined the women met their “herculean” burden to prove actual innocence. He pointed to the inconsistencies in statements from the nieces; the fact that a well-known expert who conducts psychosexual examinations for the state determined that she would not be able to treat the women as they were not sex offenders “so there would be nothing to treat;” and that the state’s case should be taken into account, as the state “did not recommend denying or granting relief on actual innocence, but rather stated that, now that it is known that Dr. Kellogg’s testimony in the trials in the 1990’s was wrong” and that “what is left is ‘purely the credibility of the witnesses, which is for the Court to determine.'” Link to entire court ruling;

›
QUOTE OF THE DAY:  “They are innocent. And they are exonerated.” Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; -----------------------------------...

Kirstin Lobato : Nevada; Major development: (Great news): The Nevada Supreme Court has reversed a lower court decision denying her appeal - Evidentiary hearing before a new judge expected - numerous grounds (many of which relate to forensic evidence. Door also opened to raising police and prosecutor misconduct issues - and to issues involving ineffective assistance of counsel..." Many of these grounds relate to important forensic issues, such as : Ground 1. New forensic entomology evidence that Duran Bailey’s time of death in Las Vegas was after sunset on July 8, 2001, when the Petitioner was 170 miles away in Panaca, Nevada; Ground 2. New forensic pathology evidence that Bailey’s time of death was after 8 pm on July 8, 2001, when the Petitioner was 170 miles away in Panaca. Ground 3. New forensic entomology and forensic pathology evidence that Bailey’s body did not have cockroach and other predator bites, which establishes his time of death was close to discovery of his body in Las Vegas, when Petitioner was 170 miles away in Panaca. Ground 4. New expert psychology evidence the Petitioner’s Statement describing a sexual assault at an east Las Vegas hotel is not a confession to Bailey’s murder at a west Las Vegas bank. Ground 7. New forensic pathology evidence that more than one person was involved in Duran Bailey’s murder, and it excludes the Petitioner." Wrongly Convicted Group; Wrongly Convicted Group)

›
POST: "Nevada Supreme Court reverses denial of appeal," by Stephen Jackson, published by The Wrongly Convicted Group on Novemb...