DR. CHARLES SMITH; TORONTO STAR DESCRIBES 17-YEARS OF HELL EXPERIENCED BY MOTHER AS A RESULT OF THE DISCREDITED PATHOLOGIST'S FAULTY OPINION;

"They were found guilty years ago but the Ontario Court of Appeal quashed the convictions in October. The Crown conceded they were the victims of a miscarriage of justice after Smith wrongly concluded they had asphyxiated the infants.

“Seventeen years of really what was hell for (C.M.) is finally coming to an end,” Lockyer said on Thursday. Outside court, he described the results of Smith’s incompetence as “pretty dreadful.”

“Her baby died before her eyes in her bathroom at home . . . a terrifying experience with blood all over the walls,” he said. “Twenty-four hours later, she’s sitting in a jail cell for the next four weeks.”"

REPORTER CAROLA VYHNAK; URBAN AFFAIRS REPORTER; THE TORONTO STAR;

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

BACKGROUND: The inquiry focused largely on the flawed work of Dr. Smith — formerly the province's chief pediatric pathologist and a self-styled member of the prosecution team — whose "errors" led to innocent people being branded as child murderers.

The 1,000-page report by Justice Stephen Goudge slammed Dr. Smith, along with Ontario's former chief coroner and his deputy, for their roles in wrongful prosecutions and asked the province to consider compensation.

The provincial coroner's office found evidence of errors in 20 of 45 autopsies Dr. Smith did over a 10-year period starting in the early 1990s. Thirteen resulted in criminal charges.

William Mullins-Johnson, who was among those cases, spent 12 years in prison for the rape and murder of his four-year-old niece, whose death was later attributed to natural causes.

In another case, Dr. Smith concluded a mother had stabbed her seven-year-old girl to death when it turned out to have been a dog mauling.

The inquiry heard that Dr. Smith's failings included hanging on to crucial evidence, "losing" evidence which showed his opinion was wrong and may have assisted the accused person, mistating evidence, chronic tardiness, and the catastrophic misinterpretation of findings.

The cases, along with other heart-rending stories of wrongful prosecutions based in part on Smith's testimony, also raised a host of issues about the pathology system and the reliance of the courts on expert evidence."

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

"“Seventeen years of hell” blamed on discredited pathologist Dr. Charles Smith have ended for a woman accused of killing her newborn baby in 1992," the Toronto Star story by reporter Carola Vyhnak published earlier today under the heading, "Woman’s ‘hell’ ends as charge withdrawn in newborn’s death," begins.

"“It’s over. Withdrawn, gone, once and for all,” her lawyer, James Lockyer, told the woman by phone minutes after Justice Paul Bellefontaine withdrew a manslaughter charge against her Thursday afternoon," the story continues.

"The woman, identified only as C.M. due to a publication ban, is one of two young mothers who gave birth at home in their bathrooms in the 1990s, apparently unaware they were even pregnant. Their babies died and they were charged with murder.

They were found guilty years ago but the Ontario Court of Appeal quashed the convictions in October. The Crown conceded they were the victims of a miscarriage of justice after Smith wrongly concluded they had asphyxiated the infants.

“Seventeen years of really what was hell for (C.M.) is finally coming to an end,” Lockyer said on Thursday. Outside court, he described the results of Smith’s incompetence as “pretty dreadful.”

“Her baby died before her eyes in her bathroom at home . . . a terrifying experience with blood all over the walls,” he said. “Twenty-four hours later, she’s sitting in a jail cell for the next four weeks.”

C.M., a 21-year-old college student said she had no idea she was pregnant because she had lost weight and her periods had always been irregular, according to court documents.

“She was shocked to see a head coming out,” court heard. “She described feeling like her insides were coming out. She was in a state of shock.”

Her parents came home to find the body of a baby boy in the toilet and their daughter lying in a pool of blood.

C.M. pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter because she felt she was a burden on her family and was “horrified” at the thought of a murder conviction and jail sentence, Lockyer told Bellefontaine.

“She always maintained the baby was stillborn with no signs of life.”

C.M. received a suspended sentence and three years’ probation. The second woman, who was 18 when she gave birth in 1996, also said she felt pressured to plead guilty. The court ordered new trials for both women in October but the second woman’s case has yet to be resolved.

Lockyer said Thursday’s decision “will make a huge difference in (C.M.’s) life.”

“She said, ‘thank God.’ She’s obviously pleased and very relieved.”

He had harsh words for Smith’s peers who ignored the “warning signals of his incompetence” which lead to several cases being treated as homicides.

“He was viewed as an icon of his profession. He was challenged by no one. What he said was gospel.”

Smith has been suspended from practising medicine but the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons has yet to decide on his future, Lockyer said."

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

The story can be found at:

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/900679--woman-cleared-of-charges-in-newborn-s-death

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

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

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

For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html

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

DR. CHARLES SMITH; CROWN DROPS MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE AFTER APPEAL COURT QUASHES CONVICTION. MOM'S GUILTY PLEA BASED ON SMITH'S FAULTY OPINION;

"A manslaughter charge was dropped Thursday in an Oshawa, Ont., court against a woman known as C.M., who said she had no choice but to plead guilty at her original trial to killing her baby based on Smith's faulty findings.

Ontario's top court quashed her conviction in October and ordered a new trial.

C.M.'s lawyer has described her as a frightened young woman who didn't know she was pregnant when she gave birth in the bathroom of her home in 1992.

C.M. maintained the baby was stillborn, but said it "seemed like the only thing to do was to plead guilty" due to Smith's stellar reputation at the time as a pediatric forensic pathologist."

THE CANADIAN PRESS;

(SEE THE EARLIER POST ON ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TO QUASH C.M.'S MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE AND ORDER A NEW TRIAL. IT RUNS AT THE END OF THIS POST.)

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

BACKGROUND; The inquiry focused largely on the flawed work of Dr. Smith — formerly the province's chief pediatric pathologist and a self-styled member of the prosecution team — whose "errors" led to innocent people being branded as child murderers.

The 1,000-page report by Justice Stephen Goudge slammed Dr. Smith, along with Ontario's former chief coroner and his deputy, for their roles in wrongful prosecutions and asked the province to consider compensation.

The provincial coroner's office found evidence of errors in 20 of 45 autopsies Dr. Smith did over a 10-year period starting in the early 1990s. Thirteen resulted in criminal charges.

William Mullins-Johnson, who was among those cases, spent 12 years in prison for the rape and murder of his four-year-old niece, whose death was later attributed to natural causes.

In another case, Dr. Smith concluded a mother had stabbed her seven-year-old girl to death when it turned out to have been a dog mauling.

The inquiry heard that Dr. Smith's failings included hanging on to crucial evidence, "losing" evidence which showed his opinion was wrong and may have assisted the accused person, mistating evidence, chronic tardiness, and the catastrophic misinterpretation of findings.

The cases, along with other heart-rending stories of wrongful prosecutions based in part on Smith's testimony, also raised a host of issues about the pathology system and the reliance of the courts on expert evidence."

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

"Charges have been withdrawn in another child death case involving discredited Ontario pathologist Dr. Charles Smith," the Canadian Press story filed earlier today begins, under the heading, "Charges Withdrawn In Child Death Case Involving Pathologist Dr. Charles Smith."

"A manslaughter charge was dropped Thursday in an Oshawa, Ont., court against a woman known as C.M., who said she had no choice but to plead guilty at her original trial to killing her baby based on Smith's faulty findings," the story continues.

"Ontario's top court quashed her conviction in October and ordered a new trial.

C.M.'s lawyer has described her as a frightened young woman who didn't know she was pregnant when she gave birth in the bathroom of her home in 1992.

C.M. maintained the baby was stillborn, but said it "seemed like the only thing to do was to plead guilty" due to Smith's stellar reputation at the time as a pediatric forensic pathologist.

A judicial inquiry has since found Smith's work was responsible, in part, for several people being wrongfully convicted of killing children and sent to prison.

C.M. said in her affidavit that she still struggles with her decision to plead guilty to a crime she didn't commit.

Her plea at the original trial meant she was spared a jail sentence."

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

The story can be found at:

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/national/article/102209--charges-withdrawn-in-child-death-case-involving-pathologist-dr-charles-smith


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

EARLIER POST ON THE DECISION OF THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL TO QUASH C.M.'S CONVICTION:

CHARLES SMITH; AFFIDAVITS REVEAL ANGUISH OF INNOCENT YOUNG MOTHERS WHO FELT COMPELLED TO PLEAD GUILTY TO AVOID SMITH'S SURE TO CONVICT TESTIMONY;

“The chance to have my manslaughter conviction quashed is of huge importance to me,” she said in her affidavit. “I have had to deal with the emotional and financial consequences of this conviction for almost 15 years. I still struggle with my decision to plead guilty to a crime that I did not commit.”

REPORTER KIRK MAKIN; THE GLOBE AND MAIL;

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

"They were the forgotten victims of a pathology scandal that rocked the country – two young mothers who delivered their babies on bathroom floors, alone and terrified, and then faced the might of the criminal justice system," the Globe and Mail story by Justice Reporter Kirk Makin published earlier today begins, under the heading, "Young mothers exonerated over pathology scandal errors."

"Both infants were dead within minutes of birth. Their mothers were tossed into a judicial nightmare that has only now ended, after they were exonerated by the Ontario Court of Appeal on Wednesday," the story continues.

"Mr. Justice Marc Rosenberg apologized for a legal juggernaut precipitated by Charles Smith, an Ontario pathologist whose star shone high from the 1970s until he was exposed two decades later as a careless physician who had routinely embellished his courtroom testimony. The cases of the young mothers were not noticed in the initial furor over the string of wrongful convictions being attributed to evidence from Dr. Smith.

“We want to acknowledge the suffering of the appellants and their families as a result of the flawed pathology that led to their convictions,” said Judge Rosenberg, flanked by Madam Justice Eleanore Cronk and Madame Justice Gloria Epstein.

The judges sent one woman, identified only as C.M., back to be tried for manslaughter. The other woman, C.F., was ordered back to trial for infanticide.

However, Crown counsel Alison Wheeler and Jennifer Woollcombe emphasized that their court dates will be a mere formality. They said that the charges will be withdrawn based on fresh pathology evidence that, contrary to what Dr. Smith surmised, the babies may have died from hemorrhaging or being strangled by their umbilical cords.

As court adjourned, C.M. paused for a moment before slipping away: “I’m happy with the way things worked out and I appreciate what the court said,” she said.

The court heard that both women protested their innocence, yet pleaded guilty to lesser charges. Partly, they had hoped to shield their families from further humiliation. They were also acting on the advice of defence lawyers who told them that if they fought their murder charges, it would be impossible to counteract Dr. Smith’s conclusions of foul play.

“Both of them felt overwhelmed by the situation – as were their counsel – because Dr. Smith, after all, was an invincible icon,” defence counsel James Lockyer told the court on Wednesday.

Based on their plea bargains, the women received sentences that involved community service and probation, but no jail time.

The cases came to light in a review of convictions involving evidence from Dr. Smith, and Mr. Lockyer got in touch with them four years ago to ask if they would like to ask the courts to reassess the verdicts.

In affidavits that were unsealed on Wednesday, the women said that they had been unaware they were pregnant – or in utter denial – until they found themselves discharging what turned out to be infants.

C.F. said that she had never visited a doctor about her protruding midriff and had simply deluded herself into believing she was putting on weight.

“I was confused and thinking about how much trouble I would be in when my parents came home and saw the mess I had made,” C.F. said. “It never occurred to me that the baby was alive. It made no noise and, as far as I could tell, wasn’t moving.”

Her father found her semi-conscious in bed when he returned home that day – Nov. 28, 1996. Her baby was later found in her closet, wrapped in a bag.

“It is not easy to explain the emotional upheavals I went through from that moment, when I was told in the hospital that I had given birth and the baby had died,” C.F. said in her affidavit.

She said that the tragedy became a staple of the local grapevine: “I was shunned by my friends and people who came into contact with me.

“Sitting in a bathroom with my own blood around me is an experience I hope never to have again,” C.F. added. “I do not believe that I caused my baby’s death. To this day, I remain haunted by the events of that day. I have never come to grips with this and I am ashamed and traumatized.”

C.M. never made it out of the bathroom after her baby was born. Her family found her in a pool of her own blood. Her baby’s remains were in the toilet.

“The chance to have my manslaughter conviction quashed is of huge importance to me,” she said in her affidavit. “I have had to deal with the emotional and financial consequences of this conviction for almost 15 years. I still struggle with my decision to plead guilty to a crime that I did not commit.”"

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

The story can be found at:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/young-mothers-exonerated-over-pathology-scandal-errors/article1766207/

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

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

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

For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html

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

CLAUDE JONES; CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM; MICHAEL RICHARD; "BLOOD ON OUR HANDS." A DISTURBING PATTERN IDENTIFIED IN TEXAS;

"As citizens of Texas, we are also both profoundly sad and outraged at what we've learned from these DNA results and from the documents that emerged from this process.

In this case, Gov. Bush did not get the essential information about Claude Jones' appeal that he should have had before making his fatal decision. In the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, convicted and executed based on faulty arson forensics, Gov. Rick Perry either did not know about expert reports debunking the evidence against, or he ignored them. In 2007, in the case of Michael Richard, Judge Sharon Keller closed her court at 5 p.m. and blocked his attorneys from filing a last-minute appeal.

Even those who support the death penalty should be deeply concerned about this pattern. The most notorious case is Willingham's, of course. But as we see today, it's not the only case where Texas has executed someone on the basis of faulty evidence."

BOB MOSER: THE TEXAS OBSERVER; "Bob Moser has been editor since October 2008. A native North Carolinian, he edited the Independent Weekly before being named a Knight Fellow at Stanford University. Bob has been a senior writer for the Southern Poverty Law Center and a senior editor at The Nation. He's the author of Blue Dixie: Awakening the South's Democratic Majority."

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

"On Friday morning in Houston, I spoke at a news conference discussing the upshot of the Observer's successful lawsuit to preserve and test DNA evidence that might have posthumously exonerated Claude Jones, who was executed on Dec. 7, 2000," Bob Moser's November 12, 2010 Texas Observer commentary begins, under the heading, "Blood on Our Hands: Why the Jones Case Matters: What the DNA results tell Texas citizens—and journalists."

"Former Gov. Mark White, Innocence Project director Barry Scheck, and attorneys from Mayer Brown, the firm that won the suit, also addressed the media along with Jones' son, Duane," the commentary continues.

"As Dave Mann has reported, the DNA evidence didn't prove Jones' innocence—but it did show that he was convicted, and executed, based on false evidence. And documents dredged up by the lawsuit showed that Gov. George W. Bush, making his last decision on an execution in Texas, was not informed that Jones was requesting DNA testing that might exonerate him.

Watch Dave Mann's interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow

As Gov. White said, "a mere memo written by a subordinate member of Bush's staff made this life-and-death decision."

With two Texas executions—Jones' and Cameron Todd Willingham's—now known to have been based on false forensic evidence and mishandled by the state, every citizens' conscience should be shaken to the core, no matter their opinion on the death penalty. We can all agree, surely, that the highest punishment should be reserved for those who are guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. In Texas, we now know, that fundamental moral and ethical standard has not applied.

Here's what I had to say this morning about what the case means, for Texas citizens and for Texas journalists:

It's a bit unusual for me to be on this side of a press conference. And it might be unusual for a media outlet to be co-plaintiff in a lawsuit like this one. We don't go around suing people much; we're too busy steering clear of being sued ourselves. But for the Observer, this was a critically important case of the public's right to know. That's a right that journalists fight for every day—and here in Texas, as most of you know, it can be one hell of a fight.

But there was more than a First Amendment principle at stake in the case of Claude Jones: The people of Texas had a right to know whether they had blood on their hands—whether they had been responsible, together, for the murder of an innocent man.

In the past few years, Texans have learned some very disturbing truths about the way their state carries out its most solemn duty, administering the death penalty. That's been thanks in small part to the efforts of journalists in publications as far-flung as the Observer and the Chicago Tribune and The New Yorker, but also to criminal-justice activists like the Innocence Project, truth-seekers like Duane Jones, truth-tellers like Gov. White, and socially conscious attorneys like those at Mayer Brown. That's what it takes. And we were proud to be on this team.

As citizens of Texas, we are also both profoundly sad and outraged at what we've learned from these DNA results and from the documents that emerged from this process.

In this case, Gov. Bush did not get the essential information about Claude Jones' appeal that he should have had before making his fatal decision. In the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, convicted and executed based on faulty arson forensics, Gov. Rick Perry either did not know about expert reports debunking the evidence against, or he ignored them. In 2007, in the case of Michael Richard, Judge Sharon Keller closed her court at 5 p.m. and blocked his attorneys from filing a last-minute appeal.

Even those who support the death penalty should be deeply concerned about this pattern. The most notorious case is Willingham's, of course. But as we see today, it's not the only case where Texas has executed someone on the basis of faulty evidence.

Executing an innocent person is the worst-case scenario, of course. But as The Observer has reported in 2009 and 2010, there are also hundreds of Texans in prison because they were convicted by false arson forensics http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/fire-and-innocence or faulty blood-spatter analysis http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/a-bloody-injustice. DNA is now reliable, but other forensic evidence continues to be employed in faulty ways and to convict innocent Texans.

The people of Texas needed to know whether Claude Jones was indeed guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. Now we know that he was not.

Given what we know now, it's clear how important it was that the people of Texas had access to this information. We now know more about the workings, and shortcomings, of our criminal-justice system. And what we know is deeply unsettling.

Now it's our collective responsibility to make sure that what happened to Willingham and Jones cannot happen again. And it's Texas journalists' responsibility to continue ferreting out the hard-won truth about the injustices that have already occurred."

The commentary can be found at:

http://www.texasobserver.org/purpletexas/blood-on-our-hands-why-the-jones-case-matters

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

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

For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774

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

JOHN EDWARD GREEN; JUDGE KEVIN FINE MAY RULE THE DEATH PENALTY UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN TEXAS; HUFFINGTON POST; HEARING. DECEMBER 6. 2010;

"Maurie Levin, a law professor at the University of Texas and an expert on capital punishment, said she would not be surprised if Judge Kevin Fine ruled the death penalty to be unconstitutional in Texas on Monday.

"I would think that Judge Fine would have substantial basis in the evidence that I'm aware of that would lead to a conclusion that the Texas death penalty is unconstitutional as applied," she told HuffPost.

Since 1976, twelve people have been exonerated from death row in Texas out of 139 nationwide, and four study commissions set up by the Texas government have formally recognized the serious risks of wrongful convictions there. Out of the 464 people that have been executed in Texas, about 70 percent have been minorities, according to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice."

LAURA BASSETT: THE HUFFINGTON POST;

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

BACKGROUND: JUDGE KEVIN FINE: TEXAS; Judge Fine caused an uproar when he issued a ruling in a capital murder case (the John Edward Green Jr. case) that was widely interpreted as saying that the death penalty in Texas was unconstitutional. All eyes - including ours - will be on the hearing he has scheduled to hold on Monday, December 6, 2010, 2010, to determine whether innocent people are at risk of being wrongly executed in Texas.

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


"WASHINGTON -- At a hearing scheduled for Monday, December 6, a district court in Texas will decide whether the death penalty is unconstitutional in the state based on the disproportionately high risk of wrongful convictions in Texas," the post by Laura Bassett published on the Huffington Post on December 1, 2010 begins, under the heading, "Death Penalty May Be Ruled Unconstitutional In Texas."

"This is the first time in the state's history that a court will examine the problem of innocent people being executed in a Texas capital trial," the post continues.

"John Edward Green, Jr., the defendant in Texas v. Green, is charged in the fatal shooting of a 34-year-old Houston woman during a 2008 robbery. According to legal documents obtained by HuffPost, Green's defense attorneys will be arguing on Monday that a number of factors in Texas's legal system increase the risk of wrongful executions there, including a lack of safeguards to protect against mistaken eyewitness identification, faulty forensic evidence, incompetent lawyers at the appellate level, failures to guard against false confessions and a history of racial discrimination in jury selection.

The death penalty in Texas came under fire earlier this month when a DNA test conducted on a single hair undermined the evidence that convicted a Texas man of capital murder over ten years ago. The hair had been the only piece of evidence linking Claude Jones to the crime scene, but the new test results revealed that the hair likely belonged to the murder victim instead of Jones.

Maurie Levin, a law professor at the University of Texas and an expert on capital punishment, said she would not be surprised if Judge Kevin Fine ruled the death penalty to be unconstitutional in Texas on Monday.

"I would think that Judge Fine would have substantial basis in the evidence that I'm aware of that would lead to a conclusion that the Texas death penalty is unconstitutional as applied," she told HuffPost.

Since 1976, twelve people have been exonerated from death row in Texas out of 139 nationwide, and four study commissions set up by the Texas government have formally recognized the serious risks of wrongful convictions there. Out of the 464 people that have been executed in Texas, about 70 percent have been minorities, according to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Andrea Keilen, executive director of Texas Defender Service, said it is clear to her that the death penalty is handed down unfairly and erratically in Texas.
Story continues below
Advertisement

"It is my opinion and the opinion of many people close to this issue that the Texas system is wholly incapable of carrying out the death penalty in a fair and reliable way," she told HuffPost. "Texas is remarkably out of step with the rest of the country and certainly out of step with what the average Texan would expect when dealing with capital punishment. We're seeing in case after case that the system is just inherently prone to the risk of wrongful convictions and has a complete inability to correct its mistakes."

Keilen said that while the state has a history of strong popular support for capital punishment, she thinks Texans would feel differently about the practice if they knew all the facts.

"I think there is support for the idea of the death penalty among the average Texan, but that if the average Texan were to get a closeup view of how the system actually operates, that support would significantly wane," she said. "It's an abstract concept to most people, but if they saw how abysmal the quality of representation can be, how the system is biased racially, how prosecutors can not disclose evidence, or how DNA testing can be wrong, my opinion is that they as reasonable people would find it unacceptable."

The post can be found at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/01/death-penalty-may-be-rule_n_790705.html

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

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

For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774

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

CHARLES SMITH: GOUDGE REPORT CITED AT EXTRADITION HEARING; QUALIFICATIONS OF CROWN'S HANDWRITING EXPERT CHALLENGED;

"Bayne is partly relying on criticisms of expert witnesses in the four-volume report by Justice Stephen Goudge, who two years ago led the probe into the work of Dr. Charles Smith. He was viewed as one of Canada's leading experts in pediatric forensic pathology -- but Goudge found that despite his stature, Smith had little forensic experience and for more than 10 years fooled courts into believing that he had. Smith was responsible for numerous wrongful convictions because juries and courts believed him.

In urging judges to be more critical of experts, Bayne said if his handwriting experts are allowed to testify, one of them will say that "in 30 years he has never seen anyone working in the field who (so) clearly doesn't understand handwriting analysis."

REPORTER CHRIS COBB: THE OTTAWA CITIZEN;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND: The inquiry focused largely on the flawed work of Dr. Smith — formerly the province's chief pediatric pathologist and a self-styled member of the prosecution team — whose "errors" led to innocent people being branded as child murderers.

The 1,000-page report by Justice Stephen Goudge slammed Dr. Smith, along with Ontario's former chief coroner and his deputy, for their roles in wrongful prosecutions and asked the province to consider compensation.

The provincial coroner's office found evidence of errors in 20 of 45 autopsies Dr. Smith did over a 10-year period starting in the early 1990s. Thirteen resulted in criminal charges.

William Mullins-Johnson, who was among those cases, spent 12 years in prison for the rape and murder of his four-year-old niece, whose death was later attributed to natural causes.

In another case, Dr. Smith concluded a mother had stabbed her seven-year-old girl to death when it turned out to have been a dog mauling.

The inquiry heard that Dr. Smith's failings included hanging on to crucial evidence, "losing" evidence which showed his opinion was wrong and may have assisted the accused person, misstating evidence, chronic tardiness, and the catastrophic misinterpretation of findings.

The cases, along with other heart-rending stories of wrongful prosecutions based in part on Smith's testimony, also raised a host of issues about Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system and the reliance of the courts on expert evidence."

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

"The extradition hearing for former Ottawa university professor Hassan Diab entered crucial territory Tuesday with the alleged terrorist's lawyer condemning pivotal prosecution handwriting evidence as the unreliable work of an incompetent analyst out of touch with modern methods," the Ottawa Citizen story published earlier today under the heading, "Diab lawyer queries work of handwriting expert: 'Egregious errors' in analysis of name on hotel register," begins.

"Lebanon-born Diab, 57, is wanted for murder by French authorities for his alleged role in planting a bomb outside a Paris synagogue in 1980. Four people were killed and more than 40 injured in the blast," the story continues.

"Defence lawyer Donald Bayne has testimony from three internationally re-nowned handwriting specialists, all of whom, he says, debunk the French handwriting evidence that Paris prosecutors say ties Diab to the crime.

French police found a signature and other writing of a Greek Cypriot by the name of Alexander Panadriyu in a Paris hotel registry and, for comparison, got samples of Diab's own writing from the United States where he was later a student.

Because of myriad witness statements, police are convinced that the guest using the false Greek name and the Palestinian bomber are the same person. They say they've in turn connected those identities to Diab via the handwriting.

But Diab claims his innocence and says he is the victim of mistaken identity.

He is asking Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Maranger to consider the evidence of his three experts -- from Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States -- and allow all three to testify.

Under Canadian extradition law, an accused has no automatic right to submit evidence in response to the case against him or her and evidence provided by the requesting country must be considered "presumptively reliable." Which means any Canadian fighting extradition has an uphill battle.

The current French handwriting expert whose report is now part of the prosecution case is the third offered up by France. The work of two others was withdrawn.

"Its professed reliability collapsed into withdrawal," said Bayne, who says his own trio of experts is unanimous in its condemnation of the third French report and its "egregious methodological errors."

In his submission to Maranger, Bayne said although extradition law is restrictive, there is plenty of case law that urges judges to be cautious when a prosecution has obvious "frailties."

Bayne is partly relying on criticisms of expert witnesses in the four-volume report by Justice Stephen Goudge, who two years ago led the probe into the work of Dr. Charles Smith. He was viewed as one of Canada's leading experts in pediatric forensic pathology -- but Goudge found that despite his stature, Smith had little forensic experience and for more than 10 years fooled courts into believing that he had. Smith was responsible for numerous wrongful convictions because juries and courts believed him.

In urging judges to be more critical of experts, Bayne said if his handwriting experts are allowed to testify, one of them will say that "in 30 years he has never seen anyone working in the field who (so) clearly doesn't understand handwriting analysis."

The French handwriting report, he added, is confusing and almost impossible for a lay person to understand.

"It was her obligation to make it crystal clear," he said, urging the judge to give the French analysis "vigilant scrutiny."

Crown lawyers are expected to vigorously oppose Bayne's efforts on the grounds that introducing defence evidence contravenes the Extradition Act."

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

The story can be found at:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Diab+lawyer+queries+work+handwriting+expert/3908595/story.html

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

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

For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html

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

CLAUDE JONES/CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM: EXECUTIONS UNDER "SUCH MURKY CIRCUMSTANCES" SHOULD GIVE MOST COMMITTED DEATH PENALTY PAUSE: JONATHAN COHN;

"Willingham's family has filed a lawsuit to clear his name. I don't know how it will turn out, any more than I can know for certain whether Willingham or Jones were guilty. But the idea that the state could execute men under such murky circumstances ought to give even the most committed death penalty advocates pause."

JOHNATHAN COHN; THE TEXAS OBSERVER;

"Claude Jones always claimed that he wasn’t the man who walked into an East Texas liquor store in 1989 and shot the owner," Jonathan Cohn's November 17, 2010 Texas Observer commentary, as republished by The New Republic, begins, under the heading, "Executing an Innocent Man."

"He professed his innocence right up until the moment he was strapped to a gurney in the Texas execution chamber and put to death on Dec. 7, 2000," the commentary continues.

"His murder conviction was based on a single piece of forensic evidence recovered from the crime scene—a strand of hair—that prosecutors claimed belonged to Jones.

But DNA tests completed this week at the request of the Observer and the New York-based Innocence Project show the hair didn’t belong to Jones after all. The day before his death in December 2000, Jones asked for a stay of execution so the strand of hair could be submitted for DNA testing. He was denied by then-Gov. George W. Bush.

And, of course, this isn't the only story like it. In the New Yorker last year, my friend and former colleague David Grann told the story of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was sent to death in Texas for allegedly murdering his children by arson. Like Jones, Willingham maintained his innocence until the end. And, according to David's article, the primary basis for that conviction was a set of theories on arson that science has since debunked. Prosecutors stand by the conviction.

A special Texas commission was investigating the matter, to see whether Willingham was right. But, just days before it was to hear critical testimony on the forensic evidence, Governor Rick Perry dismissed the commission's chairman and two members. Here's what happened next, via the Houston Chronicle:

The new chair was John Bradley, a conservative district attorney. His first act was to cancel the planned discussion. He then appointed himself to a four-member committee to review the case in private. Earlier this month, he told the Associated Press that Willingham was a "guilty monster," echoing Perry's words to reporters a year ago that Willingham was "a monster … a heinous individual who murdered his kids."

Willingham's family has filed a lawsuit to clear his name. I don't know how it will turn out, any more than I can know for certain whether Willingham or Jones were guilty. But the idea that the state could execute men under such murky circumstances ought to give even the most committed death penalty advocates pause."

The commentary can be found at:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/79177/executing-innocent-man

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

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

For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774

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

CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM; TEXAS TRIBUNE STORY ON "INCENDIARY": AN ALMOST COMPLETED DOCUMENTARY ON THE WILLINGHAM CASE;

"Although there is a fundamental enigma — what really happened — that cannot be fully answered, the first half of “Incendiary” seeks to demonstrate through the testimony of Gerald Hurst and John Lentini, arson science experts, as well as through gorgeous re-enactments, that there was simply no arson, the prosecution’s key to conviction. That methodical analytical breakdown using the latest forensic science is riveting, yet the film also demonstrates that there’s a little junior arsonist in its co-director.

“We deployed some accelerants and had a few controlled fires in my driveway,” Mr. Mims said, “but couldn’t quite convince the Austin Fire Department to help out with a full flashover fire.”"

JOHN PIERSON; TEXAS TRIBUNE; AS PUBLISHED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES; (John Pierson, the author of “Spike, Mike, Slackers & Dykes: A Guided Tour Across a Decade of American Independent Cinema,” lectures on film at the University of Texas at Austin.)

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

BACKGROUND: (Wikipedia); Cameron Todd Willingham (January 9, 1968 – February 17, 2004), born in Carter County, Oklahoma, was sentenced to death by the state of Texas for murdering his three daughters—two year old Amber Louise Kuykendall, and one year old twins Karmon Diane Willingham and Kameron Marie Willingham— by setting his house on fire. The fire occurred on December 23, 1991 in Corsicana, Texas. Lighter fluid was kept on the front porch of Willingham’s house as evidenced by a melted container found there. Some of this fluid may have entered the front doorway of the house carried along by fire hose water. It was alleged this fluid was deliberately poured to start the fire and that Willingham chose this entrance way so as to impede rescue attempts. The prosecution also used other arson theories that have since been brought into question. In addition to the arson evidence, a jailhouse informant claimed Willingham confessed that he set the fire to hide his wife's physical abuse of the girls, although the girls showed no other injuries besides those caused by the fire. Neighbors also testified that Willingham did not try hard enough to save his children. They allege he "crouched down" in his front yard and watched the house burn for a period of time without attempting to enter the home or go to neighbors for help or request they call firefighters. He claimed that he tried to go back into the house but it was "too hot". As firefighters arrived, however, he rushed towards the garage and pushed his car away from the burning building, requesting firefighters do the same rather than put out the fire. After the fire, Willingham showed no emotion at the death of his children and spent the next day sorting through the debris, laughing and playing music. He expressed anger after finding his dartboard burned in the fire. Firefighters and other witnesses were suspicious of how he reacted during and after the fire. Willingham was charged with murder on January 8, 1992. During his trial in August 1992, he was offered a life term in exchange for a guilty plea, which he turned down insisting he was innocent. After his conviction, he and his wife divorced. She later stated that she believed that Willingham was guilty. Prosecutors alleged this was part of a pattern of behavior intended to rid himself of his children. Willingham had a history of committing crimes, including burglary, grand larceny and car theft. There was also an incident when he beat his pregnant wife over the stomach with a telephone to induce a miscarriage. When asked if he had a final statement, Willingham said: "Yeah. The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man - convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do. From God's dust I came and to dust I will return - so the earth shall become my throne. I gotta go, road dog. I love you Gabby." However, his final words were directed at his ex-wife, Stacy Willingham. He turned to her and said "I hope you rot in hell, bitch" several times while attempting to extend his middle finger in an obscene gesture. His ex-wife did not show any reaction to this. He was executed by lethal injection on February 17, 2004. Subsequent to that date, persistent questions have been raised as to the accuracy of the forensic evidence used in the conviction, specifically, whether it can be proven that an accelerant (such as the lighter fluid mentioned above) was used to start the fatal fire. Fire investigator Gerald L. Hurst reviewed the case documents including the trial transcriptions and an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene. Hurst said, "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire. Legendary "Innocence" lawyer Barry Scheck asked participants at a conference of the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers held in Toronto in August, 2010, how Willingham, who had lost his family to the fire, must have felt to hear the horrific allegations made against him on the basis of the bogus evidence, "and nobody pays any attention to it as he gets executed." "It's the Dreyfus Affair, and you all know what that is," Scheck continued. "It's the Dreyfus AffaIr of the United States. Luke Power's music video "Texas Death Row Blues," can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/09/cameron-todd-willingham-texas-death-row_02.html

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

"Yes, this is West 11th Street, Corsicana, Texas. It’s about 10 o’clock in the morning. Those are the arson investigators, and they’ll soon decide that I set this house on fire and burned my three young children to death just before Christmas 1991. But before you hear it all distorted or blown out of proportion, maybe you’d like to hear the facts, the whole truth. The governor likes to quote my own defense attorney about how I am — or should I say: was — “a monster.” Because, you see, I was executed six years ago when he wouldn’t grant a stay," the Texas Tribune story published in the New York Times published on November 27, 2010 begins, under the heading, "Willingham Filmmakers Will Speak for the Dead."

"With apologies to Billy Wilder and William Holden as Joe Gillis in “Sunset Boulevard,” that is how Cameron Todd Willingham’s voice-over might begin “Incendiary,” a wildly and broadly appealing, nearly completed documentary about his controversial conviction and eventual execution in Texas," the story continues.

"When I asked Steve Mims, the co-director of “Incendiary” and my colleague in the University of Texas at Austin’s radio, television and film department, if such an opening would be disrespectful to Mr. Willingham’s memory, he was reassuring.

“I love ‘Sunset Boulevard,’ so I don’t think you can go wrong with that,” Mr. Mims said.

Then, showing his movie-maven credentials, he added, “Did you know they shot and edited a whole scene with many corpses talking in the county morgue, but cut it because it was unintentionally funny?” So the Hollywood feature ended up with just one dead man talking, while the Texas documentary, tragically, has none.

Mr. Mims has shot, edited and taught film in all lengths, genres and formats for decades in Austin, training a generation of young filmmakers. One day in the fall of 2009, Joe Bailey Jr., a postdoctoral fellow from the University of Texas School of Law, showed up in Mr. Mims’s class at the urging of his wife, Alice, a Travis County prosecutor. Mr. Bailey was a music aficionado and a frustrated writer who had plans to make a documentary about Doug Sahm, the legendary Texas troubadour.

Over brisket recently at Ruby’s BBQ, Mr. Bailey explained his frustration. “I could never quite express what I wanted to about music in words,” he said.

Mr. Bailey wasn’t Mr. Mims’s typical student: he was a bit older, very focused, with his own audio equipment to complement his professor’s camera gear. An unexpected chat after one class gave Mr. Bailey a new subject, an opportunity to use his legal background and an eager collaborator.

The conversation touched on the death penalty, but more specifically focused on appeals, stays, pardons and responsible governance. Mr. Mims had just read David Grann’s New Yorker piece on the Willingham case, a tale that was not well known, even in Texas. He sent it to Mr. Bailey, whose instant response was, “We should make this film.” Mr. Mims wrote back, “That would be a lot of work. ... Yeah, let’s do it.”

Although there is a fundamental enigma — what really happened — that cannot be fully answered, the first half of “Incendiary” seeks to demonstrate through the testimony of Gerald Hurst and John Lentini, arson science experts, as well as through gorgeous re-enactments, that there was simply no arson, the prosecution’s key to conviction. That methodical analytical breakdown using the latest forensic science is riveting, yet the film also demonstrates that there’s a little junior arsonist in its co-director.

“We deployed some accelerants and had a few controlled fires in my driveway,” Mr. Mims said, “but couldn’t quite convince the Austin Fire Department to help out with a full flashover fire.”

When it comes to films about justice gone wrong in Texas, Errol Morris’s “Thin Blue Line” casts a long shadow. It got out of jail a man, Randall D. Adams, who had been falsely convicted of gunning down a Dallas policeman, and it did it in style, with flying milkshakes, hypnotic watches, B-movie-obsessed eyewitnesses and a fatalistic Philip Glass score. Mr. Mims and Mr. Bailey love the film and certainly don’t mind any comparisons.

But Mr. Morris had a live prisoner to save, while Mr. Mims and Mr. Bailey could rescue only a dead man’s reputation. They started shooting in October 2009, just after Gov. Rick Perry had replaced the chairman of the state’s Forensic Science Commission, which was about to release a report on the Willingham case. As such, “Incendiary” depicts a surprisingly dramatic series of procedural events and political obstacles in the middle of Mr. Perry’s re-election campaign, ending in an exoneration trial.

“Our agenda was always in three parts: science, the law and politics,” Mr. Mims said.

He and Mr. Bailey did not set out to make a death penalty film, and they succeeded.

“The emotional climate of most death penalty convictions is that both the tough-on-crime side and the anti-death-penalty advocates lose sight of due process, fairness and science,” Mr. Bailey said.

If there’s an overriding theme to a film that puts science first, it is that science and advocacy are not friends."

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

The story can be found at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/us/28ttdocumentary.html?_r=1

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

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

For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774

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