FBI Overstated hair match crisis: (19) (The Emperor's Clothes); Mark Godsey of the Ohio Innocence Project questions the public belief that the forensic science we've got is infallible in the courtroom - and gives his take on why dangerous discredited techniques are still being usedin courtrooms across the USA. His answer? "There’s no consistent federal accreditation system. There isn’t currently a uniform system of educating prosecutor’s offices on which methods are acceptable and which aren’t. The 2009 report recommended the creation of a federal agency to oversee and certify forensic sciences, but political will hasn’t swayed things in that direction, not to mention a lack of funding."

STORY: "Your favourite TV crime-stoppers are using junk science," by reporter Rebecca McGray,  published by Take Part on April 26, 2015;

 GIST: "As the FBI publicly face-palms and tries to wade backward through erroneous evidence—including one case in which dog hair was presented at trial—it’s a good time to remember that hair forensics is just one of many methods that has inched its way into the “junk science” category. “The ironic thing is that the public believes the forensic science we’ve got is infallible in the courtroom,” said Mark Godsey, director of exoneration advocacy group the Ohio Innocence Project. “The reality is, it’s the exact opposite. It’s embarrassing and dangerous.”For people like Godsey who work to fight wrongful convictions, the FBI’s findings were not a surprise. Rather, the report is just the latest strike against the efficacy of many forensic techniques over the last several years.........Comparative techniques, such as those used by the doctor reviewing dental records in Richardson’s case, came under particular scrutiny in the 2009 report. Tire treads and shoe prints present similar problems, Godsey said. Apart from nuclear DNA analysis, the report found, “no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, draw a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source.”.........So why are these techniques still used across the country? There’s no consistent federal accreditation system. There isn’t currently a uniform system of educating prosecutor’s offices on which methods are acceptable and which aren’t. The 2009 report recommended the creation of a federal agency to oversee and certify forensic sciences, but political will hasn’t swayed things in that direction, not to mention a lack of funding.

The entire post can be found at:

http://news.yahoo.com/favorite-tv-crime-stoppers-using-junk-science-215658684.html PUBLISHER'S NOTE:    Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.   I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:   http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html   I look forward to hearing from readers at: hlevy15@gmail.com.   Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

•  

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

Bulletin: Massachusetts: Bar Association asks for a review of tainted breathalyzer tests by an independent invesigator;

Citing the suspension of breathalyzer tests by some county prosecutors, the Massachusetts Bar Association on Tuesday asked Attorney General Maura Healey to appoint an independent investigator to conduct a review of the use of the machines in drunk driving cases.  "We believe drunk driving is a very serious problem, however convictions need to be based on reliable and accurate evidence. The constitutional right to a fair trial has to be paramount," association chief operating officer Martin Healy wrote in a letter to Healey.
http://www.nashobapublishing.com/ci_28028400/bar-seeks-breathalyzer-probe-bennett-defends-use-tests

Bulletin: Pedro Hernandez: Jurors in the Etan Patz murder trial finished hearing readbacks of summations Friday afternoon on their 12th full day of deliberations and will continue trying to reach a verdict next week.

Jurors in the Etan Patz murder trial finished hearing readbacks of summations Friday afternoon on their 12th full day of deliberations and will continue trying to reach a verdict next week. The panel of five women and seven men was asked to keep trying after a deadlock note was sent Wednesday in the case against Pedro Hernandez, who admitted in 2012 to killing the 6-year-old in SoHo decades ago. Jurors sat through 10 weeks of testimony before beginning deliberations on April 15.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/etan-patz-murder-trial-jury-finishes-readbacks-article-1.2207530

Ivan Henry: British Columbia; Momentous decision. (Supreme Court of Canada); Served 27 years in prison for a series of sexual assaults and not told police suspected one of his neighbours. Nor was he told about 30 witness statements with inconsistencies, or sperm found at crime scenes that might, if tested, have exonerated him, or the suspect down the street; Court makes it easier for wrongly convicted people to sue prosecutors by weakening the malice standard. Justice reporter Sean Fine. Globe and mail.

STORY: "Top court sides with B.C. man, broadens freedom to sue prosectors,"   by Justice Reporter Sean Fine published by the Globe and Mail on May 1, 2015.

GIST:  "The Supreme Court of Canada has made it easier for wrongly convicted people to sue prosecutors for violating their rights in ruling on the case of a man who served 27 years in prison for a series of sexual assaults and was not told police suspected one of his neighbours. Since 1989, prosecutors in Canada have had immunity from lawsuits, except when a person could prove they acted maliciously. But confronted with the wrongful conviction of Ivan Henry of Vancouver, who was not told about 30 witness statements with inconsistencies, or sperm found at crime scenes that might, if tested, have exonerated him, or the suspect down the street, the Supreme Court made it easier to sue prosecutors who do not disclose information that could help the defence. ........Joseph Arvay, a lawyer who represented Mr. Henry, now in his late 60s, said his client is pleased with the ruling. “It gives him everything he needs to succeed at trial,” he said referring to the lawsuit. The federal attorney-general and British Columbia attorney-general had opposed weakening of the malice standard, and both said on Friday they are reviewing the ruling. Mr. Henry was jailed indefinitely as a dangerous offender in a series of sexual assaults in which a man had pulled a pillow case over victims’ heads, making identification difficult. His case is notorious among wrongful convictions because he was shown in a photo lineup to an eyewitness while in a police headlock. He represented himself at his trial. When similar sexual assaults continued after he was incarcerated, prosecutors took another look at his claims of innocence. The suspect who had lived down the street was eventually convicted of sexually assaulting three women, and sentenced to five years in jail."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-man-can-sue-over-wrongful-sex-assault-conviction-top-court-rules/article24207519/

The Supreme Court of Canada decision can be found at: "Per Abella, Moldaver, Wagner and Gascon JJ.: Where, as here, a claimant seeks Charter  damages based on allegations that the Crown’s failure to disclose violated his or her Charter  rights, proof of malice is not required. Instead, a cause of action will lie where the Crown, in breach of its constitutional obligations, causes harm to the accused by intentionally withholding information when it knows, or would reasonably be expected to know, that the information is material to the defence and that the failure to disclose will likely impinge on the accused’s ability to make full answer and defence. This represents a high threshold for a successful Charter  damages claim, albeit one that is lower than malice. Only by keeping liability within strict bounds can a reasonable balance be struck between remedying serious rights violations and maintaining the efficient operation of our public prosecution system."

 http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15329/index.do?r=AAAAAQAMIml2YW4gaGVucnkiAAAAAAE

 Wikipedia report: Attacks similar to Henry's alleged crimes continued after he was incarcerated. In 2002, the Vancouver police re-opened 25 unsolved sexual assaults that took place between 1983 and 1988 in the same areas of Vancouver and the assaults for which Henry was convicted. Another man, who had been a suspect in police investigation of Henry, was linked to three of these later offences through DNA evidence, and later pleaded guilty to these crimes. On the basis of the similarities between the assaults, Vancouver prosecutors alerted the Attorney General and a special prosecutor was appointed to investigate Henry's conviction and the potential miscarriage of justice. In 2008, the special prosecutor recommended that the Crown not oppose efforts by Henry to reopen his appeal.^[2] In 2010, the British Columbia Court of Appeal quashed Henry's conviction and entered acquittals on all charges. Justice Low held that "the verdict on each count was not one that a properly instructed jury acting judicially could reasonably have rendered."^[3] It is believed that no one in Canadian history has spent more time in jail before being subsequently acquitted.^[4] Henry has brought a civil suit against the BC government, Vancouver police, and others for compensation. The issue of whether Henry is entitled to civil compensation for the breach of his Charter rights has worked its way through appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada.^[5] On June 9, 2014, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin stated the constitutional question in this case as follows: "Does s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms authorize a court of competent jurisdiction to award damages against the Crown for prosecutorial misconduct absent proof of malice?"^[6]"

 PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 

  Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.

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

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

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

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

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

FBI overstated hair match crisis: (18); (The Emperor's Clothes); True Crime reports that "this sort of thing is nothing new," citing the Colin Ross case: The bottom line? "In 1921 Australia, faulty forensics may have doomed an innocent man." (Must Read. HL);

STORY: "In 1921 Australia, faulty forensics may have doomed an innocent man," published by True Crime on April 25, 2015.

GIST: Earlier this week, the ongoing FBI forensics scandal — in which it was determined that hundreds of convictions were handed down based on flawed hair analysis — made headlines. But this sort of thing is nothing new, as evidenced by a case that gripped Australia in 1921. The FBI and the Justice Department admitted that flawed forensic testimony over more than 20 years… Read more

The crime, known as “The Gun Alley Murder,” began with an undeniable tragedy: the rape and murder of 13-year-old Alma Tirtschke. As History.com recalls, On December 30, 1921, Tirtschke was reported missing in Melbourne. The next day, a constable patrolling Gun Alley, a well-known area for prostitutes, found the young schoolgirl’s body bundled up in a blanket. Strangely, despite evidence of a brutal rape, there was no trace of blood found on her body. Given the scarcity of cars in Melbourne at the time, the police surmised that the perpetrator had to live nearby. Prostitutes’ eyewitness accounts led authorities to Colin Ross, who owned a nearby bar. Pretending to be helpful, Ross volunteered that Tirtschke had been at the bar on the day she was killed. More circumstantial evidence further doomed Ross, also called Colin Campbell Ross in stories about the case, when a witness reported he was a fan of underage girls. A search of Ross’ house uncovered long, red hairs — Tirtschke had long, red hair — that had seemingly been yanked out at the roots. Forensics was still a new science in 1921; Ross’ case was one of the first in Australia to introduce forensic evidence, with the worst possible outcome. He was executed, it’s now believed wrongly, in 1922. At the trial, the defense challenged the forensics expert to distinguish and identify several hair samples. The strategy backfired when the expert did just that, and Ross was convicted. It is now believed, however, that Ross was almost certainly innocent. Recent forensic research has demonstrated that the hair samples were misidentified, either accidentally or at the behest of the police investigator in charge of the case. The Gun Alley Murder continued to echo throughout history, and made headlines again in 2008 when Ross was granted a posthumous pardon 86 years after he was hanged. The Age reported: “This is a tragic case where a miscarriage of justice resulted in a man being hanged,” [Attorney-General Rob Hulls] said. The formal re-examination of the case began three years ago when relatives of Alma Tirtschke and Colin Ross signed a petition of mercy after they learned that fresh evidence showed the executed man had been wrongly convicted. .A new investigation has ruled out any link between Ross and the only physical evidence said to connect him to the crime — hairs found on a blanket at the suspect’s home, which the jury was told came from the scalp of the victim. In 1995 researcher Kevin Morgan traced the exhibit to an archive and pushed for the hair to be re-examined using modern technology. In 1998 a test by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine found the hairs were not from the same scalp."

The entire story can be  found at:

http://truecrime.io9.com/in-1921-australia-faulty-forensics-may-have-doomed-an-1699993121

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shaken baby syndrome: Sue Luttner of "On SBS" reminds us that the close-minded, strident advocates of shaken baby syndrome are out in force these days. (A grim read, indeed. HL);

POST: "Shaking theorists repel criticism," by Sue Luttner, published by "On SBS" on April 30, 2015.

GIST: (The bad news): "While ripples persist in the wake of last month’s news stories questioning shaken baby syndrome in the courtroom, innocent parents and babysitters are still going to prison and most press coverage still treats shaking theory as established fact." (The even  worse news): Now the news magazine of the American Academy of Pediatrics, AAP News, has published a commentary that dismisses the controversy as a “false debate” and criticizes The Washington Post coverage in March as “unbalanced, sowing doubt on scientific issues that actually are well-established.” The commentary’s authors, Drs. Howard Dubowitz and Errol R. Alden, argue that both the Post article and the PBS NewsHour segment that ran the same week make too much fuss over the views of only a few doctors: "What are the facts? Similar to the so-called debate over climate change, it involves a tiny cadre of physicians. These few physicians testify regularly for the defense in criminal trials — even when the medical evidence indicating abuse is overwhelming. They deny what science in this field has well-established. They are well beyond the bounds where professionals may disagree reasonably. Instead, they concoct different and changing theories, ones not based on medical evidence and scientific principles. All they need to do in the courtroom is to obfuscate the science and sow doubt.".........Sue Luttner provides an utterly depressing  review of disturbing cases, demonstrates  that the pediatric shaken baby syndrome advocates are more strident than ever,  and sends out the message that a great deal more must be done to educate the public and the criminal justice system that  there are other causes than abuse for subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhages, and encephalopathy.  (An important message. A grim read, indeed. HL);

The entire post can be found at:

http://onsbs.com/2015/04/30/shaking-theorists-repel-criticism/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 

Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
 
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.

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

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

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

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

FBI overstated hair match crisis: (17); (The Emperor's Clothes); Phil Locke of the Wrongful Convictions Blog asks if they will ever fix forensics in the USA; His post does not reflect cause for optimism. Especially when he points out that, "In the meantime, the traditional forensic science community has been motoring along as if the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) Report never happened. At the most recent American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting, there was an active session on forensic odontology (bite mark analysis); a discipline for which the NAS Report states there is absolutely no scientific basis."

POST" "Will they ever fix forensics?" by Phil Locke, published by the Wrongful Convictions Blog on April 24, 2015.

GIST:  "We (I) haven’t posted here about forensics for some time, and the pot is long overdue for a stir. This post was triggered by a recent piece in the NY Times – Fix the Flaws in Forensic Science – see that NY Times story here. The Times story was in turn triggered by the recent “announcement”  (admission) by the FBI that FBI agents had been giving scientifically unsupportable testimony regarding microscopic hair comparison in thousands of cases for decades......... Because of a belief and fear that much of forensics was flawed, the NAS Report (National Academy of Sciences), Forensic Science in the United States, A Path Forward, was commissioned by Congress in Fall of 2005. The report was published in 2009. The report issued a scathing condemnation of the current state of forensic “science.” It was, of course met, with a firestorm of resistance from the forensic and prosecutorial communities. Regardless, the US Department of Justice and the National Institute of Standards and Technology announced the joint creation of a National Commission of Forensic Science (NCFS) in 2013 – see previous WCB posts here, and here. The NCFS did not hold its first meeting until February, 2014. The Commission released its first nine drafts of policy statements for public comment in October, 2014. In January, 2015, it officially adopted three of those statements. The adopted policies are highlighted in the list below: While this has been going on, the sole federal judge on the commission, Jed Rakoff, resigned just last January in protest over the Justice Department’s position on an issue that would continue to favor prosecutors at the expense of full pretrial evidence exchange. There has since been an accommodation reached, but I suspect this is indicative of the Justice Department’s opposition to truly changing anything. This also causes me to wonder greatly about the objectivity of all the commission members. Keep in mind also, that the commission is only empowered to make policy recommendations. It has no powers of oversight or enforcement, and no way to administer the adoption of its recommendations. My reading of the “tea leaves” here is that the advocates for the Justice Department and the existing forensic community have successfully kept the commission mired in politics and committees. So … there you have it. Six years after the publication of the NAS Report, a federal commission with no powers has adopted three policy recommendations. In the meantime, the traditional forensic science community has been motoring along as if the NAS Report never happened. At the most recent American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting, there was an active session on forensic odontology (bite mark analysis); a discipline for which the NAS Report states there is absolutely no scientific basis.
Do you wonder why I ask, “Will they EVER fix forensics?”"

The entire post can be found at:

http://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2015/04/24/will-they-ever-fix-forensics/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 

Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.

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

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

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

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

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