Bulletin: Prediction of human behaviour: Can an algorithm predict human behavior faster and more reliably than humans? Centre of Criminology Library at the University of Toronto points to an MIT study which provides a solution to this thorny - but topical- conundrum.

"Max Kanter, a master’s student in computer science at MIT, and his advisor, Kalyan Veeramachaneni, a research scientist at MIT’s computer science and artificial intelligence laboratory, created the Data Science Machine to search for patterns and choose which variables are the most relevant. Their paper on the project results (pdf) will be presented at the IEEE Data Science and Advanced Analytics conference in Paris this week. It’s fairly common for machines to analyze data, but humans are typically required to choose which data points are relevant for analysis. In three competitions with human teams, a machine made more accurate predictions than 615 of 906 human teams. And while humans worked on their predictive algorithms for months, the machine took two to 12 hours to produce each of its competition entries."
http://crimbrary.blogspot.ca/2015/10/an-algorithm-can-predict-human-behavior.html

Bulletin: Ivan Henry: British Columbia; Retired detective William Harkema refuses to admit error in wrongful conviction: "During his week-long testimony at Henry’s B.C. Supreme Court trial seeking compensation for the 27 years he spent in prison, Harkema came across as bitter, refusing to even consider he might have made a horrendous mistake." Reporter Ian Mulgrew: Vancouver Sun.

STORY: "Retired detective refuses to admit error in wrongful conviction," by reporter Ian Mulgrew, published by the Vancouver Sun on November 3, 2015.

SUB-HEADING:  "Ivan Henry was wrongfully convicted of sexual assault in 1983. He is suing prosecutors for allegedly breaching his Charter rights after he was acquitted in 2010 of 10 sexual-assault convictions."

GIST: "Time doesn’t always heal. Sometimes it hardens. It appears to have ossified retired Vancouver police detective William Harkema.The 72-year-old, who made key investigative decisions that led to the wrongful conviction of Ivan Henry for a series of 1980s sex assaults, may have turned to stone. During his week-long testimony at Henry’s B.C. Supreme Court trial seeking compensation for the 27 years he spent in prison, Harkema came across as bitter, refusing to even consider he might have made a horrendous mistake. Racked by health problems and sitting outside the witness box to accommodate his discomforts, Harkema took refuge in a spotty memory, or simply denied any responsibility for Henry’s ordeal. He bristled at being labelled the lead investigator, although he received a commendation for being “the task force coordinator and responsible for preparing the (Henry) case for court.” While his superiors praised his devotion, “the backbone of the investigation,” Harkema sourly maintained “that wasn’t my opinion, it was their opinion.” He chafed at the suggestion he should have pointed out the discrepancies in the identification of Henry and other problems with the case.........The trial continues."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/mulgrew+retired+detective+refuses+admit+error+wrongful/11490289/story.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;

Helen Stacey: (UK): (Neuropathologist Dr. Waney Squier); Court of Appeal quashes murder conviction for shaking a six-month-old boy to death because of "additional medical evidence" from neuropathologist Dr. Waney Squier, "who told the appeal judges that since the trial new research had changed the concept of how these injuries could occur and the amount of violence needed. She said she was also concerned that the length of time between the injury occurring and the onset of serious symptoms could be as long as 24 hours."

STORY: "Baby death childminder has sentence cut," published by the Daily Mail on November 3, 2015.

GIST: Former prostitute Helen Stacey today had her murder conviction for shaking a six-month-old boy to death quashed. The Court of Appeal substituted a conviction for manslaughter and reduced her life sentence to seven years, meaning the registered childminder will serve around another year in jail. Stacey, 44, who denied murder, was convicted by a jury at Norwich Crown Court in 1998 which was told that Joseph Mackin was shaken by Stacey in a fit of temper and died from a serious brain injury. Joseph's parents, Anthony and Corinne Mackin, of North Walsham, Norfolk, dropped off their son at the home of 44-year-old Stacey, who had convictions for soliciting and shoplifting, at 7am. He was found "floppy like a rag doll" at 5.15pm and died the same day in 1997.
Lord Justice Kennedy, giving his ruling today after the appeal hearing last week, said the conviction for killing was "quite safe" on the evidence but he was concerned whether the jury was entitled to find that Stacey had intended to do really serious harm to the child.........Lord Justice Kennedy, sitting with Mr Justice Potts and Mrs Justice Hallett, added: "Even allowing for the jury's obvious advantage in seeing the appellant give evidence, we have been unable to discern anything which in our judgment would have made it safe for the jury to convict this appellant of the more serious charge." He said the less serious charge of manslaughter was the only safe verdict. "If the jury had had the advantage of hearing additional medical evidence that we have heard, they might have come to the same conclusion," he said. The evidence came from Dr Waney Squier, a consultant neuropathologist, who told the appeal judges that since the trial new research had changed the concept of how these injuries could occur and the amount of violence needed. She said she was also concerned that the length of time between the injury occurring and the onset of serious symptoms could be as long as 24 hours."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-63593/Baby-death-childminder-sentence-cut.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: Jeffrey Havard; Mississippi death row case attracting increasing international attention through a letter writing campaign, reports Bruce Fischer on 'Ground Report'; "Multiple experts have now reviewed Havard’s case and their findings all support Havard. In fact, there are now five experts that refute the prosecution’s case. Dr. Stephen Hayne, the State’s only expert to testify at trial, has gone on record declaring that the State got it wrong. There are currently no experts who support the State’s theory of the accused crime. The defense learned in January of 2014, 12 years after the conviction, that Hayne had looked at tissue sections under a microscope and found definitively that there was no evidence of sexual assault. In a case where suspicion of sexual assault only arose when ER doctors and nurses noticed what they believed to be physical evidence of sexual abuse. Hayne’s microscopic findings were clearly exculpatory, and would have positively shown that the doctors and nurses had simply misinterpreted what they saw. Hayne has now stated that he told the State before trial that he saw no sign of a sexual assault. The state withheld this evidence from the defense and also failed to tell the doctors and nurses who testified."

"The Jeff Havard case in Mississippi is attracting more international attention. Havard has seen support coming from a growing list of countries in recent years, including (but not limited to) Australia, Canada, Italy, New Zealand, and the UK. He can now add France to the list. French anti-death penalty advocate, Louis Richard, has taken great interest in Havard’s case and is leading a call to action. Havard has served nearly thirteen years on death row in Mississippi for the sexual assault and murder of his girlfriend’s six-month-old daughter, Chloe Britt. Havard has strongly proclaimed his innocence from the time of his arrest, and his supporters will tell you that he was wrongfully convicted for a crime that never happened. Havard has stated from the beginning that the infant slipped from his arms while lifting her from the tub, causing her head to hit the bowl of the nearby toilet. The infant’s death was an accident, not the heinous crime the State claims it to be. Richard reviewed the evidence of the case, concluding that Havard is innocent. He has now set out to deliver a message of support through social media, encouraging people to write letters on Havard’s behalf. Supporters in the US are thrilled to see Richard’s efforts and are hoping his involvement will encourage more people worldwide to speak out in support of Havard’s innocence. Havard’s supporters believe that anyone who reads the facts of his case will conclude that he should be granted a new trial. They are confident that new expert evidence has clearly established that a sexual assault never occurred and that the injuries to the infant resembled that of a short fall. Multiple experts have now reviewed Havard’s case and their findings all support Havard. In fact, there are now five experts that refute the prosecution’s case. Dr. Stephen Hayne, the State’s only expert to testify at trial, has gone on record declaring that the State got it wrong. There are currently no experts who support the State’s theory of the accused crime. The defense learned in January of 2014, 12 years after the conviction, that Hayne had looked at tissue sections under a microscope and found definitively that there was no evidence of sexual assault. In a case where suspicion of sexual assault only arose when ER doctors and nurses noticed what they believed to be physical evidence of sexual abuse. Hayne’s microscopic findings were clearly exculpatory, and would have positively shown that the doctors and nurses had simply misinterpreted what they saw. Hayne has now stated that he told the State before trial that he saw no sign of a sexual assault. The state withheld this evidence from the defense and also failed to tell the doctors and nurses who testified. The State of Mississippi chose to ignore their expert’s findings, and pushed forward to prosecute Jeff Havard for murder during the course of a sexual assault. As a result, an innocent man now sits on death row for a crime that never took place. Chloe Britt’s death was tragic, but it was not a murder. In April of this year, the Mississippi Supreme Court finally granted Havard permission  to request an evidentiary hearing based on new evidence. This is good news for Havard and his supporters, and may very well be the reason why the case is now catching the attention of advocates like Louis Richard. Here is the letter campaign being promoted by Louis Richard on Facebook: (View Louis Richard’s original post here)........."
http://www.groundreport.com/the-jeff-havard-death-penalty-case-attracts-international-support-with-letter-campaign/

Prediction of crimes: (Predictive crime analytics (PCA); Hitachi announces that it can predict crimes before they happen. "Of course, no one has found a trio of psychic mutant "precogs" who can unanimously foresee future crimes, but Hitachi today (October 28, 2015) introduced a system that promises to predict where and when crime is likely to occur by ingesting a panoply of data, from historical crime statistics to public transit maps, from weather reports to social media chatter. Hitachi says that "about half a dozen" U.S. cities will join a proof of concept test of the technology beginning in October, and though Hitachi hasn't yet named them, Washington, D.C. could well be on the list. It's one of several dozen cities in the U.S. and Caribbean countries where the company already provides video surveillance and sensor systems to police departments with its Hitachi Visualization Suite."

EDITOR'S NOTE: I checked today's date after reading  this story and wondering if it was supposed to be published on April Fool's Day. Well, it certainly isn't April the first, so we may as well dig in, (skeptically as always),  discover whether the promised technology will in fact deliver what Hitachi promises,  and follow developments closely. It should  be interesting!

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

STORY: "Hitachi Says It Can Predict Crimes Before They Happen," by reporter Sean Captain published  by Elasticity on October 28,  2015.

SUB-HEADING: "Not quite Minority Report, but monitoring everything from weather to Twitter may be able to predict where and when crime will occur."

SUB-HEADING: "No doubt the precogs have already seen this," says Chief John Anderton (played by Tom Cruise), head of Washington, D.C.'s experimental "Precrime" crime-prediction department in Minority Report, the 2002 Steven Spielberg movie based on Philip K. Dick's 1956 short story (which is also now a new Fox TV series)."

GIST:  "Of course, no one has found a trio of psychic mutant "precogs" who can unanimously foresee future crimes, but Hitachi today introduced a system that promises to predict where and when crime is likely to occur by ingesting a panoply of data, from historical crime statistics to public transit maps, from weather reports to social media chatter. Hitachi says that "about half a dozen" U.S. cities will join a proof of concept test of the technology beginning in October, and though Hitachi hasn't yet named them, Washington, D.C. could well be on the list. It's one of several dozen cities in the U.S. and Caribbean countries where the company already provides video surveillance and sensor systems to police departments with its Hitachi Visualization Suite. Hitachi execs provided several examples—even screenshots of the software—featuring D.C. in my conversations with them.........What the new technology, called Hitachi Visualization Predictive Crime Analytics (PCA), does have is the ability to ingest streams of sensor and Internet data from a wide variety of sources.
It then applies what's called machine learning, using the popular statistical software known as "R," that crunches all this information in order to find patterns that humans would miss. "A human just can't handle when you get to the tens or hundreds of variables that could impact crime," says Lipscomb, "like weather, social media, proximity to schools, Metro [subway] stations, gunshot sensors, 911 calls.".........Machine learning is the hot new phase of artificial intelligence. Rather than trying to design a beautiful electronic mind, computer scientists are now building huge distributed computing systems that learn by sifting through fire hoses of data and ascertaining patterns or anomalies. This has become practical only recently with the development of big, cheap data storage and processing capabilities, like Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, and Hitachi's own HDS cloud system–all of which Hitachi's PCA can run on...... Applying machine learning is a big switch from traditional police dispatching, say both Lipscomb and Mark Jules, his cofounder at Avrio and Panatscene. (Both are now execs in Hitachi's Public Safety and Visualization division.) Hitachi isn't the only company to provide public safety monitoring and prediction services. Where it claims to be unique is in its use of machine learning, in allowing the data to drive the predictions rather than going in with any preconceived notions of what factors are important. Traditionally, says Jules, police investigators build crime-prediction models based on their experience with certain variables, like the location of schools or slang words for drugs that pop up on Twitter. They assign a weight to each variable based on how important it seems to be. Hitachi's system, he says, doesn't require a human to figure out what variables matter and how much. "You just feed those data sets," says Jules. "And it decides, over a couple of weeks, is there a correlation." Social media plays a big role in predicting crime, they say, improving accuracy by 15%. Hitachi uses natural language processing: the ability of a computer to ingest and understand colloquial text or speech. Applying what's called a latent Dirichlet allocation, the system can sift through every tweet tagged to a specific geography to find significant words that indicate what's happening. "Gangs, for instance, use these different keywords to maybe meet up or perform some action," says Lipscomb. "I don't know what that keyword is…but with our approach we can actually pick out something that's abnormal, like someone's using an off-topic word, and using it in a very tight density or proximity, and that's going to get a bigger weight." One thing social media indicates is tension between neighborhoods that could turn violent. "We were talking to [Washington] D.C., and they said, our biggest cause and effect is what neighborhood you're closest to," says Lipscomb. "There's these neighborhood rivalries going on in D.C." Normally, said his colleague Jules, police wouldn't realize the correlation between neighborhood tension flare-ups and crime until months later..........Big Brother, Or Actually Less Discrimination?
Anyone who has seen or read Minority Report knows (spoiler alert!) that things go awry. What if Hitachi's Visualization Predictive Crime Analytics makes mistakes and guesses wrong? No one is talking about preemptively arresting people, as in the story. But could this lead to a new kind of biased profiling of innocents as potential criminals? .........That still leaves open the question of accuracy: Will the technology really target the right places, where crime is likely to occur? Lipscomb acknowledges that he still has to prove the system will work. In the upcoming tech trials, some cities will be taking action based on the predictions, reallocating police to areas when the model predicts a higher likelihood of crime. There will also be double-blind trials. Police departments will continue with business as usual, but the models will also be running in the background. Only after the test period will the police see what the model had predicted each day, so they can compare the predictions to what actually happened in the time frame. Hitachi has pledged to make all these results publicly available for scrutiny. "We know that our approach is probably a little more innovative than some of the others, but we're not saying it's more accurate," Lipscomb says. "We want to prove it out with existing customers and then really go broad-based and say: Look, this works."

The entire story can be found at:
http://www.fastcompany.com/3051578/elasticity/hitachi-says-it-can-predict-crimes-before-they-happen

 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: Discredited bite-mark testimony: The Statesman examines the difficult task of tracking down cases involving Texans convicted of crimes based on outdated dental analysis that scientists now say is nonsense. Reporters Brandi Grissom and Jennifer Emily: "No one knows just how many more Steven Chaneys are sitting in Texas prisons — men and women convicted of crimes based on outdated dental analysis that scientists now say is nonsense."

"No one knows just how many more Steven Chaneys are sitting in Texas prisons — men and women convicted of crimes based on outdated dental analysis that scientists now say is nonsense. In some ways, Chaney was one of the lucky ones. He was released from prison two weeks ago after a Dallas County district judge agreed his murder conviction and life sentence in a 1987 double homicide were based on unreliable scientific conclusions about his teeth. He got a shot at freedom because defense lawyers and the Dallas County Conviction Integrity Unit identified his case and set about investigating the bite-mark evidence that had secured his conviction. The Dallas Morning News reports tracking down dozens — maybe hundreds — of other potentially innocent victims of junk science won’t be nearly as easy. There is no central repository of cases in which bite-mark testimony was key. There’s no database of dentists who testified about bite marks. And the cases are mostly decades old, and experts, defense lawyers and prosecutors have moved on or died.........The Associated Press reported in 2013 that at least 24 people had been exonerated in cases in which bite-mark evidence played a central role in the conviction. And even the American Board of Forensic Odontologists, the body that certifies dentists who analyze bite marks, has decided the evidence can’t be used to draw strong conclusions, such as in Chaney’s trial. “People had made statements about the validity of bite marks that were greatly exaggerated,” said Dr. Adam Freeman, a forensic odontologist and the incoming American Board of Forensic Odontologists president.  Chris Fabricant, director of strategic litigation at the New York-based Innocence Project, pointed to a study the forensic odontologists board conducted last year that concluded many of the dentists in the group couldn’t even identify which injuries were bite marks. “There is no basic or applied research that supports any claims that bite-mark experts routinely make,” Fabricant said. “It has no business in criminal court, period.”
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional/convictions-based-on-bite-marks-scrutinized-in-tex/npCkY/

See list of known Texas bite-mark cases (Set out in Innocence Project letter)
https://csidds.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/innocence-project-retroactive-case-identification-letter-1.pdf

Eric Morgan: Ontario; No misconduct charges for 'aggressive and abusive' Peel police interview tactics; OIPRD (Office of the Independent Police Review Director) found insufficient evidence to charge officers following a complaint by Eric Morgan, who spent three years in jail awaiting a murder trial. "In one case, (Judge Fletcher) Dawson said one witness was “psychologically broken down” after an eight-hour “relentless onslaught” by Peel police. Under repeated threat of being charged with crime if he did not change his account, the witness recanted testimony that supported Morgan’s innocence, a story change Dawson called “the direct result of threatening and oppressive police conduct.” In another interview, a detective used “leading and suggestive” tactics that demonstrated he “had an agenda,” Dawson said. But an investigation by the OIPRD — which included interviews with the officers, their superiors and some witnesses, as well as reviews of videos depicting the witness interviews in question — found the “tactics used to pressure the various witnesses were consistent with their training,” according to the investigative report."..."The forceful questioning employed by Peel officers is sometimes referred to as the Reid technique of police interrogation, a controversial interview tactic typically used on suspects to assess guilt or produce confessions, not on witnesses providing information." Toronto Star;

STORY: "No misconduct charges for 'aggressive and abusive' Peel police interview tactics," by reporter Wendy Gillis, published by the Toronto Star on October 28, 2015.

SUB-HEADING: "OIPRD found insufficient evidence to charge officers following a complaint by Eric Morgan, who spent three years in jail awaiting a murder trial."

PHOTO CAPTION;  "Eric Morgan filed a complaint to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director after spending three years behind bars in a case that was ultimately thrown out."

GIST:  The province’s police watchdog has found insufficient evidence of misconduct by the Peel Regional Police detectives who employed what an Ontario Superior court judge called “aggressive and abusive” tactics and “leading” questioning to obtain evidence in a murder case. The Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) will not charge any of the Peel detectives involved in the case of Eric Morgan, the Brampton man acquitted of second-degree murder in the death of Mervyn Spence after two murder trials and more than three years in jail while his case was before the court. Superior Court Justice Fletcher Dawson, who presided over Morgan’s retrial in November 2013, highlighted what he viewed as problematic police actions used during interviews with key witnesses, including “improper threats and overly aggressive and abusive tactics.” In one case, Dawson said one witness was “psychologically broken down” after an eight-hour “relentless onslaught” by Peel police. Under repeated threat of being charged with crime if he did not change his account, the witness recanted testimony that supported Morgan’s innocence, a story change Dawson called “the direct result of threatening and oppressive police conduct.” In another interview, a detective used “leading and suggestive” tactics that demonstrated he “had an agenda,” Dawson said. But an investigation by the OIPRD — which included interviews with the officers, their superiors and some witnesses, as well as reviews of videos depicting the witness interviews in question — found the “tactics used to pressure the various witnesses were consistent with their training,” according to the investigative report. “Each (officer) had extensive training and experience in interviewing,” reads the report. The OIPRD report emphasizes the challenges Peel police faced while they investigated Spence’s shooting death, including a total lack of forensic evidence and difficulties convincing witnesses to talk.........The forceful questioning employed by Peel officers is sometimes referred to as the Reid technique of police interrogation, a controversial interview tactic typically used on suspects to assess guilt or produce confessions, not on witnesses providing information. The OIPRD investigation found only one of the officers connected to the case had any training in the Reid technique, and that officer’s involvement was limited to one interview that Dawson said was conducted in a fair manner. Morgan filed a $25-million lawsuit against the Peel Police Services Board, the former police chief and five police officers, including Peel Det. Thomas Doherty, who led the investigation. No statement of defence in the case has yet been filed, according to Morgan’s lawyers. Spence was gunned down on Nov. 4, 2006, outside Malibu Marie’s nightclub in Brampton, after attending a party thrown by Morgan to celebrate his own 39th birthday. More than three years later, Morgan was arrested and charged with the second-degree murder of Spence, who was a casual acquaintance. The charge was based on two witness interviews; no physical evidence linked him to the crime and no motive was ever provided by the Crown. Morgan’s first trial, before Justice Nancy Mossip, resulted in a hung jury after one of the witnesses recanted her identification of Morgan as the murderer. That witness had named Morgan as the shooter during one of the interviews Dawson later found to be problematic. But the OIPRD investigators gave significant weight to the fact that Mossip didn’t raise any concerns about the police tactics in the case. “One judge ruled that the methods were proper and a second judge disagreed,” the OIPRD report states. The officers said they were employing the Reid technique during the interviews......... Morgan filed a $25-million lawsuit against the Peel Police Services Board, the former police chief and five police officers, including Peel Det. Thomas Doherty, who led the investigation. No statement of defence in the case has yet been filed, according to Morgan’s lawyers. Spence was gunned down on Nov. 4, 2006, outside Malibu Marie’s nightclub in Brampton, after attending a party thrown by Morgan to celebrate his own 39th birthday. More than three years later, Morgan was arrested and charged with the second-degree murder of Spence, who was a casual acquaintance. The charge was based on two witness interviews; no physical evidence linked him to the crime and no motive was ever provided by the Crown. Morgan’s first trial, before Justice Nancy Mossip, resulted in a hung jury after one of the witnesses recanted her identification of Morgan as the murderer. That witness had named Morgan as the shooter during one of the interviews Dawson later found to be problematic. But the OIPRD investigators gave significant weight to the fact that Mossip didn’t raise any concerns about the police tactics in the case. “One judge ruled that the methods were proper and a second judge disagreed,” the OIPRD report states. David Shulman, one of Morgan’s lawyers, said the two differing views do not cancel each other out, because Mossip did not view all of the video of Peel’s interviews. Dawson, the second judge, did view the videos of Peel’s witness interviews in question, and twice noted that the interviews needed to be watched to fully appreciate the police tactics used and the pressure witnesses were under. “The transcript alone is inadequate,” Dawson said. Morgan, now living in Brampton, is deeply disappointed by the OIPRD decision. “I don’t know what other evidence they needed. It’s so clear,” he said."......... “I fought for my freedom, and after I got out I wanted to keep fighting. So regardless of the (OIPRD) director’s decision, I am continuing with my civil suit,” Morgan said. “I’m not going to let this tear me apart.”

The entire story can be found at: 

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/10/28/no-misconduct-charges-for-aggressive-and-abusive-peel-police-interview-tactics.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;