Saturday, August 5, 2017

Warren Abbey: Ontario: Expertese on gang culture: Toronto Star reports that a third trial has been ordered in 'teardrop tatoo murder case.'...Reporter Jacques Gallant...Expert witness’s testimony about gang members with teardrop tattoos contained ‘inaccuracies’ and even ‘falsehoods,’ court rules.'..."In a rare move, Ontario’s top court has ordered a third trial in the same first-degree murder case, lambasting the Crown’s key evidence: an expert witness whose testimony about gang members with teardrop tattoos contained “inaccuracies” and even “falsehoods.”


PUBLISHER' NOTE:  "The Toronto Star story by Legal Affairs Reporter Jacques Gallant,  succinctly reports, "In a rare move, Ontario’s top court has ordered a third trial in the same first-degree murder case, lambasting the Crown’s key evidence: an expert witness whose testimony about gang members with teardrop tattoos contained “inaccuracies” and even “falsehoods.” The Jennings case  puts the focus on expert witnesses who claim to have an expertise in gangs and their members.  The type of evidence has become more and more common as jurisdictions make membership in a gang a crime punishable by substantial sentences. As Gallant reports: "In a decision released Friday, the Ontario Court of Appeal largely sided with Abbey’s lawyers and found Totten’s evidence “unreliable,” that he “misrepresented” the sample size of gang members in some of his studies, and that statistics he provided on the stand about gang members with teardrop tattoos are nowhere to be found in his studies. The court also stated there is a “legitimate concern that Totten’s interview summaries are fabrications” in two of his studies, which contain the same quotes from three participants. Totten had denied in a different court case that he used the same gang members in more than one study. “I have concluded that the fresh evidence shows Totten’s opinion evidence on the meaning of a teardrop tattoo to be too unreliable to be heard by a jury. If the trial judge had known about the fresh evidence he would have ruled Totten’s evidence inadmissible,” Court of Appeal Justice John Laskin wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel. “And the absence of Totten’s evidence would reasonably be expected to have affected the jury’s verdict. I would admit the fresh evidence, allow Abbey’s appeal, overturn his conviction and order a new trial.”Abbey has been in prison since his conviction at his second trial in 2011. He will be applying for release pending a retrial, his lawyers told the Star on Friday. “We are gratified that the court found, as we had argued, that this Crown witness’s evidence was unreliable and dangerous,” said David E. Harris and Ravin Pillay in an emailed statement. “This is another example of how expert evidence can mislead a jury and contribute to an unsafe conviction.”..........The Court of Appeal had harsh words for the position of the Crown in the appeal, given the fact that the “fresh evidence” — the issues with Totten’s research — was brought to the forefront under cross-examination by Crown attorney Mary Misener (now a judge) in a separate case, R v. Gager, where that time it was the defence trying to have Totten admitted as an expert. The cross-examination took place during a hearing known as a voir dire, to determine if Totten should be qualified as an expert witness for the trial. “Totten was the Crown’s witness, a key witness for the Crown (at the Abbey trial). Yet in Gager the Crown sought to impeach Totten’s credibility and the reliability of his evidence on several matters that were relevant to his opinion in this trial,” Laskin wrote. “And then on this appeal the Crown made no attempt to contest the deficiencies, inaccuracies, and even falsehoods in Totten’s trial testimony, as demonstrated by the fresh evidence. “The Crown is not an ordinary litigant. Its role is not to obtain a conviction, but to try to ensure a fair process and a just result. The Crown has impeached Totten, its own key witness, albeit in another proceeding, and yet by its silence in this proceeding must be taken not to have challenged the many serious problems in Totten’s trial testimony shown by the fresh evidence.”





The entire story can be found at:
https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2017/08/04/ontarios-top-court-orders-third-trial-in-teardrop-tattoo-murder-case.html

The entire Ontario Court of Appeal decision - with publication ban - can be found at the link below;
 http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2017/2017ONCA0640.htm

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

Daniel Holtzclaw: Oklahoma; Bombshell report: The Conservative Review: Bombshell Report: "Holtzclaw conviction should be overturned."..." A new report by a panel of internationally renowned DNA experts raises questions about the DNA evidence used to convict former Oklahoma City Police Officer Daniel Holtzclaw, casting doubts on the fairness of Holtzclaw’s trial and the justice of his conviction on multiple counts of sexual violence. The report, authored by world-renowned DNA expert Dr. Peter Gill and five other forensic science experts, states that DNA evidence was misused at Mr. Holtzclaw’s trial, noting, “Miscarriages of justice based on misleading DNA evidence are fundamentally unfair and harmful to the entire judicial system.”


STORY: "Bombshell report: Holtzclaw conviction should be overturned," by reporter Chris Pandolfo, published by The Conservative review on August 2, 2017. (Chris Pandolfo is a staff writer for Conservative Review.) Thanks to Dr. Mike  Bowers for bringing this story to our attention on  his Blog (CSI DDS) - Forensics in Focus. HL);

GIST:  "A new report by a panel of  internationally renowned DNA experts raises questions about the DNA evidence used to convict former Oklahoma City Police Officer Daniel Holtzclaw, casting doubts on the fairness of Holtzclaw’s trial and the justice of his conviction on multiple counts of sexual violence. The report, authored by world-renowned DNA expert Dr. Peter Gill and five other forensic science experts, states that DNA evidence was misused at Mr. Holtzclaw’s trial, noting, “Miscarriages of justice based on misleading DNA evidence are fundamentally unfair and harmful to the entire judicial system.” “The misuse of DNA evidence in Mr. Holtzclaw’s trial – and the failure of defense counsel to challenge it – went to the heart of the case and deprived Mr. Holtzclaw of a fair trial,” the report states. “We are concerned that forensic science mistakes were made during collection, analysis, and testimony about the DNA evidence from the fly of Mr. Holtzclaw’s uniform pants, with prosecutorial misconduct violating Mr. Holtzclaw’s rights to due process. Trial defense counsel did not effectively reveal or address these errors, in violation of the Sixth Amendment requirement for effective counsel, causing the DNA evidence to be extremely prejudicial even though it had little probative value because it could be explained by non-intimate DNA indirect transfer.” In 2015, Daniel Holtzclaw was convicted of 18 sexual offenses against eight different accusers. The racially charged case drew national attention and outrage, but some including CRTV host Michelle Malkin have questioned the conduct of the investigation and found serious flaws that suggest Holtzclaw’s conviction may have been a mistake. Reviewing the evidence, the forensic scientists who authored the report argue that the key pieces of DNA evidence used to convict Holtzclaw are not necessarily incriminating. “The forensic evidence consisting of DNA matching the profile of Ms. C1 along with DNA from unknown individuals was prejudicial because the location on the fly of Mr. Holtzclaw’s uniform pants appeared incriminating,” the report states. “However, it had little probative value because the complainant’s DNA profile was found without any visible stains or deposits, without any body fluid testing, and with low quantities of DNA in mixtures from unknown people, such that it can be explained by non-intimate transfer of skin cell DNA from Ms. C1, her clothes, or her possessions to Mr. Holtzclaw’s hands when he searched her purse and pat-searched her, and then from his hands to the fly of his uniform pants during a restroom break.” The panel also concluded that the State of Oklahoma mishandled the evidence. “The low probative value of the DNA in Mr. Holtzclaw’s case was reduced further because the State omitted important steps during collection and testing of the uniform pants. The State did not conduct tests to distinguish between transfer of DNA with body fluid or without. The State also did not consider that DNA may have transferred innocently either before or after the alleged crime, including by contamination. … As a result, investigators did not take crucial steps to prevent DNA contamination of the fly of the uniform pants due to DNA indirect transfer.” The report states that “numerous studies” exist showing DNA can be transferred from one individual to another indirectly, without the alleged contact between Holtzclaw and these women. For example, one study cited found that a woman’s DNA can travel from her face to a man’s hands, from his hands to his pants, then his underwear, and finally his private parts without any sexual contact whatsoever. Yet Holtzclaw’s defense attorney did not bring these studies to the jury’s attention, despite the fact that the evidence gathered against Holtzclaw was consistent with “non-intimate DNA transfer” and “typical of indirect transfer.” Further, the state omitted “critical forensic science steps” while collecting evidence, including failing to collect DNA from underwear and penile swabs; conducting no tests for body fluids; neglecting to investigate the source of unknown female and male DNA that could support the non-intimate DNA indirect transfer hypothesis; and failing to ensure that the State’s handling of the evidence avoided contamination that “may have transferred DNA from Ms. C1 and others to the fly of the uniform pants.” The report identifies no fewer than five ways the evidence could have been contaminated. The issue here, as presented by this report, is that there is reasonable doubt that the DNA evidence used to convict Holtzclaw shows criminal activity. Research cited by the panel notes that jurors tend to place a very high value on DNA evidence “as the most accurate and persuasive evidence of a suspect’s guilt.” Given that the DNA evidence brought forward was likely the weightiest factor in Holtzclaw’s conviction, the forensic panel concludes that Holtzclaw’s conviction was unjust and should be overturned. “We believe that Mr. Holtzclaw was deprived of his due process right to a fair trial because the State misused DNA evidence – a powerful form of forensic evidence – and trial defense counsel did not correct crucial forensic science misrepresentations and omissions, such that the DNA evidence at the heart of the trial and lacking probative value was extremely prejudicial, corrupting the investigation of Mr. Holtzclaw and impacting the verdict. We believe that Mr. Holtzclaw’s conviction should be overturned and he should be given a new trial. DATED this 25th day of July, 2017.” Michelle Malkin brought attention to the report in a series of tweets sent Wednesday, following her own extensive investigation into the Holtzcalw case. Holtzclaw is currently serving out a 263-year prison sentence. The findings of this forensic panel demand attention. The panel’s conclusion that Holtzclaw’s conviction should be overturned ought to be on the front pages of every mainstream news outlet in America. Clearly, this case needs to be revisited. Daniel Holtzclaw may be innocent. Daniel Holtzclaw’s criminal appeal is ongoing, and the case has become the subject of several civil rights suits."

The entire story can be found at:

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/bomshell-report-holtzclaw-conviction-should-be-overturned

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

Friday, August 4, 2017

Ragesh and Nupur Talwar: India; Appeal court has reserved its decision on their appeal of their conviction November 2013 in the double murder case of their 14-year-old daughter Aarushi and their house help Hemraj - but wants the Central Bureau of Investigation to clarify contradictions in the agencys reports..."The court also directed CBI counsel Anurag Khanna to apprise it on the Internet router, which was open during the night of murder of Aarushi and Hemraj and fixed August 31 for further hearing."

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/noida/aarushi-case-reports-explain-contradictions-court-tells-cbi/articleshow/59872084.cms

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

Thursday, August 3, 2017

Barton McNeil; Illinois; With new legal team, convicted killer no longer wants 'death by prison - instead, backed by the Illinois Innocence Project, he is pursuing potential new evidence that he hopes will exonerate him and reopen the investigation into the 1998 suffocation death of his daughter, Christina McNeil...."The new evidence includes the opinion of a defense expert who challenges the conclusion of former McLean County pathologist Dr. Violette Hnilica that Christina was sexually abused before her death. Authorities considered the molestation a motive for the killing. A hair detected through new DNA tests on a pillow case from the child's bed links Nowlin to the crime scene, contends McNeil's team, and is expected to be part of a post-conviction petition — the next step in McNeil's exoneration effort. McNeil contends that the bed linens had been freshly laundered and Nowlin had not been at the apartment for several days. Illinois Innocence Project lawyer John Hanlon said McNeil's legal team now includes three Chicago lawyers who will assist with the complex case that involves extensive review of the conviction and possible implication of another suspect."


STORY: "With new legal team, convicted killer no longer wants 'death by prison,' by reporter Edith Brady-Lunny, published by Pantagraph on July 30, 2017.

GIST: "A dozen years into a 100-year sentence for killing his daughter, Bart McNeil had lost contact with the world and given up any hope that his conviction would be reversed, despite his repeated claims that police ignored evidence pointing to another suspect — his former girlfriend, Misook Nowlin, who was later convicted of murdering her mother-in-law. “At the time, my life was at a low point. I hadn’t had a single visit from anyone in seven years and hadn’t made a phone call in over a year. All I had to look forward to was a hopefully early completion of my sentence of death by prison,” McNeil said in an interview with The Pantagraph. But now represented by the Illinois Innocence Project, McNeil is encouraged that an expanded team of lawyers is working on potential new evidence that he hopes will exonerate him and reopen the investigation into the 1998 suffocation death of his daughter, Christina McNeil. The new evidence includes the opinion of a defense expert who challenges the conclusion of former McLean County pathologist Dr. Violette Hnilica that Christina was sexually abused before her death. Authorities considered the molestation a motive for the killing. A hair detected through new DNA tests on a pillow case from the child's bed links Nowlin to the crime scene, contends McNeil's team, and is expected to be part of a post-conviction petition — the next step in McNeil's exoneration effort.  McNeil contends that the bed linens had been freshly laundered and Nowlin had not been at the apartment for several days.  Illinois Innocence Project lawyer John Hanlon said McNeil's legal team now includes three Chicago lawyers who will assist with the complex case that involves extensive review of the conviction and possible implication of another suspect. "You can't have enough good minds and enough people to do all the work that's involved in cases that involve thousands of pages of documents," said Hanlon, noting the unique nature of McNeil's case has attracted inquiries from national media. "It's a very compelling story where the alternative suspect has already been convicted of an extremely similar murder. To this date, 19 years later, no trier of fact has ever heard the Misook defense," said Hanlon.........Shackled to a table in an interview room at Menard Correctional Center in southern Illinois, McNeil talked about the connections he thinks prosecutors and police failed to make during their investigation into his daughter's death, including looking at Nowlin as a suspect. Christina McNeil’s lifeless body was found in her bed by her father on June 16, 1998 after he went to wake her after an overnight visit to his apartment on North Evans Street in Bloomington. Authorities arrested McNeil the next day, following autopsy results that indicated the girl had been sexually abused. Hours later, McNeil contacted Bloomington police and insisted that detectives return to his home to examine evidence of a potential break-in, namely cuts to a window screen in his daughter’s bedroom. He also told police he believed his daughter was the victim of a homicide and identified a suspect during several interviews: “Misook Nowlin murdered my daughter. Go get her.” Police spoke with Nowlin, whose three-year relationship with McNeil had ended in a contentious break-up at a restaurant the night before the child’s death. But the focus stayed on McNeil.........By 2011, McNeil was ready to throw away thousands of documents he had accumulated in his prison cell when the charges accusing Nowlin of killing Linda Tyda sparked new interest in his case. Armed with a new tip from a Bloomington woman who claims she saw Nowlin in a storage closet outside Nowlin's apartment on Croxton Avenue around 3 a.m. the night Christina was killed, two Bloomington police detectives visited McNeil in prison. The information was not deemed important at the time of the child’s murder, the woman told police, because “all evidence seemed to point to Barton McNeil,” according to a police report. McNeil said he is disappointed that BPD did not reopen its investigation at that time. The BPD said last week that the case remains closed. But McNeil gained an important new ally — his cousin Chris Ross with whom he had not spoken to in two decades. The Illinois Innocence Project in Springfield agreed to take McNeil’s case after reviewing records compiled by Ross who also developed a website, freebart.org, to chronicle the murder case."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/crime-and-court /with-new-legal-team-convicted-killer-no-longer-wants-death/article_166b7a2c-b76a-5303-9cfd-e6683d31de1f.html

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

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Hassan Diab: Canada; Commentary: Professor Robert Currie calls upon Canada "to repatriate Hassan Diab and reform our unbalanced extradition law in case where an analysis by a French handwriting expert has been thoroughly debunked by other experts..."Of course, the practical difficulties of any accused person challenging the foreign state’s evidence are profound, and in its 2006 decision in United States of America v. Ferras, the Supreme Court of Canada realized that the approach under the Act was in danger of turning Canadian extradition judges into rubber stamps. It responded with an attempt at balance: the requesting state’s evidence should be presumed to be sufficient, unless the accused could show that the evidence was unavailable or “manifestly unreliable.” Case after case since then, however, has shown that the “manifestly unreliable” standard is a pipe dream — desirable, but practically unattainable. Diab’s own situation is the best example. France’s case was found by the extradition judge to rest on an analysis by a French handwriting expert that was thoroughly debunked by numerous other experts of international renown. Ontario Justice Robert Maranger famously opined that if Diab received a fair trial in France, the prospects of a conviction were “unlikely.” Yet the law required him to order committal for extradition. And so Hassan Diab sits in a French prison, no trial in sight."


COMMENTARY: "Repatriate Hassan Diab and reform our unbalanced extradition law," by Prof. Robert J. Currie, published by The Ottawa Citizen on July 27, 2017. (Robert J. Currie is a Professor of Law at the Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, where he teaches International Criminal Law.)

GIST: 'Canadians have recently become increasingly aware of the plight of Hassan Diab. Diab, a former Ottawa university professor, was extradited from Canada to France in 2014. He has since been held in custody without trial, on the basis of what can increasingly only be called trumped-up charges involving the bombing of a Paris synagogue in 1980. Recently, two prominent Canadian professionals, Bernie Farber and Mira Sucharov, published a piece in the Toronto Star in which they urged the government of Canada to put pressure on France to either try Diab or send him home. Both expressed their regret that they did not speak up earlier. I am one of a small number of Canadian legal academics with expertise in extradition law, and I have been following the Diab case since the beginning. I have mentioned it in my legal writing, spoken about it in public lectures and discussed it with lawyers on both sides. What I have not done up until now is express publicly a clear position. Reading Farber and Sucharov has moved me to do so, because I too feel that I should have spoken up sooner. The deplorable situation that Diab is experiencing in France — held without trial for years, in spite of numerous judicial decisions indicating he should be bailed or even released  has been well documented elsewhere, including by Amnesty International. However, what Canadians need to understand is that this situation is a direct, even logical, result of the current state of Canadian extradition law. Specifically, our law prevents individuals sought for extradition from making any meaningful challenge to a foreign state’s extradition request on the basis that the requesting state does not have sufficiently reliable evidence. This is because the federal Extradition Act requires judges to presume that the foreign state’s case is solid enough to sustain a prosecution, unless the contrary can be shown by the individual sought. Of course, the practical difficulties of any accused person challenging the foreign state’s evidence are profound, and in its 2006 decision in United States of America v. Ferras, the Supreme Court of Canada realized that the approach under the Act was in danger of turning Canadian extradition judges into rubber stamps. It responded with an attempt at balance: the requesting state’s evidence should be presumed to be sufficient, unless the accused could show that the evidence was unavailable or “manifestly unreliable.” Case after case since then, however, has shown that the “manifestly unreliable” standard is a pipe dream — desirable, but practically unattainable. Diab’s own situation is the best example. France’s case was found by the extradition judge to rest on an analysis by a French handwriting expert that was thoroughly debunked by numerous other experts of international renown. Ontario Justice Robert Maranger famously opined that if Diab received a fair trial in France, the prospects of a conviction were “unlikely.” Yet the law required him to order committal for extradition. And so Hassan Diab sits in a French prison, no trial in sight. Every challenge to his continued detention has been denied by a foreign legal system the Canadian government now seems — by its silence — too keen to accommodate.........If an extradition request cannot be turned aside on the basis of a case as weak as that against Hassan Diab, it is difficult to imagine one that will be.".........It is time for this to change. Hassan Diab should be repatriated and our extradition law should be reformed."

The entire commentary can be  found at:

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/currie-repatriate-hassan-diab-and-reform-our-unbalanced-extradition-law

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

Tonya Lucas: Maryland: Ongoing trial. (Arson 'science'): Major Development: Mistrial declared in retrial of woman accused in killing of 6 children in 1992 fire..."The University of Baltimore's Innocence Project took up the case in 2015, questioning the credibility of the fire investigation, and Lucas’ conviction was overturned in December 2015. Since the first trial, questions about fire science have raised doubt in numerous cases and led to dozens of arson exonerations across the country. “The state’s own arson expert concluded that the cause of this fire should have been declared undetermined,” Nethercott said Tuesday."


STORY: "Mistrial declared in retrial of woman accused in killing of 6 children in 1992 fire," by reporter Jessica Anderson, published by The Baltimore Sun,  on August 1, 2017.


GIST: "A judge declared a mistrial Tuesday in the case of a Baltimore woman accused of killing her six children in a house fire in 1992. Tonya Lucas, 54, was convicted by a jury in 1993 of six counts of first-degree felony murder and was serving six consecutive life terms. But on Tuesday, nine jurors voted to acquit Lucas, said her attorney, Michele Nethercott. “The result could have obviously been far worse. The majority of the jurors understand the weakness of the state’s evidence,” she said. Nethercott said her client is relieved. “She was prepared for the worst,” Nethercott said.A spokeswoman for the state’s attorney’s office would not say Tuesday whether the state plans to retry the case. During closing arguments last week, prosecutors sought to show jurors that Lucas intentionally set fire to her home in the 2400 block of E. Eager St. to receive rental assistance from the Red Cross. They also allege she set the fire to cover up her abuse of her 2-year-old son, Gregory Cook, who weighed just 10 pounds. But Nethercott said Tuesday that the state’s case was weak. She said in closing arguments that Lucas was receiving other government assistance to support her family, and did not need help from the Red Cross. She also reminded jurors that Lucas was not on trial for child abuse, even though prosecutors showed graphic pictures of Gregory’s body several times. Deliberations stretched on for more than a week, during which jurors occasionally asked questions of the court and wanted to see the transcripts of testimony from the state’s key witness, Eugene Weddington, who said he saw Lucas start the blaze. Nethercott said Weddington initially lied about how he got into Lucas’ house. Weddington testified that his explanation for being inside the house changed because he did not want his fiancee to know that he had been in the house seeking sex. He said Lucas had offered him oral sex for $10 worth of cocaine before she started the fire. But Weddington was adamant about his recollection of the events. “I know who I was with, I know what I seen,” he testified.  The University of Baltimore's Innocence Project took up the case in 2015, questioning the credibility of the fire investigation, and Lucas’ conviction was overturned in December 2015. Since the first trial, questions about fire science have raised doubt in numerous cases and led to dozens of arson exonerations across the country. “The state’s own arson expert concluded that the cause of this fire should have been declared undetermined,” Nethercott said Tuesday."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-tonya-lucas-mistrial-20170801-story.html

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Shaken baby syndrome: Critics fire back against a report submitted by a Swedish medical ethicist (Dr. Niels Lynøe) and his team which was critical of 'shaking' theory; ON SBS Blogger Sue Luttner wades in with a post headed; "'Shaken Baby Theory: Poking the hornet's nest."..."In an over-reaching answer to their many critics, the Lynøe team called for a more scientific approach to research in the arena: “We acknowledge the concerns expressed by all of the authors who responded with regard to child welfare and the possibility that the diagnoses may be delayed in individual cases of child abuse. However, we are very troubled by the disregard displayed by those authors to the significant methodological problems inherent in published research on shaken baby syndrome. With the exception of Ludvigsson, none of these authors expressed concern about the problems of circular reasoning, lack of comparison groups or the other methodological problems we identified in the systematic review. Where has all the critical thinking in research gone?"


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: In a previous post on her excellent Blog 'On SBS,' Swedish medical ethicist and his team submitted a report to the Swedish Government which was critical of Shaking theory. In this post 'Shaken Baby Theory: Poking the hornet's nest - Ms. Luttner describes the pointed reaction to this report: "In an email exchange last week, Dr. Lynøe wrote that his team knew the topic was controversial, but they were “rather surprised” at the vehemence of the criticisms. “I also think that there was something positive with the critical comments,” he added, “because we got the opportunity to explain and explore some aspects more."

POST: "Shaken Baby Theory: Poking the Hornet’s Nest" by Sue Luttner published  on her Blog "on SBS" on July 9, 2017.

GIST:  "The July issue of Acta Paediatrica offers a collection of free, live links to a volley of rebuttals published over the past four months to an article in March submitted by medical ethicist Dr. Niels Lynøe and most of the other experts who informed the 2016 Swedish report critical of shaking theory, commissioned by a government agency whose name is abbreviated SBU. In an email exchange last week, Dr. Lynøe wrote that his team knew the topic was controversial, but they were “rather surprised” at the vehemence of the criticisms. “I also think that there was something positive with the critical comments,” he added, “because we got the opportunity to explain and explore some aspects more.”.........In an over-reaching answer to their many critics, the Lynøe team called for a more scientific approach to research in the arena: “We acknowledge the concerns expressed by all of the authors who responded with regard to child welfare and the possibility that the diagnoses may be delayed in individual cases of child abuse. However, we are very troubled by the disregard displayed by those authors to the significant methodological problems inherent in published research on shaken baby syndrome. With the exception of Ludvigsson, none of these authors expressed concern about the problems of circular reasoning, lack of comparison groups or the other methodological problems we identified in the systematic review. Where has all the critical thinking in research gone?"

The entire post can be found at:
 https://onsbs.com/2017/07/09/shaken-baby-theory-poking-the-hornets-nest/

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