STORY: 'Shreveport man freed from death row files suit in hopes 'injustice never happens again', by reporter Karen Kidd, published by The Louisiana Record on December 5, 3017.
GIST: The lawsuit filed by former death row inmate Rodricus
Crawford is about more than justice for Crawford; it's about getting
Caddo Parish officials to change their death-penalty-dealing ways, one
of the now-freed man's attorneys said during a recent interview. "Rodricus seeks justice not only for himself and for all that he
lost, but also for people who might - God forbid - face similar
circumstances," Crawford's attorney David J. Utter, counsel with The
Claiborne Firm in Savannah, Georgia, said during a Louisiana Record
email interview. "This lawsuit provides parish and city officials do
the right thing by examining what went wrong in Rodricus’ case, and
instituting checks and balances to ensure such an injustice never
happens again. Rodricus Crawford's attorney David J. Utter of The Claiborne
Firm in Savannah, Georgia | Photo courtesy of David J. Utter. Those checks and balances were severely lacking when a Caddo
District Court jury handed down the capital punishment sentence the
following year against the Shreveport man in the 2012 death of his
1-year-old son Roderius "Bobo" Lott, according to Crawford's lawsuit. "Mr. Crawford was convicted and sentenced to death based upon false
evidence as a result of the failure of Defendants to conduct an
unbiased autopsy based on professional standards of practice, and to
properly train and supervise prosecutors in Caddo Parish," said the
lawsuit filed Nov. 16 in U.S. District Court for Louisiana's Western
District. "Because of the lack of training and supervision and adherence to
professional standards, the prosecution was illegally based upon both
race and religion, and a complete indifference to the evidence. In
addition, Mr. Crawford raises state law negligence and intentional
infliction of emotional distress claims; but for the reckless and
willful conduct of defendants, Mr. Crawford would not have been
prosecuted let alone convicted of capital murder." In his lawsuit filed on behalf of himself and his minor daughter,
Crawford claims he did not receive his constitutionally guaranteed right
to a fair trial. Named defendants in the case include Caddo Parish
Coroner's Office, Caddo Parish District Attorney's Office, Caddo Parish
District Attorney James Stewart, former Caddo Parish District Attorney
Dale Cox, Shreveport Fire Department and Coroner James Traylor. Crawford's lawsuit asks for a jury trial. The Caddo Parish District Attorney's office did not respond to a Louisiana Record request for comment. "Defendants knowingly participated in the investigation, arrest and
capital prosecution driven by Caddo Parish, Louisiana's well-known
history of racism and the arbitrary application of the death penalty,"
Crawford's lawsuit said. "But for Defendants’ actions, no prosecution
and conviction of Mr. Crawford would have occurred." Crawford was taken into custody after bruises and other injuries
were discovered on the child's body. Crawford reportedly told police his
son had fallen in the bathroom and Crawford consistently maintained
that he had never harmed his son. His attorneys also consistently maintained that the jury relied on
bad forensic science, and pointed to strong medical evidence that the
child was suffering from pneumonia and died of sepsis. "The conduct of the officials in this case, particularly the
coroner Dr. Traylor and the prosecutor, were particularly egregious,
outside the norm of a mistake or error," Utter said. "There was
intentional misconduct." By the time Crawford's conviction was overturned by the Louisiana Supreme Court
in November 2016, Caddo Parish juries were widely noted for having
sentenced five people to death in six years, 38 percent of the state's
total death sentences. The state's highest court ordered a new trial for Crawford after
finding serious issues with the case, including unconstitutional
exclusion of black jurors. Louisiana prosecutors dropped charges against Crawford this past April and he was freed soon after that. "As the result of Defendants' unconstitutional, negligent and
intentional acts, Mr. Crawford spent 4 years, 9 months, and 6 days
illegally in custody," Crawford's lawsuit said.
Utter credited Baton Rouge lawyer Cecilia Trenticosta Kappel, his
co-counsel in Crawford's lawsuit who is active with the Capital Appeals
Project and the Promise of Justice Initiative, for much of the work done
to exonerate Crawford. "Cecelia is the real hero amongst the lawyers on the case," Utter said. Crawford's lawsuit is necessary to get defendants and others to do the right thing, Utter said.
"Unfortunately, many innocent people who spent time in jail or
prison have to file a lawsuit before officials will do what is right,"
Utter said, referring to the overturned murder conviction of Sabein Burgess in Maryland. "Rodricus only filed because the officials responsible for this
miscarriage of justice failed to apologize and offer to discuss a
settlement that provided justice to him, his family and ensure something
like this never happens again in Shreveport," Utter said."
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Criminologists long have complained that policymakers tend to ignore
their studies and pursue ideas based more on whims than science."
COMMENTARY: "Does evidence matter in judicial policy making," by Ted Gest, published by The Crime Report on November 17, 2017. (Ted Gest is president of Criminal Justice Journalists and Washington Bureau Chief of The Crime Report.)
GIST: "For two decades, criminal justice advocates have been talking up the idea of basing anticrime policy on scientific evidence. How much is it actually happening nationwide? That question was on the table Thursday at the American Society of
Criminology’s annual meeting, held this year in Philadelphia.
Criminologists long have complained that policymakers tend to ignore
their studies and pursue ideas based more on whims than science. Laurie Robinson, former Assistant U.S. Attorney General now on the
faculty of George Mason University, believes there has been much
progress but also a lot of resistance to the idea of backing up justice
policy with solid research. In the first of two Robinson stints at DOJ, a report assessing what
works in fighting crime and what doesn’t helped her cut federal funding
for programs like Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) and
military-style boot camps for low-level offenders. Still, dubious ideas like gun buy-backs by police agencies keep recurring even though studies have found them ineffective. “Science has a hard time combatting emotionally popular programs,” Robinson said during a panel discussing the topic. Edward Mulvey of the University of Pittsburgh, who heads a Science
Advisory Board at DOJ, agreed that evidence on the spread of
evidence-based programs is mixed. Many “unsound policies” remain in the criminal justice world, partly
because much of the public doesn’t see the value of waiting for evidence
to justify a policy change, Mulvey said. He takes the “long view” that proved practices eventually will
prevail over “media headlines” about ideas that prove ineffective. The Trump administration has said that it will retain the science
board at OJP, which was established by former Attorney General Eric
Holder. At the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), DOJ’s research agency,
David Muhlhausen has moved from the Heritage Foundation to become
director. At Thursday’s criminology program, Muhlhausen declared that
“science-based crime policy is on the rise, but we need to improve —
we’re not where we want to be.” Mulhausen is enthusiastic about a website established by Robinson,
crimesolutions.gov, which assesses the effectiveness of many anticrime
programs that have been studied. Muhlhausen’s primary concern is that there are too many program
evaluations that are “quasi experimental” — far from definitive because
they weren’t done using the “randomized controlled trials” in which
people getting an experimental treatment are compared with similar
groups who aren’t subjected to it. He cited the example of drug courts, which he said had repeatedly been evaluated using the “quasi experimental” method. The new NIJ director said that in general, he wanted to stop funding
government-subsidized programs that don’t work, to avoid a “waste of
taxpayers’ money.” His criticism wasn’t limited to the Justice Department. Muhlhausen cited a project of the Department of Labor supporting job
training for former prisoners that the agency touted while not
disclosing that a randomized controlled trial showed it was ineffective. He also cited the Hawaii-based HOPE program (Hawaii Opportunity
Probation with Enforcement), which puts some criminal defendants on
probation under the threat of quick punishment if they violate rules. Muhlhausen said an initial evaluation in Hawaii found the program
valuable but randomized controlled trials in other states cast doubt on
it. “We have to be careful to define ‘what works,'” Muhlhausen said Thursday. Muhlhausen admitted that evidence-based anticrime policies would be a
“tough sell” to some audiences, such as working police officers. He is supporting a project to instill academic concepts more widely
among the ranks of criminal justice practitioners, a group he dubbed
“pracademics.” One leading justice practitioner who agreed that it can be difficult
to instill evidentiary principles in the work of police and other
criminal justice workers was Gil Kerlikowske, a former Seattle police
chief and director of National Drug Policy under President Obama. Kerlikowske noted that many large police departments had improved
their techniques in such areas as videotaping confessions and obtaining
witness identifications of crime suspects, but that many smaller departments had not caught up with needed changes. He said the academic
community bears some of the blame for not offering their expertise to
small police agencies. Criminologists seemed pleased that NIJ’s Muhlhausen had embraced
evidence-based policymaking in a presidential administration that has
shunned scientific evidence in areas such as climate change. Still, Alfred Blumstein of Carnegie Mellon University expressed doubt
that Muhlhausen could insist on the “gold standard” of randomized
controlled trials for most studies of anticrime projects. Important areas such as the death penalty aren’t appropriate for such experiments, Blumstein said. Muhlhausen agreed that every crime study couldn’t be a randomized
controlled trial. He repeatedly said that he wants NIJ to “advance the
ball” and not to fund repeated studies that don’t aim to break
significant new ground."
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Charles Smith Blog is interested in false confessions because of the disturbing number
of exonerations in the USA, Canada
and multiple other jurisdictions throughout the world, where, in the absence of
incriminating forensic evidence the conviction is based on self-incrimination –
and because of the growing body of
scientific research showing how vulnerable suspects (especially
juveniles) are to widely used interrogation methods such as the notorious ‘Reid Technique.’ Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; -----------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTARY: "The Simple Way to Prevent False Confessions," by Elizabeth Clarke, published by The Crime Report on November 30, 2017. (Elizabeth Clarke is founder and president of the Juvenile Justice Initiative);
GIST: "This month, Cook County prosecutors in Chicago dropped charges against 15 men, based on police misconduct, and two others claiming innocence won a new trial based on false confessions. Even for Chicago, this was extraordinary. The Chicago Tribune called it the largest mass exoneration in Cook County history. Cook County Prosecutor Kimberly Foxx did no more than her duty. When I was an indigent appellate defender in the northern part of
Illinois in the 1980s, prosecutors routinely confessed error and/or
dropped charges to correct a miscarriage of justice. The role of the prosecutor is not to convict, but to seek justice.
Justice is based on fairness, which means ensuring that the rights of
all are protected throughout the process. Coerced confessions have no
role in a just system—prosecutors fulfill their ethical duty in
correcting such injustice. According to the National Registry of Exonerations,
Illinois has a false confession rate more than three times higher than
the national average—and nearly 84 percent of the false confession cases
in Illinois come from Cook County. Millions are spent in settlements in
false confession cases, and the lives of innocent people and their
families are forever altered, if not ruined. And, of course, when the wrong person is convicted, then the actual offender is still at large, so the public is left at risk. There is a simple answer to prevent false confessions, one urged by the U.S. Supreme Court more than 50 years ago in Miranda: Just give everyone a lawyer throughout interrogation. Police in Chicago are interrogating children—and adults—without the protection of a lawyer in nearly every case. Shockingly, an examination by the Police Accountability Task Force of arrests in Chicago in 2014 and 2015 found that less than one percent of all arrestees–adult and juvenile–had the assistance of a lawyer at any point during interrogation. So police in Chicago are interrogating children—and adults—without the protection of a lawyer in nearly every case. There have been movements to expand access to counsel. Last Spring, the Cook County Chief Judge issued an order
appointing the public defender to be available to represent children
and adults during police interrogation, so that persons arrested in Cook
County would have access to a lawyer without charge. Also, the Chicago Police Department agreed to comply with an Illinois
statute that requires all police to post a sign with information on the
right to legal assistance during interrogation. In addition, troubled by the lack of legal assistance for children during interrogation, the Illinois Legislature unanimously approved
a reform requiring lawyers throughout interrogation for children under
the age of 15 in serious cases, and required the videotaping of all
felony interrogations of all children. The bill was watered down from the original proposal to provide
lawyers to all children under age 18. Opposition to the original
proposal came from law enforcement. The first argument from law enforcement was that there would not be
enough lawyers—that it would be too hard to find a lawyer during off
hours. If this is an acceptable argument, we should be honest and revise
the Miranda warning to tell arrestees that they have a right
to a lawyer but that one will only be provided to them from 9-5 on
Monday through Friday. The second argument is that it is too expensive to provide lawyers 24/7. Having a public defender on call 24/7 is certainly a cost to the
public, but so is the cost of paying police, sheriffs, county jail
staff, and county detention staff 24/7. So if we agree to pay the cost
of all these law enforcement staff 24/7, then why can’t we have also pay
for a lawyer to be on call 24/7? Surely the meager cost of an on-call lawyer is far less than the extraordinary incarceration and exoneration costs to taxpayers. After all, if a person is coerced into a confession, then as a
society we pay substantial costs in prosecution, decades of
incarceration and eventually in false confession settlements. Surely the
meager cost of an on-call lawyer is far less than the extraordinary
incarceration and exoneration costs to taxpayers. Another argument is that police will never solve cases if lawyers are
present because suspects will not talk. But in England, where the law
has required lawyers for decades, research clarifies this is not the
case—arrestees are just as likely to give statements with lawyers
present. An arrestee with an alibi is just as likely to give the alibi with a
lawyer present. The difference is that the statement is more likely to
be reliable. Further, as the report by the Police Accountability Task Force
documents, the practice of excluding lawyers and coercing confessions
has a chilling impact on community relations. Police therefore find it
harder to get community cooperation in solving crimes. Community cooperation, based on community trust that police will
treat everyone fairly, is much more critical in solving crimes than
individual statements, especially those made without legal protection.
Finally, confessions alone are not the only way to prove a connection to
an offense. Police have a wide variety of tools. Lawyers are essential. Police agree—and police contracts contain
numerous protections including access to a lawyer and limits on
custodial interrogation to protect the rights of police during
questioning and withstand complaints about their conduct. The sad litany of exonerations based on false confessions illustrates
that all arrestees need the protection of a lawyer. It is time for
Illinois to follow the recommendations of the Police Accountability Task
Force and ensure that all persons have a lawyer during interrogation,
especially children."
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "This was one of the bloodiest crime scenes many of the first
responders and others connected to the case had ever seen, raising the
question of how anyone, never mind two teenagers, could have committed
the murder without getting a single trace of the victim’s blood, hair or
DNA on their clothing or shoes, or in their car, all of which were
seized days later and thoroughly examined."
STORY: "A special report: Bloody murder: Were teens wrongly convicted?" by reporter Tom Condon, published on November 28, 2017, by the CT Mirror. (Tom
Condon writes about urban and regional issues for the Mirror, including
planning, transportation, land use, development and historic
preservation. These were among his areas of interest in a 45-year career
as a reporter, columnist and editorial writer for The Hartford Courant.
Tom has won dozens of journalism and civic awards, and was elected to
the New England Newspaper Hall of Fame in 2016. He is a native of New
London, a graduate of The University of Notre Dame and the University of
Connecticut School of Law, and is a Vietnam veteran.)
GIST: Shawn Henning sits at a long, cafeteria-style table in the Enfield
Correctional Center. He is emotional, near tears. “I wasted my life in
here,” he said, flicking his head at the prison surroundings. “It was
wasted time for nothing.” “Damn.” A few tears come. Henning and another man, Ralph “Ricky” Birch, have been locked up
since 1989, serving sentences of 50 and 55 years respectively, for a
gruesome 1985 murder in New Milford they steadfastly insist they didn’t
commit. Perhaps they didn’t. The state’s case, never airtight to begin with,
has diminished over the years as two prosecution witnesses have
recanted, key defense testimony was uncovered, and DNA testing put an
unknown person at the scene. It also was disclosed that famed state
criminalist Dr. Henry Lee offered erroneous testimony in the trials of
the two men, though Lee contests the finding. Nonetheless, Henning and Birch, teenagers at the time of the crime,
are still in prison, awaiting a last-ditch appeal of a Superior Court
decision last year upholding their convictions. As they know better
than most, it is exceedingly difficult to overturn a conviction in the
state. The door has cracked open a bit since Henning and Birch were
convicted. The emergence of sophisticated DNA testing in the past
quarter century, along with the growing public awareness of false
confessions (see: Central Park Five), misidentification by eyewitnesses
and other issues, along with the emergence of conviction review
agencies, have helped reverse the convictions of a handful of
Connecticut inmates. Nonetheless it remains “virtually impossible to win an exoneration,”
said Darcy McGraw, director of the Connecticut Innocence Project/Post
Conviction Unit, a section of the Office of the Chief Public Defender. The Henning and Birch cases illustrate the challenge of reversing a
conviction. Though court records and interviews show that defense
lawyers have raised serious questions about the convictions, the two
men, now middle-aged, approach three decades in prison with only a slim
chance at freedom.........Henry Lee: This was one of the bloodiest crime scenes many of the first
responders and others connected to the case had ever seen, raising the
question of how anyone, never mind two teenagers, could have committed
the murder without getting a single trace of the victim’s blood, hair or
DNA on their clothing or shoes, or in their car, all of which were
seized days later and thoroughly examined. To answer it, the state
brought in famed forensic scientist Dr. Henry Lee, then head of the
State Police Forensic Laboratory, as an expert witness. Lee opined that the assailants “maybe” could have committed the
slashing murder without getting blood on them, noting that the splatter
pattern of blood on one wall was uninterrupted, which suggested no one
was standing in front of it. But this seemed unlikely, first because, as
Lee himself testified at the criminal trials, as did another expert at
the habeas trial, the scene was “dynamic” — the parties were moving
around — and because the assailants traipsed Carr’s blood into several
other rooms after the assault. Lee had an answer. He said there was a towel in an upstairs bathroom
with a brown stain on it. He said he tested the towel and found the
stain was “positive consistent with blood,” which opened the possibility
the assailants used it to wipe themselves off. But at the habeas trial, Connecticut Forensic Laboratory technician
Lucinda Lopes Phelan testified that the towel was never tested before
the trials, and when it was, years later, the stain turned out not to be
blood. Nonetheless, the prosecution cited Lee’s testimony in arguing that
the assailants could have committed the crime without blood being found
on them. Defense lawyers point out in their briefs that this was not Lee’s
only instance of incorrect testimony. In March a man named David
Weinberg was freed from prison, where he was serving 60 years for a 1985
murder, in part because Lee testified incorrectly about two key
forensic details in the case (See here). Lee, 79, is currently lecturing in China. In an email exchange he
strongly objected to the characterization of his testimony as false,
saying: “There was never any intention to give false or misleading
statements.” He didn’t immediately recall the trial, which took place 28 years
ago. After reviewing his testimony, Lee said he believes he did field
tests at the crime scene, and that these were the basis of his testimony
about blood on the towel. “I don’t believe we gave an opinion without
doing a test.” Field tests are “presumptive” rather than definitive, he said, adding
that the procedure was to have the towel sent to the state lab for what
is called a confirmatory test. He said he didn’t do the lab test (if
there was one) and was never told its outcome. He recalled that the
towel “never became an important issue” during his investigation, there
being more interest in fingerprints and footprints. He also noted that testing procedures have changed since he went to
the crime scene in 1985, and that he is long retired from the lab. The trial transcripts show no reference to field versus lab tests,
and, said Cousins, presumptive tests are not normally allowed as
evidence. At the habeas trial, Lopes Phalen and another technician,
Elaine Pagliero, testified that there was no record of either a field
test or a lab test ever having been done, either of which should have
been documented. Lopes Phelan’s testimony that the towel was never
tested went unchallenged. Judge Sferrazza found that Lee testified “erroneously” about there
being blood on the towel, but that it was simply a mistake. “It appears
to the court much more likely that Dr. Lee mistakenly, but honestly,
believed he tested that item of evidence … . The court concludes Dr. Lee
was wrong but not lying under oath.” Footprints: Of the evidence found in the house, perhaps the most exculpatory was the bloody footprints. Impressions from two different sets of shoes were left in the blood
next to the body, footprints all believe were left by two assailants.
Police actually removed the section of floorboard to preserve the
impressions. It was quickly clear that the sole patterns didn’t match
those on the shoes seized from Henning and Birch three days after the
killing. But apparently no one determined what size the footprints were. At the habeas trial, former FBI agent William Bodziak, an expert in
footwear impressions, was able to determine that one set of prints was
no larger than a size 9 and possibly as small as 7 1/2, too small for
Birch (10 1/2 to 11) or Henning (11 1/2). Bodziak (he and Henry Lee testified at the O.J. Simpson trial) said
the shoes seized from Henning and Birch were “extensively longer” — by
one and one-half to two inches — than the prints. If his testimony were
correct — it went unchallenged — then one of the two assailants was
neither Henning nor Birch. The shoe size might connect to another body of evidence. Between 2007 and 2013, more than two dozen items in the home were
tested for DNA. A DNA profile of an unknown person was found mixed with
the victim’s on the bloody floorboard next to the body, inside the front
waistband of the victim’s underwear, on a knife collar found under the
body that is thought to have come from the murder weapon, and in a cigar
box in the victim’s bureau that had a smudge of his blood along with
it."
The this entire fascinating opus at the link below:
G
M
T
Text-to-speech function is limited to 200 characters
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Charles Smith Blog is interested in false confessions because of the disturbing number
of exonerations in the USA, Canada
and multiple other jurisdictions throughout the world, where, in the absence of
incriminating forensic evidence the conviction is based on self-incrimination –
and because of the growing body of
scientific research showing how vulnerable suspects (especially
juveniles) are to widely used interrogation methods such as the notorious ‘Reid Technique.’ Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; -----------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "‘Just Mad’ He Confessed to Karina Vetrano’s Murder. But Did He Do It?, by reporter Maz Rivlin-Nadler published by The Daily Beast on November 29, 2017.
SUB-HEADING: "Chanel Lewis’ DNA matched what was found at the scene of the crime. He told detectives he did it. So why is he pleading not guilty?"
GIST: “Having DNA and a confession is pretty much the
end of a case,” said Ron Kuby, a prominent defense attorney who has
represented dozens of clients charged with murder in New York. “It
becomes hard for even the most creative lawyer to construct a defense
consistent with innocence.” But
Lewis—who lives in East New York with his mother and graduated from a
private school dedicated to “children experiencing emotional and
behavioral problems”—has pleaded not guilty. His
taped confession to detectives doesn’t make much sense, and the DNA
match is less conclusive than law enforcement sources have suggested
while discussing the case with the media. Steven A.
Drizin, a former legal director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at
Northwestern University and one of the lawyers representing Making a Murderer’s Brandon Dassey, examined the text of Lewis’ confession for The Daily Beast. “The
description of the crime seems like a narrative that may have been fed
to him,” Drizin said. “That he just snapped. That he just lost it.
People generally just don’t lose it, beat women to death, strangle them,
and pull their clothes down for no reason. Because he’s angry that his
neighbors played music too loud? That raises concerns for me.” He added: “There’s nothing in his confession that suggests there was a sexual component to this, and that’s concerning.” According
to documents prepared by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and
turned over to Lewis’ defense team by the Queens district attorney,
another set of DNA was found on an Arizona fruit punch bottle at the
crime scene that matched a separate individual. While the
medical examiner declared that Lewis’ DNA matched what was found on
Vetrano’s cellphone and on her back, they do not state they found a
match under Vetrano’s fingernails, contrary to statements made by the
NYPD. Instead, the medical examiner suggests that Lewis’ DNA may be present under Vetrano’s fingernails based on the Forensic Statistical Tool analysis, a controversial testing method
used when a mixture of DNA samples are present. Forensic experts have
criticized the method, and it was discontinued by the medical examiner’s
office this year."
The entire story - including Drizin's analysis - can be read at:
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.
G
M
T
confessssssAnnotation ‘Just Mad’ He Confessed to Karina Vetrano’s Murder. But Did He Do It? Chanel Lewis’ DNA matched what was fo
Text-to-speech function is limited to 200 characters
Two Blogs Now: The Charles Smith Blog; The Selfless Warriors Blog: I created the Charles Smith Blog in 2007 after I retired from The Toronto Star to permit me to keep digging into the story of the flawed pathologist and the harm he had done to so many innocent parents and caregivers, and to Ontario’s criminal justice system. Since then it has taken new directions, including examinations of other flawed pathologists, flawed pathology, and flawed science and technology which has marred the quality of justice in courtrooms around the world. On International Wrongful Conviction Day in 2024, I was thrilled to have the Blog recognized by Innocence Canada, when I was presented with the, "Rubin Hurricane Carter Champion of Justice Award." The heart of the Blog is my approach to following cases which raise issues in all of these areas - especially those involving the death penalty. I have dedicated 'The Selfless Warrior Blog’ (soon to appear) to those exceptional individuals who have been ripped out of their ordinary lives by their inability to stand by in the face of a glaring miscarriage of justice. They are my ’Selfless Warriors.’ Enjoy!
