Leo Ackley: Michigan. Setback: Michigan's Court of Appeals has upheld his second murder conviction in the death of a young girl, The Battlecreek Inquirer (Reporter Trace Christenson) reports: "Ackley has always maintained his innocence. In an eight-page opinion on Thursday the appeals court denied defense objections that experts in abusive head trauma be allowed to testify for prosecutors. Some experts argue that the symptoms are similar to those found after a small child falls. The court ruled that juries should be cautious about the testimony but can consider it. And the judges concluded that "lack of universal acceptance does not per se establish that it is unscientific or unsound. Scientific disputes should be resolved by scientists not by lawyers."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The Michigan Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction and life sentence of a Battle Creek man charged with killing a 3½-year-old girl. By a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel upheld the conviction of Leo Ackley, 31, who was charged with first-degree felony murder and child abuse in the Aug. 1, 2011 death of his former girlfriend's daughter, Baylee Stenman. Ackley was first convicted in 2012 but granted a new trial three years later by the Michigan Supreme Court because his original defense attorney did not call expert witnesses to contradict testimony presented by prosecutors that the child died from abusive head trauma. Judges and attorneys across the state considered the Supreme Court decision as mandating that expert witnesses be found and called to testify in many criminal cases."

STORY: "Court of Appeals upholds second Ackley murder conviction in death of young girl," by reporter Trace Christenson, published by The Battlefield Inquirer on August 2,  2018.

GIST: "The Michigan Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction and life sentence of a Battle Creek man charged with killing a 3½-year-old girl. By a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel upheld the conviction of Leo Ackley, 31, who was charged with first-degree felony murder and child abuse in the Aug. 1, 2011 death of his former girlfriend's daughter, Baylee Stenman. Ackley was first convicted in 2012 but granted a new trial three years later by the Michigan Supreme Court because his original defense attorney did not call expert witnesses to contradict testimony presented by prosecutors that the child died from abusive head trauma. Judges and attorneys across the state considered the Supreme Court decision as mandating that expert witnesses be found and called to testify in many criminal cases. In a second trial in 2016, after hearing four days of testimony and deliberating 11½ hours a jury of seven woman and five men found him guilty of both charges. Calhoun County Circuit Court Judge John Hallacy sentenced Ackley to a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole. Ackley has always maintained his innocence. In an eight-page opinion on Thursday the appeals court denied defense objections that experts in abusive head trauma be allowed to testify for prosecutors. Some experts argue that the symptoms are similar to those found after a small child falls. The court ruled that juries should be cautious about the testimony but can consider it. And the judges concluded that "lack of universal acceptance does not per se establish that it is unscientific or unsound. Scientific disputes should be resolved by scientists not by lawyers." The court, in its opinion also dismissed arguments that a doctor who is an expert in child abuse should not have been allowed to testify about injuries to the child and that Ackley's trial attorney in 2016 was ineffective. The court also said it found enough evidence to support a conviction even though, as the defense argued, what, when, where and by whom the injuries were inflicted was speculative. The court said an eyewitness was not required and there was evidence to show that Ackley was caring for the child and that the injuries were not a result of an accidental fall."

The entire story can be read at:

 https://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/story/news/2018/08/02/court-upholds-second-ackley-murder-conviction-death-young-girl/890360002/

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.

---

Book Review Series: (Part 24); Kristine Bunch: Indiana: Story of innocent woman convicted by "outdated arson 'science' is told in Andrew Stoner's book "Notorious 92" - a new book that delves into “the most infamous murders from each of Indiana’s 92 counties.”..."“I have always wanted to rewrite the story of Kristine Bunch,” Stoner said in a news release announcing the third edition of Notorious 92 earlier this month. “Her case is one of two included in the original text where convictions were overturned, but her story in particular was one of a dramatic and determined effort to find justice.”

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: In the roughly 10 years since I began publishing The Charles Smith Blog some of the issues I have explored - as well as some of the cases I have been following - have become the subject matter of books. This prompted me recently - as I searched anxiously for ways of keeping me occupied during the languid summer hours - other than sitting on the patio, drinking a cool glass of white wine, and reading the latest Steven King - it occurred to me that a book review series based in my previous posts from the outset of the Blog would be just what the pathologist ordered. I would invite my readers to offer me their own suggestions  for inclusion by email to hlevy15@gmail.com. Have a great summer.

Harold Levy: Publisher. The Charles Smith Blog.

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

STORY: "Bunch murder, arson case featured in new book," by reporter Brent Brown, published by The Daily News on Jan. 12, 2018.

GIST:  "The story of a former Decatur County woman jailed for nearly two decades in connection with the home fire that killed her young son is featured in the recently-published third edition of a true crime anthology. Kristine Bunch’s saga to overturn her 1996 arson and murder conviction is detailed in Andrew E. Stoner’s Notorious 92, a new book that delves into “the most infamous murders from each of Indiana’s 92 counties.” Locally, there are perhaps few similar cases that garnered as much attention as that of Bunch’s.  After a fire destroyed her Lake McCoy trailer home and killed her 3-year-old son, Tony, in June 1995, Bunch was arrested and charged with murder in connection with the boy’s death. The prosecution built its case on evidence from fire investigators who claimed accelerants were used to start to the blaze, and the presence of such materials indicated the fire had been set intentionally. The state also argued that Bunch provided inconsistent statements after the blaze and that an item had been used to obstruct the child’s possible escape. Bunch was found guilty and was sent to prison for 50 years on the murder charge and 30 years on the arson count. She was 22-years-old and pregnant with her second child, a boy she later named Trenton. Bunch steadfastly proclaimed her innocence throughout her incarceration. While behind bars, she worked to clear her name and win her freedom with the help of attorneys from Northwestern University’s Center for Wrongful Convictions who argued the state had withheld evidence from defense attorneys that might have helped Bunch. They also claimed, among other things, that advances in fire investigation techniques since the 1995 tragedy warranted a new trial. The effort was finally successful in August 2012 when Bunch was released on bond following a reversal of her conviction by the Indiana Court of Appeals that March. The decision granted her the right to a new trial and was upheld by the Indiana Supreme Court. The prosecution in 2012 sought again to try Bunch on murder and arson charges following her release, but the state ultimately dropped the case that December. “I have always wanted to rewrite the story of Kristine Bunch,” Stoner said in a news release announcing the third edition of Notorious 92 earlier this month. “Her case is one of two included in the original text where convictions were overturned, but her story in particular was one of a dramatic and determined effort to find justice.” According to a press release, Stoner’s book also includes the final chapter in former Indiana State Police Trooper David Camm’s murder case, which saw him acquitted of murdering his wife and their two young children in 2000. The case was heard in Floyd County and reached its conclusion in 2013. The book is available in paperback and digital form and is published by Cardinal Publishers Group."

The entire story can be read at the link below: 
http://www.greensburgdailynews.com/news/local_news/bunch-murder-arson-case-featured-in-new-book/article_c7180829-44c9-5cfc-b07b-f9214ef9f6cf.html

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

Read also the previous post of this Blog at the link below: 
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2012/12/bulletin-christine-bunch-arson-science.html

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Bulletin: Christine Bunch: Arson "science" case. She has finally been cleared in 1995 blaze that killed her son. FOX59

STORY: "Charges cleared against woman convicted in 1995 arson that killed son," published by FOX59 on December 18, 2012."

GIST:  "A local woman charged with arson and the death of her 3-year-old son was cleared of the charges against her Tuesday. Kristine Bunch was previously convicted of the charges in 1995 and has spent the past 16 years in prison. Prosecutors claimed Bunch poured kerosene through the linoleum-floored bedroom in which her son, Tony, was found and into the living room of the trailer before lighting a match. Bunch’s son had 80 percent carbon monoxide level in his blood. In March 2012, the Indiana Court of Appeals granted Bunch a new trial and allowed a vacated conviction.  Her attorney, Ron Safer, argued arson science is drastically different than it was in 1995.  He stated there was overwhelming evidence that proves Bunch could not have set the fire.  The attorney said the evidence includes advances in the field of fire victim toxicology, which allegedly proves the fire could not have been set in the way prosecutors argued it did. ......... Bunch’s attorneys and the Northwestern Center on Wrongful Convictions released the following statement Tuesday: “We are extremely happy that the State has dismissed the charge against Kristine.  She is innocent.  As the Indiana Appellate Court ruled months ago, a jury hearing all of the evidence likely would have found Kristine not guilty.
We do condemn the State for bringing arson-related charges in 1995.  That was the equivalent of the Stone Ages for arson investigations.........”

The entire story can be found at:
http://fox59.com/2012/12/18/charges-cleared-against-woman-convicted-in-1996-arson-that-killed-son/


See also previous post of this Blog at the link below: "
 http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2012/12/bulletin-christine-bunch-arson-science.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.

Flawed Convictions: Book Review Series: (Part 23); Sue Luttner. publisher of "On SBS" - an important source of information on SBS - takes a pre-publication look at Deborah Tuerkheimer's book "Flawed Conviction: "Shaken Baby Syndrome" and the inertia of justice."..."Flawed Convictions: “Shaken Baby Syndrome” and the Inertia of Injustice promises not only to explain how a flawed theory has become entrenched in the courtroom but also to propose a way out of the morass we are in now. Prof. Tuerkheimer, once a New York child abuse prosecutor, was already aware of the triad and its role in the courtroom in 2008 when she heard about the successful appeal of the Audrey Edmunds conviction. She studied both the legal arguments and the medical references, and concluded that the Edmunds court was correct: Medical consensus regarding shaken baby syndrome had dissipated since the 1997 trial. As Tuerkheimer explains in the book’s introduction, now available on line: “The criminal justice implications were staggering. The mainstream medical rethinking recognized by the court could not undermine this one conviction without undermining the convictions of others whose cases also depended on the triad.”

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: In the roughly 10 years since I began publishing The Charles Smith Blog some of the issues I have explored - as well as some of the cases I have been following - have become the subject matter of books. This prompted me recently - as I searched anxiously for ways of keeping me occupied during the languid summer hours - other than sitting on the patio, drinking a cool glass of white wine, and reading the latest Steven King - it occurred to me that a book review series based in my previous posts from the outset of the Blog would be just what the pathologist ordered. I would invite my readers to offer me their own suggestions  for inclusion by email to hlevy15@gmail.com. Have a great summer.

Harold Levy: Publisher. The Charles Smith Blog.

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

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The   'ON SBS' Blog published by Sue Luttner - a  source of very informative analysis and comment on shaken baby syndrome issues -  wrote an informative pre-publication post on Deborah Tuerkheimer's  book "Flawed Convictions: "Shaken Baby Syndrome" and  the inertia of justice." The book has received a great deal of favourable comment since publication.  The post ran as follows:

POST: "The next phase of the shaken baby debate is coming right up:  Next month professor Deborah Tuerkheimer at the DePaul University College of Law is publishing a book through Oxford University Press, USA, that will reject decades of courtroom outcomes in these cases. Flawed Convictions: “Shaken Baby Syndrome” and the Inertia of Injustice promises not only to explain how a flawed theory has become entrenched in the courtroom but also to propose a way out of the morass we are in now. Prof. Tuerkheimer, once a New York child abuse prosecutor, was already aware of the triad and its role in the courtroom in 2008 when she heard about the successful appeal of the Audrey Edmunds conviction. She studied both the legal arguments and the medical references, and concluded that the Edmunds court was correct: Medical consensus regarding shaken baby syndrome had dissipated since the 1997 trial. As Tuerkheimer explains in the book’s introduction, now available on line:

“The criminal justice implications were staggering. The mainstream medical rethinking recognized by the court could not undermine this one conviction without undermining the convictions of others whose cases also depended on the triad.”

Her first expectation, she writes, was that the Edmunds decision would trigger “a massive institutional effort to correct error.” What she encountered, however, was a system not only poorly equipped to vet medical testimony but also averse to changing course:

“Throughout the process—from prosecutorial decisions, to evidentiary rulings, to judicial review—we see a drive to push forward rather than revisit. A diagnosis of SBS sets in motion systemic confirmation, first in the clinical realm, and then the legal. The course of injustice is almost immovable.”

Still, Tuerkheimer insists that the course can be changed, and the last chapter of the book will offer her prescription for achieving that goal. I’m hoping she suggests a systematic review of past shaking convictions, as an alternative to the current practice of appealing them one by one.
My favorite line in the promotional blurbs is in the Amazon description, which explains that doctors are no longer sure that the triad can be caused only by abuse, or that the last adult with the child is necessarily guilty, but notes that the legal system has failed to adapt to the change:

As a result, innocent parents and caregivers remain incarcerated and, perhaps more perplexingly, triad-only prosecutions continue even to this day.

You can read a quick summary of Tuerkheimer’s conclusions in her 2010 New York Times op ed piece. She has published two law journal articles on the subject, one explaining her position and calling for change, and a second a few years later, expressing her impatience with the lack of progress.

Her observation on the current situation:

Today, an acceptance of triad-based prosecutions that once was complete has dissolved—alas, to be supplanted by a distibution of justice that is halting and unequal, with disadvantage breaking along familiar lines.

Surely its distinguished author and pedigreed publisher will give Flawed Convictions credibility. I look forward to reading Tuerkheimer’s prescription for change, and I hope her book reaches readers on both sides of the debate. If you click on the image of the book on the Amazon page, you can read quite a bit of the book itself."


The entire post can be read at the link below:
https://onsbs.com/2014/03/02/flawed-convictions-breaking-academic-ground/

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.

Book Review Series: (Part 22): Shaken baby syndrome: "The Forensic Unreliability of the Shaken Baby Syndrome," by Arizona trial attorney Randy Papetti..."Papetti said he was “stunned” to see how child abuse professionals have lashed out personally at defense experts and attorneys: ridicule at conferences, perjury charges, letters to employers. “That’s not the way the game is played,” he said. Attorneys in civil practice fight hard in the courtroom, he claimed, but can still respect their opponents professionally and maintain personal friendships. In his book, Papetti traces the evolution of shaking theory in both the medical literature and the courts. He illustrates how the two have co-evolved, distorting each other, and he examines the cooperative relationship among child abuse experts, the police, and social services. He writes: These institutional realities, not science or clinical validation, best explain how SBS has persisted and why the medical profession is unlikely to correct it any time soon. “Things tend to get worse before they get better,” he told me, “And I’m afraid that’s where we are now, still getting worse.”.

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: In the roughly 10 years since I began publishing The Charles Smith Blog some of the issues I have explored - as well as some of the cases I have been following - have become the subject matter of books. This prompted me recently - as I searched anxiously for ways of keeping me occupied during the languid summer hours - other than sitting on the patio, drinking a cool glass of white wine, and reading the latest Steven King - it occurred to me that a book review series based in my previous posts from the outset of the Blog would be just what the pathologist ordered. I would invite my readers to offer me their own suggestions  for inclusion by email to hlevy15@gmail.com. Have a great summer.

Harold Levy: Publisher. The Charles Smith Blog.

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

BOOK: "The Forensic Unreliability of the Shaken Baby Syndrome," by Arizona trial attorney Randy Papetti - subject of a previous post on this blog:

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

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Shaken Baby Syndrome: "On SBS" introduces us to a new book - by Arizona trial attorney Randy Papetti. (The title is self-explanatory!): "The Forensic Unreliability of the Shaken Baby Syndrome."..."His shaken baby work has all been pro bono. Papetti was only doing a favor for a friend, he told me in a telephone interview, when he agreed to help with his first shaking case, an appeal of a murder conviction. The convicted father had reported a fall from a high chair, but the child abuse experts had insisted that shaking must have been involved. Papetti started researching the medical and legal arguments and found himself face to face with the difference between medical opinion and proven scientific fact. Papetti won that appeal, and other attorneys started approaching him with their own shaking cases. He was a key player in the 2012 freeing of Drayton Witt, whose son died after a short lifetime of serious health problems, including a seizure disorder. It was the Witt case that brought pioneering pediatric neurosurgeon Dr. Norman Guthkelch back into the arena, four decades after he lay the groundwork for the diagnosis by proposing that shaking an infant could cause subdural bleeding. Like Papetti, Dr. Guthkelch rejected the medical thinking that had convicted Drayton Witt. Guthkelch then spent the final years of his life fighting what he considered a “tragic misinterpretation” of his work."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Papetti said he was “stunned” to see how child abuse professionals have lashed out personally at defense experts and attorneys: ridicule at conferences, perjury charges, letters to employers. “That’s not the way the game is played,” he said. Attorneys in civil practice fight hard in the courtroom, he claimed, but can still respect their opponents professionally and maintain personal friendships. In his book, Papetti traces the evolution of shaking theory in both the medical literature and the courts. He illustrates how the two have co-evolved, distorting each other, and he examines the cooperative relationship among child abuse experts, the police, and social services. He writes: These institutional realities, not science or clinical validation, best explain how SBS has persisted and why the medical profession is unlikely to correct it any time soon. “Things tend to get worse before they get better,” he told me, “And I’m afraid that’s where we are now, still getting worse.”

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

POST: "The Forensic Unreliability of the Shaken Baby Syndrome," by Sue Luttner, published on her most informative Blog "On SBS"  on March  25, 2018.

GIST: "Arizona trial attorney Randy Papetti has brought nearly 20 years of experience and research to his valuable new analysis of shaken baby theory in the courtroom, The Forensic Unreliability of the Shaken Baby Syndrome, now shipping from Academic Forensic Pathology International (coupon for $50 off). Papetti is not a criminal attorney but a recognized leader in his primary field, commercial litigation. In 2013, he was selected by Best Lawyers and his local peers as the Lawyer of the Year for “Bet-the-Company Litigation.” In 2011, he was inducted into the invitation-only American College of Trial Lawyers. His shaken baby work has all been pro bono. Papetti was only doing a favor for a friend, he told me in a telephone interview, when he agreed to help with his first shaking case, an appeal of a murder conviction. The convicted father had reported a fall from a high chair, but the child abuse experts had insisted that shaking must have been involved. Papetti started researching the medical and legal arguments and found himself face to face with the difference between medical opinion and proven scientific fact. Papetti won that appeal, and other attorneys started approaching him with their own shaking cases. He was a key player in the 2012 freeing of Drayton Witt, whose son died after a short lifetime of serious health problems, including a seizure disorder. It was the Witt case that brought pioneering pediatric neurosurgeon Dr. Norman Guthkelch back into the arena, four decades after he lay the groundwork for the diagnosis by proposing that shaking an infant could cause subdural bleeding. Like Papetti, Dr. Guthkelch rejected the medical thinking that had convicted Drayton Witt. Guthkelch then spent the final years of his life fighting what he considered a “tragic misinterpretation” of his work. “Witt was a powerful case,” Papetti said. “It showed how easily a mistaken diagnosis based on the ‘triad‘ can convict.” By then law professor Deborah Tuerkheimer had published her first journal argument against shaking theory, and her New York Times op ed. Papetti thought the tide was turning. “The information was out there, people could see that shaking theory was unreliable.” Instead of reconsidering their model, however, proponents of shaking theory “took a course I never imagined they would be able to take, claiming there never was a triad,” Papetti marveled in our interview. In his book, he noted that changing the name of the diagnosis from “shaken baby syndrome” to “abusive head trauma” did not address the fundamental problem that the entire theory was speculation. “It merely changed the diagnosis’ name for legal purposes.” Papetti said he was “stunned” to see how child abuse professionals have lashed out personally at defense experts and attorneys: ridicule at conferences, perjury charges, letters to employers. “That’s not the way the game is played,” he said. Attorneys in civil practice fight hard in the courtroom, he claimed, but can still respect their opponents professionally and maintain personal friendships. In his book, Papetti traces the evolution of shaking theory in both the medical literature and the courts. He illustrates how the two have co-evolved, distorting each other, and he examines the cooperative relationship among child abuse experts, the police, and social services. He writes: These institutional realities, not science or clinical validation, best explain how SBS has persisted and why the medical profession is unlikely to correct it any time soon. “Things tend to get worse before they get better,” he told me, “And I’m afraid that’s where we are now, still getting worse.” At this point, proponents of shaking theory staff the medical schools and the childrens’ hospitals, dominate the professional organizations, and conduct the bulk of the research. Critics tend to be independent thinkers who have researched the literature and reached their own conclusions.  “The imbalance of power has distorted everything completely,” Papetti said. “At the end of the day, are you really asking a judge to not allow the testimony of these luminaries because a few brave souls disagree?” So he keeps chipping away at a calcified theory with the facts, hoping to explain it all clearly enough that judges will see how decades of unproven medical testimony have led to a criminal justice crisis of staggering proportions."

The entire post can be found at:
https://onsbs.com/2018/03/25/the-forensic-unreliability-of-the-shaken-baby-syndrome-the-book/

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.

Book review series: (Part 21); Scott Watson: New Zealand: Ben Smart and Olivia Hope disappeared after boarding a boat in a New Zealand harbour in 1998. Scott Watson was convicted of their murder. Watson exhausted his legal processes years ago: But this is just one of those cases that won't go away. Two books on the case reach opposite conclusions. Keith Hunter calls it a serious injustice...Ian Wishart says the police got it right. Read on!

 


PUBLISHERS NOTE: Ben Smart and Olivia Hope disappeared after boarding a boat in a New Zealand harbour in 1998. Scott Watson was convicted of their murder. Watson exhausted his legal processes years ago: But this is just one of those cases that won't go away. Two  books on the case reach opposite conclusions. Keith Hunter calls it  a serious injustice. Ian Wishart says the police got it right. Read on:

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

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

BOOK: (A serious injustice):  "Trial by Trickery - Scott Watson, the Sounds Murders and the Game of Law by Keith Hunter," published by 4-Hunter Productions is reviewed by Dr. Robert Moles on his NetK site:

GIST: "This book argues that the case of Scott Watson, who was convicted of the murder of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope after they disappeared after boarding a boat in a New Zealand harbour in 1998 just does not stack up. I have to agree. This is a book which is a masterpiece of critical and scholarly analysis. The reasoning is methodical and rigorous. The argument is sustained and compelling. It argues that the conviction is based upon little more than tunnel vision and the desire to establish a case against a suspect who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It reminds me of the case of Guy Paul Morin in Canada. The Judicial Inquiry there established that the investigators were unfair and willing to create a case based upon bare suspicion and little else, whilst ignoring many factors which might have shown that they had the wrong suspect. Hunter's account of the "investigation" prosecution and appeal of Scott Watson demonstrates that they system has comprehensively failed at every level. In truth, there is not even a respectable case to be made out against Watson. Its not a question of saying that the jury must have believed certain witnesses instead of others. The court was simply misinformed and the jury were misled. As we have seen with the Keogh case in Australia, it is not difficult for the people involved with these cases to overcomplex things and then assert that those who raise concerns do not understand the complexities of the case or of the law. Obfuscation is the last resort of the exhausted mind. According to Hunter's account of the Watson case, obfuscation has been used on many occasions by many people who ought to have known better; from the investigation, through the prosecution and the trial and even in the appeal. The trouble with cases like Watson's is that people who are involved in barracking for the status quo, presumably hope that the agitators for a review will go away, and they can go on to ever greater and better things. However, it is in the nature of things that skilled and able people like Hunter will not just go away. The amount of time and effort which he has already invested in this project must be vast. Both the book and the DVD are finely produced and presented. Together they provide a compelling argument to show that the witnesses and the evidence were manipulated to provide a case to the casual observer which might result in a conviction. I have no doubt after reading the book and watching the video, that this will turn out to be one of the major international classics of miscarriages of justice. If Ben and Olivia were killed then there is not the slightest evidence to suggest that Scott Watson was involved in it. Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence to show that whoever did it it was not Scott Watson. The descriptions of a possible perpetrator do not match. The descriptions of the vessel do not match. The timings are woefully inconsistent with possible guilt. The issues put forward in evidence are manifestly consistent with the innocence of Scott Watson. Hunter provides compelling evidence to show that the judge had joined the prosecution in helping to patch up a case against Watson which was threadbare. As in most cases of this sort, the blame lies not with the jury, for they must rely upon the "evidence" which is given in court. However, if they are not told the truth, or if they are given incomplete information, then they will be bound to come to the wrong result, as they did here. Both the book and the DVD are superbly produced and presented, and Keith Hunter is to be commended for unravelling the complexities and explaining them in a manner which is as clear as it is compelling. I join with Hunter in stating that cases such as this show that a properly established Criminal Review Commission is urgently required. New Zealand offficials must act swiftly to correct this serious injustice if its reputation in the international arena is not to be sullied for a long time to come."

PUBLISHING INFORMATION: "The book is available at $NZ 29-99 and the DVD Murder on the Blade? at $NZ 23.99 www.hunterproductions.co.nz."

The entire review can be read at: 
http://netk.net.au/NewZealand/NZ10.asp

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

STORY: (The police  got it right): 'Elementary' by  Ian Wishart;  New Zealand Herald; January 29, 2016.

HEADING: "New book claims: Forget the denials, Scott Watson definitely killed Olivia Hope and Ben Smart, but cops did contort evidence," 

SUB-HEADING:  "Exclusive - Former cop backs author’s case with tale of confession to Sounds murders."

PHOTO CAPTION:  "Scott Watson is taken to the Christchurch District Court in 1998 before being charged with the murder of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope."

GIST: "A new book claims convicted murderer Scott Watson is the person who killed Olivia Hope and Ben Smart despite Watson's claims he has been wrongly convicted. The claim is made by journalist Ian Wishart in Elementary - published today - and comes as a former senior detective in the case details an extraordinary claim that Watson had confessed to the killing. Wishart's book comes 17 years after Watson was convicted of murdering Ms Hope, 17, and Mr Smart, 21, on New Year's Day 1998. Watson has always denied any involvement but the new book claims police got the right person, although they contorted evidence to fit a prosecution scenario in which the bodies were dumped in Cook Strait. Wishart said the decision to use evidence that fitted a scenario covering the missing bodies created questions over the case and led to 17 years of speculation about the murders.

The Herald has been given exclusive access to the critical chapter in the book in which Wishart lays out three alleged sightings of Watson on New Year's Day - the day the murders were said to have been committed - in an area in which he had always denied being present.  The statements also claim a second person was on the boat, leading Wishart to allege Watson had an accomplice. The statements on which Wishart draws include claims that Watson's boat Blade was being painted while at sea. Wishart accuses a key witness with name suppression, dubbed "Keating" in the book, of manufacturing an alibi to protect Watson from scrutiny. He claims the new statements destroy the evidence from Keating, who has since died. The book is drawn from the contents of the police investigation file which was provided to Watson's defence and then distributed to other parties, one of whom passed a copy to Wishart. Wishart's 1999 book on the case cast doubt on the prosecution - a stance he has changed. Wishart told the Herald last night: "Having now seen the evidence they didn't use, but should have used, I'm absolutely confident Scott Watson is the killer of Ben and Olivia."

Ms Hope's father, Gerald, last night welcomed publication of the book as "the most in-depth review of statements I've ever read" on the case, with new material of which he was previously unaware. "It brings balance back to the trend of 'he's wrongfully convicted and is therefore an innocent man in jail'." Mr Hope said he had applied through the Department of Corrections to meet with Watson. "There are questions which have not been asked, let alone answered, and he alone can provide that information." He said there had been criticism - which he had also voiced - about flaws in the police case. "If only they had been a little bit more thorough and methodical in the process it would have removed doubt. But it comes back down to Watson, whether he was guilty as proven, whether he wants to show remorse and accept what he has done." The claim of a confession is included as a 50-word post-script in the book but was detailed yesterday to the Herald by Detective Senior Sergeant Wayne Stringer, now retired. He said "Keating" told him of a conversation he claimed to have had with Watson the day after the murders. Mr Stringer said he had become close friends with Keating, having met him when appointed as his bail officer by Detective Inspector Rob Pope, the officer leading the investigation into the murders.  He said the relationship developed until they were like "family". After Watson was convicted, Mr Stringer said he and his wife were at a dinner with Keating, who laid out what he claimed was a confession made by Watson on New Year's Day in 1998. "[Keating] told me that Scott Watson had told him what he did." Mr Stringer said that according to Keating, Watson attacked Ben Smart and "stabbed him to death" and then "stabbed her [Olivia] to death". Keating also claimed Watson told him he wrapped them in sails and spare chain and took them out to where they would never be found, and dropped them off. Mr Stringer said he knew Keating well and trusted him. "He didn't have any reason to tell me lies. I believe him absolutely ... I have no doubts about [Keating]. He was a bad guy but he was a good man." Corrections deputy chief executive Vincent Arbuckle confirmed a request had been made to visit Watson and was being assessed. Scott Watson is serving at least 19 years in prison for the murders of Olivia Hope, 17, and Ben Smart, 21, who disappeared on New Year's Day 1998. Watson has always denied involvement in the murders. Questions over his conviction include:

1 Watertaxi operator Guy Wallace dropped Olivia Hope, Ben Smart and a "mystery man" at a yacht he described in detail as a ketch. It was the last sighting of the two young people. Wallace initially identified Scott Watson, who was convicted of the murders, as the man who was with Hope and Smart, but later retracted his identification. However, he has not moved on his description of the ketch. Wallace was a key witness for the Crown.

2 Wallace's description of the vessel to which he delivered Hope and Smart led to an initial search for similar craft. There were a number of sightings of a 12m ketch (a two-masted vessel) as described by Wallace. Police have been accused of ignoring the ketch angle and focusing on Watson and his 7.2m single-masted sloop, Blade. The Crown has used photographs of the bay on New Year's Eve and New Year's Day to rebut claims of the ketch, but it has also been claimed it came and went during the night.

3 Rozlyn McNeilly was also a key identification witness for the Crown. She identified Watson as being the man she served at the bar of Furneaux Lodge on New Year's Eve, linked by police to the murders. She has also retracted her identification, saying she was tricked by officers. The Independent Police Conduct Authority was critical in 2010 of the police identification process.

4 The identification process has been intensely criticised. The "mystery man" description and the identikit issued by police based on those descriptions show an unshaven man with shoulder-length hair. Images taken on New Year's Eve show Watson as clean-shaven with tightly cropped hair. There was also a claim the "mystery man" had hooded eyes, as illustrated in a photograph of Watson shown to witnesses by police. It emerged the photograph was taken when Watson was blinking and his eyes half-shut.

5 One secret jailhouse witness testified that Watson confessed in prison. The inmate later retracted his claim.

6 Another secret jailhouse witness has had his credibility questioned after it emerged he received assistance from the police after testifying.

7 Guy Wallace has offered further information which increased speculation about the ketch, naming a specific location were he claims to have seen Hope, Smart and the "mystery man".

8 Although police say Wallace took Watson - "the mystery man" - to a boat in the bay with Hope and Smart, another watertaxi driver named John Mullen emerged to say he ferried someone resembling Watson to a boat. Watson had previously described the watertaxi operator who had taken him to Blade, and Mullen fitted that description.

9

Witnesses on a boat alongside Blade have given a version of events that competes with Crown testimony about Watson being returned to Blade.

10 The only DNA evidence in the case were two blonde hairs matched to Hope from a blanket inside Blade. They were not present on the first search of 400 hairs but were found on the second search - the same day Hope's hairbrush was present in the ESR lab.

The entire   story can be found at the link below:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11581337

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

Read the Wikipedia entry at the link below: "In November 2017, a second application for a Royal Pardon was filed on Watson's behalf by an Auckland man and ex-convict, who had taken an interest in the Watson case.^[22] The application concerned the reliability of the evidence relating to two blonde hairs found on a blanket on Watson's boat. It included a report by forensic scientist, Sean Doyle, which questioned whether the hairs were really Hope's, and criticised the way these hair samples were handled at the time of the original trial. The blonde hairs, believed to be Hope's, were the only physical evidence linking the couple to Watson.^"

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Watson

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;

Judges and junk science: The Crime Report poses a question which goes to the heart of this blog: "Why is scientific evidence with a high rate of error making its way into court?" Read on!..."For decades, the criminal justice system in the United States has convicted defendants on the basis of forensic evidence–some of which we now know to be highly suspect or “junk” science. But years after the National Academy of Sciences raised questions about hair strand, shoe print and bitemark analyses, and other forensic methodologies, courts are still admitting them as evidence. Why is scientific evidence with a high rate of error making its way into court?"

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Why is scientific evidence with a high rate of error making its way into court? The answer: trial judges, who act as “gatekeepers” and have the power to decide whether or not forensic evidence is admissible, are admitting them, according to an Albany Law Review study. Judges typically adhere to precedent. Even though the National Academy of Sciences Report, issued in 2009, established that many of the once commonly accepted forensic tests were shown to “lack scientific validity or to be of only limited probative value,” courts are still admitting expert testimony on the basis of them. “We know juries place great weight on scientific-sounding evidence, disregarding all other evidence to the contrary,” said the study’s authors, noting that post-conviction DNA testing and exonerations have long since cast doubt on such evidence."

STORY: "Why Do We Still Use ‘Junk Science’ to Convict? Blame the Judges,"  by Crime Report News Intern  John Ramsey, published by The Crime Report on August 1, 2018.

GIST: "For decades, the criminal justice system in the United States has convicted defendants on the basis of forensic evidence–some of which we now know to be highly suspect or “junk” science. But years after the National Academy of Sciences raised questions about hair strand, shoe print and bitemark analyses, and other forensic methodologies, courts are still admitting them as evidence.

Why is scientific evidence with a high rate of error making its way into court? The answer: trial judges, who act as “gatekeepers” and have the power to decide whether or not forensic evidence is admissible, are admitting them, according to an Albany Law Review study. Judges typically adhere to precedent. Even though the National Academy of Sciences Report, issued in 2009, established that many of the once commonly accepted forensic tests were shown to “lack scientific validity or to be of only limited probative value,” courts are still admitting expert testimony on the basis of them. “We know juries place great weight on scientific-sounding evidence, disregarding all other evidence to the contrary,” said the study’s authors, noting that post-conviction DNA testing and exonerations have long since cast doubt on such evidence. The study, entitled “It’s Not a Match: Why the Law Can’t Let Go of Junk Science,” was authored by Aliza B. Kaplan of Lewis & Clark Law School, and Janis C. Puracal of the Oregon Innocence Project and Maloney Lauersdorf Reiner, PC. The National Academy of Science (NAS) conclusions were strengthened by the subsequent President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (“PCAST”) Report, issued in 2016. They reviewed whether forensic evidence, such as DNA testing and bite mark analysis, are supported by reproducible research and, thus, reliable. Both concluded that a great deal of forensic evidence is insufficiently tested for validity and reliability. The NAS Report, for instance, claims that “[m]uch forensic evidence—including, for example, bite marks and firearm and toolmark identifications—is introduced in criminal trials without any meaningful scientific validation, determination of error rates, or reliability testing to explain the limits of the discipline.” Of the decisions reported since the release of the NAS Report in 2009, 97 cases mentioned the NAS Report , but just ten decided to challenge forensic evidence or to agree post-conviction that the evidence should’ve been excluded. Since the release of the PCAST Report, seven cases mention PCAST and most of those courts chose to admit questionable forensic evidence over the objections of the defendant. A forthcoming study, “Forensic Bitemark Identification Evidence in Canada,” found that the Canadian Supreme Court has repeatedly directed trial judges in that country to exercise a robust gatekeeper role when faced with requests for admission of invalid science. But none of the courts excluded bite mark analysis, nor questioned the scientific validity of the practice. The study also found that there were “14 cases in which courts relied on a forensic bitemark identification, a number that likely underestimates the use of this practice.” “Still,” the reported added, “in the cases we found, forensic bitemark experts overstated the accuracy and reliability of their practice, and did not appear to disclose the considerable controversy in the field.” That study was conducted by Jason Chin of The University of Queensland – T.C. Beirne School of Law, and D’Arcy White of the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law. Today, the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 702 guides decision-making on admissibility of scientific evidence. It declares that a trial court consider “whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue,” in deciding to admit evidence and testimony. The admissibility of scientific evidence in trial court is determined by the judge. And judges remain the principle obstacles. The Supreme Court of Utah has noted that lawyers and judges “tend to comfortably rely upon settled legal precedent and practice, especially when long-settled technical rules are concerned, and to largely ignore the teachings of other disciplines, especially when they contradict long-accepted legal notions.” Nevertheless, chances of reform coming from the federal government are slim. Following the release of the PCAST report, no plan for change was implemented by the Obama administration. In April 2017, the Department of Justice announced it wouldn’t be renewing the National Commission on Forensic Science. Attorney Generals Loretta Lynch and Jeff Sessions have both expressed confidence in the status quo, the Albany study noted. Individual states, however, have made strides in improving how the courts handle forensic evidence. The Texas legislature blazed a trail by establishing the Texas Forensic Science Commission. The intention of the Texas Commission is to “investigate complaints involving forensic disciplines,” to “establish procedures, policies, and practices to improve the quality of forensic analyses conducted in Texas,” and “to establish licensing programs for forensic disciplines.” The Texas Forensic Science Commission comprises seven independent scientists and two attorneys, a prosecutor and a defense lawyer, who are unpaid and make nonbinding recommendations on forensic matters. The Texas Commission can hear from experts in an area, review studies, and collaborate with professionals in the justice system to improve education and training in forensic science and the law. The solution proposed by the study is the creation of a “state-specific forensic resource counsel,” something that already exists in North Carolina. The job of North Carolina’s forensic resource counsel is “to assist North Carolina public defenders and private appointed counsel in understanding and if appropriate, challenging the forensic science evidence in their cases.” In order to establish a conversation between the law and science, a forensic resource counsel would be responsible for “assembling commissions to review forensics within the state, proposing and appearing as amicus in hearings before Special Masters to explore advances in forensic methodologies and necessary changes in the law; collaborating with forensic resource counsel, lawyers, and experts in other states to find independent scientists who can further the research and assist with facilitated conversations with prosecutors, defense counsel, and judges; and offering seminar trainings for prosecutors, defense counsel, and the judiciary.” The rigor and precision of forensic sciences is generally accepted by the public, but in the light of new evidence, a slow-to-change legal system will continue to potentially ruin lives unnecessarily. The full study of, “It’s Not a Match: Why the Law Can’t Let Go of Junk Science”, can be found here. The full study of, “Forensic Bitemark Identification Evidence in Canada,” is available here."

The entire story can be read at the link below:
https://thecrimereport.org/2018/08/01/why-do-we-still-use-junk-science-to-convict-blame-the-judges

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.

Book review series: (Part 20): Adnan Syed. (Serial): 'Adnan's Story' and what it tells us about 'Serial' - by Jessica Roy - reviewed by Rabia Chaudry in The Los Angeles Times..."Rabia Chaudry is a woman on a mission. She's the one who approached "This American Life" producer Sarah Koenig about Adnan Syed, who was sentenced to life in prison for a murder he says he didn't commit. That story turned into "Serial," the podcast mega-hit that debuted in 2014. The first season, which took an intense look at Syed's case, has been downloaded more than 80 million times. Chaudry is a longtime friend of the Syed family who is convinced of Adnan's innocence."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: In the roughly 10 years since I began publishing The Charles Smith Blog some of the issues I have explored - as well as some of the cases I have been following - have become the subject matter of books. This prompted me recently - as I searched anxiously for ways of keeping me occupied during the languid summer hours - other than sitting on the patio, drinking a cool glass of white wine, and reading the latest Steven King - it occurred to me that a book review series based in my previous posts from the outset of the Blog would be just what the pathologist ordered. I would invite my readers to offer me their own suggestions  for inclusion by email to hlevy15@gmail.com. Have a great summer.

Harold Levy: Publisher. The Charles Smith Blog.

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Syed was accused of killing his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee, but Chaudry's basic assumption is that someone else must have. Her book is critical of every move made by the police and court system. Even the man who found Lee's body isn't safe from scrutiny: She makes note of his arrest record for indecent exposure and includes crimes committed more than a decade after the murder took place. Syed's case has been back in the news: In June he was granted a new trial based on questions about cellphone-tower evidence, and in July the state of Maryland announced that it intends to fight that ruling. As "Serial" listeners will remember, cellphone-tower pings were what confirmed the state's timeline of the day  Lee was murdered. Publisher St. Martin's Press says the book will include a letter from the author with her reaction to the news of Syed's  conviction being vacated (but the story may be moving too fast for them to keep up). The cell tower records are addressed at length in the book, along with more information "Serial" listeners never learned."

STORY: "The book 'Adnan's Story' and what it tells us about 'Serial,'  by Jessica Roy, published by The L.A. Times on August 4, 2016.

SUB-HEADING:  "Rabia Chaudry, who first brought the story of Adnan Syed to the attention of "Serial" producers, has written a book with more details about the case and the podcast. (St. Martin's Press)"

GIST: "Rabia Chaudry is a woman on a mission. She's the one who approached "This American Life" producer Sarah Koenig about Adnan Syed, who was sentenced to life in prison for a murder he says he didn't commit. That story turned into "Serial," the podcast mega-hit that debuted in 2014. The first season, which took an intense look at Syed's case, has been downloaded more than 80 million times. Chaudry is a longtime friend of the Syed family who is convinced of Adnan's innocence. After "Serial" ended, Rabia Chaudry co-hosted her own podcast, "Undisclosed." Now we have her new book, "Adnan's Story: The Search for Truth and Justice After 'Serial.'" The first half of the book focuses on the details of the investigation and court proceedings. It is rather dense and at times reads like an attorney case file — not surprising because Chaudry is a lawyer. Syed was accused of killing his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee, but Chaudry's basic assumption is that someone else must have. Her book is critical of every move made by the police and court system. Even the man who found Lee's body isn't safe from scrutiny: She makes note of his arrest record for indecent exposure and includes crimes committed more than a decade after the murder took place. Syed's case has been back in the news: In June he was granted a new trial based on questions about cellphone-tower evidence, and in July the state of Maryland announced that it intends to fight that ruling. As "Serial" listeners will remember, cellphone-tower pings were what confirmed the state's timeline of the day  Lee was murdered. Publisher St. Martin's Press says the book will include a letter from the author with her reaction to the news of Syed's  conviction being vacated (but the story may be moving too fast for them to keep up). The cell tower records are addressed at length in the book, along with more information "Serial" listeners never learned. A few of the major surprises:

1)  Syed  was almost exonerated after his first trial. The first trial ended in a mistrial because of a lawyer's mistake. Members of that first jury later said they would most likely have found him not guilty.

2) The investigating detectives had a habit of going after the wrong guy. Chaudry goes over three other cases involving the same police detectives that ended with innocent men being incarcerated and later exonerated. The cases shared a number of similarities to Syed's.

3) Islamophobia played a big part in the state's case. A large portion of the book focuses on the role Syed's  religion played in his life and in the investigation. Chaudry contends that the police and the state attorney's office relied on a number of untrue and ugly stereotypes about Islam to make their case against Syed, some of which were unfortunately repeated in "Serial."

'Serial' had taken what seemed like a routine state-level homicide case and made it something mythical, magical.

4) "Serial" wasn't the story Chaudry wanted to tell: Part of what made the podcast so enthralling was how it explored Syed's  case from the side of someone who wasn't sure if he did it or not. Even by the last episode, Koenig confessed she couldn't conclusively assert his innocence. While that was exciting for listeners, who tuned in every week to find out more twists and turns, this was incredibly painful for Chaudry (and Syed's family, and  Syed himself) to listen to. She had hoped "Serial" would tell Syed's  story as one of an innocent man wronged, as opposed to putting him on trial all over again. It led to a number of heated exchanges between Koenig and Chaudry, including at least one shouting match. The detailed, documentary nature of "Serial" made it seem like listeners were hearing all the facts; in bringing up these fights that never made it into the podcast, Chaudry's book shows us how the producers were also shaping the story.

5) Jay Wilds had at least one possible motive: "Serial"  listeners noted Wilds was the only person ever directly connected to Lee's murder. He came to the police and showed them where her missing car had been stashed and was the state's star witness in implicating Syed. Podcast listeners argued back and forth online that, despite all that,  Wilds lacked a motive to kill  Lee. According to "Adnan's Story,"   there was one:  Wilds was cheating on his girlfriend, and Lee knew about it and had threatened to tell her.

6) But Wilds may have not been connected to the case at all: Toward the end of the book, Chaudry uncovers evidence suggesting Wilds  was heavily pressured by the police into testifying against Syed  and that everything he said — including the location of Lee's car — was invented by investigators to prop up their case. It was easy to forget, listening to "Serial,"  that it was a true story about real people. "Adnan's Story" adds context and humanizes it in a way that could change how you think about the case, and about "Serial" itself."

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

For an update on the Syed  case read the Wikipedia entry at the link below: "Trials and appeals: Syed's family hired defense attorney Cristina Gutierrez to represent him. During Syed's first trial, jurors accidentally overheard a sidebar dispute between Gutierrez and the presiding judge in which the judge referred to Gutierrez as a "liar".^[15] After learning that the jury had heard his characterization, the judge declared a mistrial. A second trial lasted six weeks and Syed was found guilty of first degree murder, kidnapping, false imprisonment, and robbery on February 25, 2000.^[16] Syed was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years.^[17] Adnan made a Direct Appeal in 2003 which was unsuccessful, and later made an appeal for Post Conviction Relief in 2010^[18] based on inadequate assistance of counsel including that Gutierrez did not investigate Asia McClain as an alibi witness; this appeal was denied in 2013^[19]. On February 6, 2015, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals approved Syed's application for leave to appeal ("leave" meaning "permission").^[20] On May 19, 2015, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals remanded the case to Circuit Court for potential hearing on the admissibility of alibi testimony of Asia McClain, who said she was talking with Syed in the library at the exact time the prosecutor said Syed attacked Lee in a Best Buy parking lot several miles away.^[21] On November 9, 2015, the Superior Court decided it would hear the case.^[22] According to Sarah Koenig's investigation as told in Serial, McClain's account of her encounter with Syed on the day of the disappearance would have been helpful for Syed during his trial.^[20] Syed's appeals lawyer Justin Brown said that new evidence about the reliability of incoming call data from AT&T is suspect and should be reviewed by an appeals court, stating, "the cell tower evidence was misleading and should have never been admitted at trial."^[23] On November 6, 2015, Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Martin Welch ordered that Syed's post-conviction relief proceedings, which determines if he deserves a new trial, would be re-opened "in the interests of justice for all parties."^[24] The post-conviction relief hearing, originally scheduled to last two days, lasted five days from February 3 – 9, 2016.^[25] The hearing was attended by people from across the U.S., including Koenig, and McClain testified that she talked to Syed at the library on January 13, 1999.^[26] On June 30, 2016, Judge Welch granted Syed's request for a new trial, ruling that Gutierrez "rendered ineffective assistance when she failed to cross-examine the state's expert regarding the reliability of cell tower location evidence," vacating Syed's conviction.^[27][28] In October 2016, Syed's attorneys requested bail be granted to Syed until the retrial started.^[29] On December 29, 2016, Judge Welch denied bail for Syed.^[30] On March 29, 2018, the decision to grant Syed a new trial was upheld by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.^[31] On May 14, 2018, the State applied to the highest court in Maryland, the Court of Appeals, with a petition for writ of certiorari to make another appeal of the case. Syed's defense has filed an opposition^[32] and the Court is likely to decide if they will hear the case within 6 to 8 weeks of the appeal.^"
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Hae_Min_Lee

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

PUBLISHING INFORMATION: 

"Adnan's Story: The Search for Truth and Justice after 'Serial'"

By Rabia Chaudry

St. Martin's Press: 416 pp., $26.99

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

The entire review can be read at the link below:

http://www.latimes.com/books/la-ca-jc-adnan-syed-book-serial-20160718-snap-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.