Monday, January 4, 2021

Annie Dookhan: Sonja Farak: Here we are in a new year - and the Boston Globe reports that "nearly a decade after the state drug lab scandal, the fallout is growing. (Message to Massachusetts prosecutors and politicians: Was it really worth looking the other way?HL)..."Three former state prosecutors are facing possible disbarment. Thousands of men and women convicted of drug crimes continue to see their convictions overturned. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is on the hook for an estimated $10 million to wrongfully convicted defendants. And now Suffolk County prosecutors are reviewing the possibility of even more wrongdoing at the closed William A. Hinton state drug lab in Jamaica Plain. Eight years after news broke of corruption within the state’s two drug labs, first with the arrest of chemist Annie Dookhan in 2012 and then her colleague Sonja Farak in Western Massachusetts the following year, the scandal is far from over; in fact it’s still growing.''



NOTA BENE: Check out new entry in my weekly "Selfless Warrior Blog," published earlier today at the link below:

"Maurice Gagnon wasn't just a whistleblower...It was more like he was playing an ear-shattering horn in his battle to expose the  evil machinations of  Charles Smith (and his backers in the Chief Coroner's office in Toronto) who turned the tragic  accidental death of his beloved 11-month-old grandson  Nicholas into murder, saying his daughter  Lianne, Nicholas's mother, was responsible for her son's  death and, even though the police had closed their investigation for want of any evidence, Smith  did his best to have Liannes's newborn baby seized from her and handed over to the child protection authorities.  (Yes, 'evil'  machinations. I use the word  advisedly, because Smith declared war on this wonderful family, which had suffered a terrible loss, and deserved sympathy rather than the threat of being prosecuted for murder and the seizure of a new-born baby. He put them through hell. That, in my books, is 'evil'.) Maurice persisted, in the face of  obfuscations and duplicitous acts, hounding the authorities with brilliantly researched, meticulously worded complaints, which invariably became public (as did the no-comment, evasive, or equivocal and  responses, or passing the bucks,  until Smith and his powerful backers,  were exposed, the public became outraged, a public inquiry was ordered,  and the powerful backers, the former  chief coroner (James Young) and his former deputy chief coroner  (Jim Cairns),  allowed their medical licenses to lapse with the result that they could no longer be subjected to professional discipline hearings. All this  because of one man - a man who would not rest  who would not rest until the police and prosecutors backed off their outrageous, utterly unfounded murder investigation, until his new grand-daughter was removed from the grasp of the children's aid authorities, until those responsible for the attack on his family had been brought to account, and until all the other people who had been wronged by Charles Smith had achieved justice. And that's just the start."


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

Back to the Charles Smith Blog: (Current post):

QUOTE OF THE DAY:  “These scandals produced two of the largest mass exonerations in the history of our criminal legal system because they were two of the gravest injustices in the history of our criminal legal system,” said Matt Segal, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, one of the lawyers who successfully fought to vacate thousands of cases involving the two chemists. But, he added, “Anyone who blames these injustices entirely on two chemists, instead of the system that fostered and protected their misconduct, is selling something. "

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

STORY: "Nearly a decade after Annie Dookhan and the state drug lab scandal, the fallout is growing,"  published by The Boston Globe on Jan.1, 2021.

SUB-HEADING: "Wronged defendants to receive millions, while former prosecutors face discipline."

GIST:  "Three former state prosecutors are facing possible disbarment. Thousands of men and women convicted of drug crimes continue to see their convictions overturned. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is on the hook for an estimated $10 million to wrongfully convicted defendants.

And now Suffolk County prosecutors are reviewing the possibility of even more wrongdoing at the closed William A. Hinton state drug lab in Jamaica Plain.


Eight years after news broke of corruption within the state’s two drug labs, first with the arrest of chemist Annie Dookhan in 2012 and then her colleague Sonja Farak in Western Massachusetts the following year, the scandal is far from over; in fact it’s still growing.


The women admitted they had compromised drug tests in criminal cases by falsifying results, or in Farak’s case, stealing drugs for her own use. They have both served their time and been released.


In a filing last month, Suffolk District Attorney Rachael Rollins’s office said it is also examining the work of Della Saunders, another state chemist who worked alongside Dookhan, to ensure that she, too, did not falsify drug test results.


Prosecutors were reviewing more than 4,000 pages of recently released files from a 2014 inspector general report “to confirm that the investigation appropriately examined the conduct of (chemist Della) Saunders and that Dookhan was indeed the Lab’s sole bad actor,” Donna Patalano, general counsel for Rollins’s office, wrote in the filing.


For their part, the former assistant attorneys general are facing discipline from the Board of Bar Overseers for allegedly withholding key evidence that would have revealed Farak had been abusing drugs long before she got caught and raised questions about her work in many more cases.


Lawyers watching the largest crime lab scandal in US history unfold say that cleaning up the legal mess has taken so long in large measure because the injustice was so vast.


“These scandals produced two of the largest mass exonerations in the history of our criminal legal system because they were two of the gravest injustices in the history of our criminal legal system,” said Matt Segal, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, one of the lawyers who successfully fought to vacate thousands of cases involving the two chemists.

But, he added, “Anyone who blames these injustices entirely on two chemists, instead of the system that fostered and protected their misconduct, is selling something. "


***


Annie Dookhan became a household name in the months after her arrest in September 2012, leaving a long trail of falsified drug analyses as well as e-mails that showed she was anything but a neutral witness in the justice system. Instead, Dookhan viewed herself as part of the prosecution team, openly saying that her goal was “getting (drug dealers) off the street.”


The case against Dookhan was clear — a year after she was arrested she admitted her crimes. She pleaded guilty in November 2013 to obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, and perjury. She was sentenced to three years in prison and was released in April 2016.


Farak’s misdeeds were, in some ways, far worse, but less well known. She used drugs she stole on the job — and the extent of her drug use was not revealed by prosecutors until almost two years after her arrest.


At a press conference announcing Farak’s arrest in January 2013, then-Attorney General Martha Coakley suggested her misconduct was confined to two stolen drug samples.


The charges against Farak, Coakley said at a news conference, “do not implicate the reliability of testing done or fairness to defendants.”


But defense attorneys looked for proof that Farak’s drug use could have stretched back years and eventually found it: mental health worksheets that State Police pulled from her car when she was arrested. These worksheets, filled out by Farak herself, showed the chemist had been using drugs for at least a year before she was arrested.


A judge in 2017 called prosecutors’ failure to produce those worksheets sooner “a fraud upon the court.”


Eventually, defense lawyers obtained Farak’s counseling records and discovered she had been using drugs for at least eight years.


In 2018, the state’s high court threw out tens of thousands of convictions based on evidence tested at the Amherst lab while Farak worked there — and the alleged misconduct of former state prosecutors Anne Kaczmarek, Kris Foster. and John Verner.


So far, nearly 38,000 cases have been dismissed statewide in the scandal, including 16,393 cases where Farak tested the drugs and 21,405 where the chemist was Dookhan. There are potentially thousands left to go.


Today, defense attorneys argue that Farak was likely using drugs before she arrived at the Amherst lab in 2004. From 2003 to 2004, Farak worked at the Hinton Lab in Jamaica Plain, where she tested more than 9,000 samples involving some 5,000 defendants.


Already, Middlesex District Attorney Marian Ryan’s office has dropped one case that Farak handled while she worked in Boston, the conviction of Eugene Sutton for possession of heroin with intent to distribute.


Ryan’s office has 1,600 other cases where drug convictions relied on Farak’s work at the Hinton Lab. Suffolk District Attorney Rollins has about 1,000. Both prosecutors are considering vacating any convictions that hinged on Farak’s work.


“The fact that the cases handled by Farak are pretty old doesn’t change our obligation to be certain of the integrity of the convictions,” said Ryan in an interview.


“If there is something amiss with these convictions, we need to remedy that,” she added.


At the same time, state officials are still figuring out how much they need to repay drug defendants who were charged a myriad of court fees in cases that have now been thrown out.


The state has agreed to refund 10 or more types of fees and fines, including indigent counsel fees, probation supervision fees, victim witness fees, court costs, DNA test fees, drug analysis fees, and driver’s license reinstatement fees, among others.

Each wrongfully convicted defendant stands to receive thousands of dollars in refunds.


“This is certainly one of the long shadows cast by the drug lab scandal,” said Daniel Marx, who along with attorneys William Fick and Luke Ryan filed class actions lawsuits in 2018 on behalf of 40,000 Dookhan and Farak defendants. “Every day that goes by where the state continues to hold money that belongs to these people is a day that compounds the damage that was done and continues the violations of their constitutional rights.”


Probation fees alone can total nearly $1,000 a year. And defendants can’t avoid paying that fee; failure to pay could result in a probation violation that would send them to jail.


“That’s beautiful,” said Richard Salomon, who served six months in jail after pleading guilty to a cocaine offense. “It’s only right. They ruined a lot of people’s lives. I would put the money in savings for now, to eventually buy a house and take care of my family.”


State agencies have been working with Attorney General Maura Healey and defense lawyers to come up with a plan to reimburse the defendants and settle the case. The parties are expected to file a progress report by March 15.


“The crimes committed by Annie Dookhan and Sonja Farak were egregious and have had a grave impact on thousands of people in Massachusetts and undermined the integrity of our justice system,” said Healey in a statement. “The defendants that were impacted deserve a quick and fair solution and we look forward to closing this troubling chapter for Massachusetts.”


***

Last month, the state’s Board of Bar Overseers, a disciplinary panel appointed by the Supreme Judicial Court, wrapped up hearings against Kaczmarek, Foster, and Verner, the three prosecutors in Coakley’s office. Kaczmarek prosecuted both chemists. Foster handled appeals in Farak’s case, and Verner was their supervisor.

In 2017, Hampden Superior Court Judge Richard Carey found that Kaczmarek and Foster, had “deliberately withheld” Farak’s mental health worksheets. Carey called their actions “a fraud upon the court.”


The three lawyers have denied any wrongdoing.


Kaczmarek said her job was to prosecute Farak and she was required to provide any exculpatory evidence only to Farak’s lawyer. Any decision to share that information with district attorneys or defense lawyers would have been made by someone more senior than her, she said.


Foster, who had been an assistant attorney general for only two months when she was asked by her supervisors to respond to a subpoena from defense lawyers, said she was told by others in the office that all documents had been turned over.

Her lawyer, Allen David, argued that she was only following orders.


Verner, who was chief of the attorney general’s criminal division at the time, said he didn’t micromanage the lawyers who worked for him and didn’t know any evidence had been withheld until it finally came to light.


“John Verner has been a prosecutor for 20 years and possesses the highest professional ethics,” wrote his lawyers, Patrick Hanley and Tom Butters, in a statement to the Globe. “He denies all of the allegations of misconduct lodged by the Office of Bar Counsel.”


Northeastern Law School professor Daniel Medwed, who filed the complaint that led to the disciplinary charges against the lawyers, said he hopes they are hit with some form of punishment.


“I’m thrilled the Office of the Bar Counsel is taking it so seriously,” he said. “Not only that they’ve investigated so thoroughly, but they are pursuing sanctions and discipline in such a transparent way.”


Should Verner be disciplined, he said, it could have far-reaching implications because supervisors are “seldom held accountable where prosecutors overstep the bounds of ethics.”


But the disciplinary process could continue for some time — if the Board of Bar Overseers seeks disbarment or other serious punishment for the prosecutors, the case will go to the Supreme Judicial Court, which will have the last word.

As a result, it’s almost certain that the fallout from the drug lab scandal will continue well into 2021 — or beyond.


Segal of the Civil Liberties Union, for one, is not surprised.

“If you wrongfully convict tens of thousands of people, punish them severely, continue to punish them through severe collateral consequences, and then fight their attempts to clear their names, then any attempt to remedy all that injustice is bound to take time,” he said.""

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


The entire story can be read at:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/01/metro/nearly-decade-after-annie-dookhan-state-drug-lab-scandal-fallout-is-growing/

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;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD (FOR NOW!): "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they’ve exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, January 3, 2021

Lisa Montgomery. Indiana: Bulletin: Major (unwelcome) Development execution: Appeals court reverses lower courts decision halting her exception, originally set for Dec. 8, to allow her attorneys time to recover from Covid-19...Her lawyers are planning to ask the full appellate court to overturn the panel's decision. “Given everything we know about Lisa Montgomery’s mental illness, her lifetime of horrific torture and trauma, and the many people in positions of authority who could have intervened to save her but never did, there can be no principled reason to carry out her execution,” Ms. VerGow said."...Execution scheduled for Jan. 12.


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Attorneys and supporters for Montgomery have argued that she suffers from several mental disorders that emerged from a lifetime of abuse. “Given everything we know about Lisa Montgomery’s mental illness, her lifetime of horrific torture and trauma, and the many people in positions of authority who could have intervened to save her but never did, there can be no principled reason to carry out her execution,” Ms. VerGow said. “The government should stop its relentless efforts to end her life, and President Trump should commute her sentence to life without possibility of release."

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

STORY: "Appeals court refuses to halt execution of only woman on death row," by reporter Jeff Mordock, published by The Washington Times on January 1, 2020. 


GIST: "A federal appeals court on Friday refused to delay the execution of the only woman on federal death row, reversing a lower court’s decision that halted the execution last week. 


In an emergency New Year’s Day ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that a lower court judge should not have postponed the execution of Lisa Montgomery.


U.S. District Court Judge Randolph Moss last month delayed Montgomery’s execution, which was originally scheduled for Dec. 8, to allow her attorneys time to recover from COVID-19.


After Judge Moss granted the stay, the Justice Department scheduled her execution for Jan. 12. Last week, he ruled the Justice Department acted illegally by setting an execution date while the stay was in order.


But the Court of Appeals said Judge Moss had erred in his ruling and affirmed Montgomery’s execution date as Jan. 12.


Montgomery’s attorney said she would ask the full appellate court to overturn the panel’s decision.


“We will ask the en banc court to reconsider this ruling,” said Meaghan VerGow. “The federal government must be required to follow the law in setting any execution date, as the district court correctly held. Lisa Montgomery should not be executed on Jan. 12.”


Montgomery would be the first woman executed in the United States in almost 70 years. She is set to die by lethal injection at the federal penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana.

 

In 2004, Montgomery was convicted of murdering Bobbie Jo Stinnett, who was eight months pregnant. Montgomery cut Stinnett’s unborn child from her womb with a kitchen knife. The child was missing but was later found and survived.


Attorneys and supporters for Montgomery have argued that she suffers from several mental disorders that emerged from a lifetime of abuse.


“Given everything we know about Lisa Montgomery’s mental illness, her lifetime of horrific torture and trauma, and the many people in positions of authority who could have intervened to save her but never did, there can be no principled reason to carry out her execution,” Ms. VerGow said. “The government should stop its relentless efforts to end her life, and President Trump should commute her sentence to life without possibility of release."


The entire story can be read at:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/1/lisa-montgomery-execution-appeals-court-refuses-de/


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;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD (FOR NOW!): "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they’ve exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bitemark junk science: Part Two: Blaine Milam: Texas: Set to be executed on January 21, 202. Sentenced to death for 2008 slaying of girlfriend's baby in alleged exorcism. Stay of execution (no longer in effect) had previously been granted...


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: (From Part One: (January 2, 2021): "It’s largely left up to individual judges to decide whether to admit bitemark matching evidence , according to Chris Fabricant, director of strategic litigation at the Innocence Project.  “We’ve got (three current) pretrial capital cases where bitemark evidence was proffered by the prosecutors,” he said.  Texas has come the closest to completely removing bitemark matching evidence from the courtroom. Texas’s Forensic Science Commission called for a ban on bitemark matching evidence in 2016 but lacks the authority to enforce it."

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: (From  January 14, 2019 Texas Tribune story on the Texas Court of Criminal decision - since reversed - to block Blaine Milan's previously scheduled execution date, citing changes in intellectual disability law and  bitemarks 'science.'...  "At trial, the prosecution linked Milam to several of the bite marks. But his attorneys now say that science has largely been discredited, pointing to the Court of Criminal Appeals’ recent decision to overturn the murder conviction of Steven Chaney. (In December, the court took the rare step of asserting Chaney's innocence, saying his conviction was based on bite-mark science that “has since been undermined or completely invalidated.” Chaney spent more than 25 years behind bars.)


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


STORY: "Texas court stops first execution of 2019, citing changes in intellectual disability law and Bitemarks science," by reporter Jolie McCullough, published by The  Texas Tribune on January 14, 2019.


GIST: "The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has stopped the state’s first execution of the year, calling for a lower court to take another look at the case following changes in bite-mark science and laws regarding intellectual disability and the death penalty.


Blaine Milam received a stay from the court on Monday, a day before his death was scheduled. Milam, 29, was convicted in the brutal death of his girlfriend’s 13-month-old baby girl in 2008 in East Texas.


In a late appeal, Milam's lawyers argued against the state’s reliance on bite-mark testimony, which was a key part of his trial. His lawyers also claimed he was intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution.


In December 2008, Milam called 911 and police in Rusk County arrived to find the body of Amora Carson, according to court opinions. The medical examiner counted 24 human bite marks on the baby’s body and found evidence of blunt force trauma and sexual assault.

T

At trial, the prosecution linked Milam to several of the bite marks. But his attorneys now say that science has largely been discredited, pointing to the Court of Criminal Appeals’ recent decision to overturn the murder conviction of Steven Chaney. (In December, the court took the rare step of asserting Chaney's innocence, saying his conviction was based on bite-mark science that “has since been undermined or completely invalidated.” Chaney spent more than 25 years behind bars.)


Rusk County prosecutors, meanwhile, argued to the court that the questions over bite-mark science were settled at Milam’s trial in 2010. And they said the state had enough other evidence that it wouldn’t have affected the jury's decision at the time. They pointed to testimony that Milam told his sister from jail to find a hidden pipe wrench believed to be used in Carson’s assault — and his apparent confession to a jail nurse.


The trial court must also take another look at Milam’s claims of intellectual disability, according to the court order. The issue was raised at Milam’s trial, which prosecutors said put the issue to bed, but there has been considerable change in how the state determines such disability since 2010.


In 2017, the U.S Supreme Court tossed out the method the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had previously used to determine who is intellectually disabled and, therefore, constitutionally ineligible to be executed. The Court of Criminal Appeals later said it would change its test, which used outdated medical standards and nonclinical factors created by its judges, including how well the person could lie.

“Because of recent changes in the science pertaining to bite mark comparisons and recent changes in the law pertaining to the issue of intellectual disability ... we therefore stay his execution and remand these claims to the trial court for a review of the merits of these claims,” the court said in its order Monday.


The court will now consider Milam’s claims under current medical standards....."



The entire story can be read at:


https://www.texastribune.org/2019/01/14/texas-court-criminal-appeals-stays-execution-blaine-milam/


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;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD (FOR NOW!): "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they’ve exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, January 2, 2021

Bitemark junk science: Part One: Question of the day: (First question of 2021): Since most agree that bitemark matching is junk science, why is it still in the courts? Asked and answered on legalexaminer.com by reporter Elizabeth Anne Brown..."At least 27 people in the United States have been exonerated after faulty bitemark matching put them behind bars — but not before they lost a combined total of 450 years of their lives to a forensic “science” never grounded in research. Forensic odontologists are specialized dentists who assist law enforcement and medical examiners. Their expertise can be essential in identifying human remains — comparing badly damaged bodies to dental records, or estimating an age at death. But a slew of conviction reversals have demonstrated that bitemark matching, the practice of linking bitemark evidence on a body to a particular suspect’s teeth, often implicates the wrong person. Remarkably, a number of former leaders in the field have publicly denounced bitemark matching as “junk science” and recanted their testimony as expert witnesses."


COMMENTARY: "Most agree bite mark matching is junk science. Why is it still in the courts?" By Elizabeth Anne Brown.  Published by legal examiner.com on December 23, 2020.  

PASSAGE OF THE DAY:  "A complete lack of scientific  evidence:  "A 2009 National Academy of Sciences report sounded the alarm about a disquieting pattern with various forms of forensic evidence — bitemark matching, hair sample analysis and footprint evidence among them. These techniques were developed largely by law enforcement, outside of the checks and balances of the scientific peer review process, which demands consistent standards, objective measures and reproducible results.  Adam Freeman, a former president of the American Board of Forensic Odontology, has become an outspoken critic of bitemark matching. After asking ABFO-certified odontologists to analyze the same bitemark-matching case files to assess reproducibility, Freeman was disturbed to find that experts could rarely agree on whether a given wound was a human bitemark, much less match the mark to the same suspect."

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

GIST: "At least 27 people in the United States have been exonerated after faulty bitemark matching put them behind bars — but not before they lost a combined total of 450 years of their lives to a forensic “science” never grounded in research. 

Forensic odontologists are specialized dentists who assist law enforcement and medical examiners. Their expertise can be essential in identifying human remains — comparing badly damaged bodies to dental records, or estimating an age at death

But a slew of conviction reversals have demonstrated that bitemark matching, the practice of linking bitemark evidence on a body to a particular suspect’s teeth, often implicates the wrong person. Remarkably, a number of former leaders in the field have publicly denounced bitemark matching as “junk science” and recanted their testimony as expert witnesses. 

A complete lack of scientific evidence:

A 2009 National Academy of Sciences report sounded the alarm about a disquieting pattern with various forms of forensic evidence — bitemark matching, hair sample analysis and footprint evidence among them. These techniques were developed largely by law enforcement, outside of the checks and balances of the scientific peer review process, which demands consistent standards, objective measures and reproducible results.  

Adam Freeman, a former president of the American Board of Forensic Odontology, has become an outspoken critic of bitemark matching. After asking ABFO-certified odontologists to analyze the same bitemark-matching case files to assess reproducibility, Freeman was disturbed to find that experts could rarely agree on whether a given wound was a human bitemark, much less match the mark to the same suspect.  

Skin, as it happens, is not all the same — the trauma that bites leave (or don’t leave) on the human body vary wildly based on the victim’s age, weight, ethnic background, how easily the victim bruised, and whether they were dead or alive when the bite occurred. That’s not to mention the variables from the biter’s side — the force of the bite, whether they scraped the skin’s surface or clamped down perpendicular to the bone. These differences haven’t been quantified through scientific study, in part due to the difficulty of recreating injuries to living humans. 

“You’re never going to get approval to do a study where you say, I’m going to bite 1,000 people and some of those people are going to have cancer or diabetes or sickle cell anemia, some of those people are going to be Black and white and Greek,” Freeman told the Innocence Project

Wrongful imprisonment lawsuits and doubling down:

In many of the reversed convictions, bitemark evidence was the prosecution’s centerpiece and was cited as pivotal in the jury’s decision. Courtroom transcripts show forensic odontologists claimed a degree of certainty about bitemark matches absolutely unheard of in the scientific community and drew on statistics seemingly pulled from a hat. 

In the case of Jeffery Michael Moldowan, who spent 12 years in prison wrongly convicted for the kidnapping and rape of his ex-girlfriend, AFBO odontologists Allan Warnick and Pamela Hammel testified that the bites on the woman’s body could have been made only by Moldowan and another man tried as his accomplice. 

The “chances are 2.1 billion to 1 that another individual can make those same marks,” Warnick told the jury.  That’s nearly twice the accuracy of the average DNA test, which remains the forensic gold standard and has been validated via countless biochemical tests. 

Years after Moldowan’s conviction, Hammel recanted her testimony and accused Warnick of having misrepresented the evidence in order to have her corroborate his findings. Coupled with new witness information, Moldowan was acquitted at his retrial in 2003. In 2011, Moldowan settled a lawsuit against the city of Warren, MI,  for $2.8 million.    

The odontology board, the official certifying board for forensic odontologists, still lists bitemark matching as one of the services their diplomates offer. They’ve softened the language in their guidelines, which now state that the only options for linking dentition to a human bitemark are “excluded as having made the bitemark,” “not excluded as having made the bitemark,” or “inconclusive” — a far cry from Warnick’s statistics. The ABFO did not respond to requests for comment from the Legal Examiner.

Another organization called the American Society of Forensic Odontology said in an emailed statement that they “(do) not have an official position on bitemark evidence.” 

Is bitemark matching evidence still allowed in court?:

It’s largely left up to individual judges to decide whether to admit bitemark matching evidence , according to Chris Fabricant, director of strategic litigation at the Innocence Project. 

“We’ve got (three current) pretrial capital cases where bitemark evidence was proffered by the prosecutors,” he said. 

Texas has come the closest to completely removing bitemark matching evidence from the courtroom. Texas’s Forensic Science Commission called for a ban on bitemark matching evidence in 2016 but lacks the authority to enforce it. 

Florida’s conviction review unit, a team within the state attorney general’s office, works to identify cases that hinged on bunk science — including a bitemark matching case in which a man was exonerated after 37 years in September. 

“Some of the more progressive prosecutors that were elected more recently are pledging” to establish similar teams in their own states, but “it’s not the norm,” Fabricant said.  

Fabricant said there was hope for federal leadership on the issue at the twilight of the Obama administration. In 2016, then-attorney general Sally Yates “announced that there was going to be a systemic review of all the other pattern matching techniques that (the FBI) uses — firearms analysis, tool marks, footprints and fingerprints” and others, he said. But that never came to fruition during the Trump presidency. 

Fabricant said he “can’t help but to be somewhat optimistic” considering the incoming Biden administration’s vocal defense of science. 

“But also experience makes me a little cynical.""

The entire story can be read at: 

https://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/most-agree-bitemark-matching-is-junk-science-why-is-it-still-in-courts/

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;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD (FOR NOW!): "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they’ve exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Friday, January 1, 2021

Robert Pape and Cristin Smith: California. These two convicted men remain Incarcerated for triple murder and Arson 13 years later - despite "suspicions of Innocence," the Davis Vanguard (reporters Linh Nguyen and Maxwell Myrhum) reports...."Robert Pape and Cristin Smith were convicted of a triple homicide and arson in 2018 that occurred 12 years prior-on evidence that, for the most part, was known to investigators and the DA since 2008. The evidence used to convict appears to have been based largely on conjecture, incomplete data and hearsay."


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: One of the hidden treasures in North American criminal justice publishing is 'The David Vanguard', founded and edited by David Greenwald, and carried on with the input of teams of bright, motivated interns who keep a close eye on the courts in order to expose wrongdoing. i will be following the Pape and Smith case, and keep our readers plugged in. It should be an interesting journey. 

Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.

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


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "A witness for the prosecution, Alma Flores, a fingerprint analyst from the California Department of Justice testified that the two fingerprints found on the business card showed enough points of similarity to be conclusively matched to Smith. However, for 12 years prior, after analysis by two other state fingerprint experts, Pape and Smith were excluded as having left those prints.  In fact, one of the prints was deemed unsuitable for comparison. Flores was brought forward by the District Attorney only after the preliminary hearing, and just before trial.  Flores never examined the business card herself, but instead conducted her analysis by way of a photoshopped copy of the prints – a copy generated by the lead detective on the case. The defense did not bring in an expert witness of their own to refute the findings. Important to note is that Pape and Smith were excluded by DNA from every other item discovered at the crime scene.  There were no ballistic matches to any guns the two later owned (they owned no guns at the time of the crime. And there was no match to their shoes from any footprints found at the scene."

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

STORY: "Two Convicted Men Remain Incarcerated for Triple Murder and Arson Case 13 Years Later Despite Suspicions of Innocence (Update", by Linh Nguyen and Maxwell C. Myrhum, published by  The Davis Vanguard. (Linh Nguyen is a third year Political Science student at UC Davis, also pursuing a minor in Professional Writing. She is an aspiring investigative journalist from San Jose, California, who also shares interests in literature and baking. Maxwell C. Myrhum is a former intern from UC Davis.)

PALM SPRINGS, CA-  In the aftermath of a triple homicide, Robert Pape and Cristin Smith became the prime suspects. However, there are several prosecutorial and investigative issues in this case that suggests it was a wrongful conviction of innocent men.

On Sep. 17, 2006, 18-year-old Rebecca Friedli, her 53-year-old mother Vickie Friedli, and Vickie’s 51-year-old live-in partner Jon Hayward were murdered at their residence in Pinyon Pines, California. Two of the victims were shot and the home was set on fire and burnt to the ground.

Friedli’s cause of death remains uncertain. She was found burning in a wheelbarrow at the back of the home. In 2014, Pape and Smith were arrested for the first time, this arrest coincided with the district attorney’s re-election campaign, but charges were dropped seven months later.

In 2016 Pape and Smith were rearrested and tried in 2018. After 27 days of trial and 10 days of jury deliberations, the jury voted to convict. Robert Pape and Cristin Smith were sentenced to life without parole.

The night before the murders, Rebecca invited Robert Pape, 18 at that time, to hike with her on the trails near her home. Pape had no intention of going on the hike and that following Sunday after work informed Rebecca of this.

Pape instead decided to spend time with his close friend Cristin Smith, the two engaging in a number of mundane activities through the course of the evening. Although neither Pape or Smith went to Pinyon Pines, they both voluntarily went to the sheriff’s headquarters later to offer their help, Pape interviewing the very next day.

Pape and Smith were together the night of the murders and provided law enforcement with detailed alibis. A full year after the crime was committed, a search warrant was executed on Pape’s and Smith’s homes and their DNA was taken.  Nothing found within the homes connecting Pape or Smith to the crimes.

The defense argued that the DNA on the business card found at the scene was inconclusive. This business card came from MW, a previous Respect for Human Life director for the Catholic Diocese of San Bernardino.  MW had a close connection with Pape’s mother.

This business card was recovered 200 yards from the crime scene.  The assertion that the location that the card was found in was related to the triple homicide was built on pure conjecture. The defense argued that it was not established when the weathered and bleached business card was left at the location where it was found. This is  because the business card could have been dropped days before the murders rather than during the time of the murders.

Upon recovery, the business card was tested for DNA. A mixed sample was discovered with at least two contributors. Robert Pape was excluded. However, Cristin Smith could not be excluded with a 1 in 28 trillion probability that it could have belonged to him.

It should be noted that a business card is transient by nature. It is meant to go where the issuer does not.

The defence argued that, for instance, a salesman meets you at Starbucks and gives you his card, and, later that night, you are murdered in your home, does the fact that his card and his DNA are present in your home make him guilty of your murder?

A witness for the prosecution, Alma Flores, a fingerprint analyst from the California Department of Justice testified that the two fingerprints found on the business card showed enough points of similarity to be conclusively matched to Smith.

However, for 12 years prior, after analysis by two other state fingerprint experts, Pape and Smith were excluded as having left those prints.  In fact, one of the prints was deemed unsuitable for comparison.

Flores was brought forward by the District Attorney only after the preliminary hearing, and just before trial.  Flores never examined the business card herself, but instead conducted her analysis by way of a photoshopped copy of the prints – a copy generated by the lead detective on the case.

The defense did not bring in an expert witness of their own to refute the findings. Important to note is that Pape and Smith were excluded by DNA from every other item discovered at the crime scene.  There were no ballistic matches to any guns the two later owned (they owned no guns at the time of the crime. And there was no match to their shoes from any footprints found at the scene.

Another witness for the prosecution and a confidential informant, JW, appeared to be a person of interest. JW did not physically testify in court due to his own legal troubles at the time; instead, the transcript of his testimony from the preliminary hearing was read.

This made it impossible for defense attorneys to cross-examine JW’s testimony in front of the jury. Because JW’s identity was not revealed to the defense prior to his preliminary hearing testimony, a complete cross-examination was impossible at any time.

JW testified to an utterance Smith made to him at their workplace at Knott’s Soak City the day after the murders. JW said that Smith’s demeanor was unusual and allegedly uttered “something went wrong and we torched the place” to him.

This should not have been admissible because it was hearsay. (This hearsay was deemed admissible because it was offered for “state of mind” not for truth) Also, it is not substantial proof that Smith committed or was involved in the murders and fire.

According to another witness, SG, who was also Pape and Smith’s close friend, JW was allegedly offered $100,000 to testify before the court. This reward money is another reason the testimony should have been disqualified; it made JW’s testimony unfairly motivated.

Furthermore, SG also said that JW is untrustworthy. When SG gave detective Marek Kasprzyk JW’s phone number instead of JC’s (JW’s neighbor), JW impersonated JC over text messages with the detective.

In another show of character, in 2016, JW was arrested for having a gun on the front seat of his car. There was a prior incident of JW aggressively flashing a gun at a man in a condo complex. A fellow employee at Knott’s Soak City also testified that JW had become increasingly aggressive towards Soak City customers.

It is unknown how much weight the jury put into considering JW’s testimony during deliberations, but his testimony should have been disqualified considering these reasons and the fact that he changed the story he told law enforcement upon initial contact in 2011, state defense experts.

JG, one of Rebecca Friedli’s best friends in 2006, also appeared to be of some interest to this case.  The defense did attempt to raise JG as an alternate person of interest. This motion for third-party culpability was denied.

JG spent a significant amount of time with Rebecca and testified to the few days leading up to and after the murders. He provided the court with personal information and confirmed locations of activities, including the hike on the day of her murder, but did not seem to be pressed into his relations to and interactions with Pape and Smith.

Of particular interest is the relationship of both JG and Pape to Rebecca and how a possible romantic relationship affected either man’s involvement in this crime. However, as the third party Culp motion was denied, there was no opportunity to present this to the jury.

Another highly contentious piece of evidence among the prosecution and defense lies in the phone records and cell phone service on the night in question. More specifically, the apparent lack of service on both Pape and Smith’s cell phones between the hours of 7:13 & 10:23 PM.

The two were confirmed to have been together that night and their cell phones were outside their provider’s cellular service or turned off. Though this coincides with the timeline of the murders and arson it also coincides with their alibis.

And there was no reason for them to have their phones on. They were playing video games, paintball and later picked up Chapstick and gas at an AM PM. Both were in stable relationships and would either be calling their girlfriends later, or in Cristin’s case would be returning home to his live-in girlfriend.

However, several testimonies regarding the cell phone coverage and surveillance of such do raise some questions as to the validity of this evidence.

The first question relates to the whereabouts of the pair that evening after their phones went “dark.” The difficulty of assessing this at any time beyond 2006 is that the cell phone coverage in Palm Desert and Pinyon Pines and cell phone technology, in general, has changed dramatically. Any sort of cellular drive-test conducted by an expert witness from Gladiator Forensics or FBI agent Kevin Boles can only be used to show possible coverage, not definite coverage.

This was elaborated on by cellular expert witness Robert Aguero, who stated that even with the cellular drive-test, the variables like weather, subscriber traffic to the towers, obstacles, etc. were too great to have any confidence that the coverage generated by Gladiator maps in 2015 & 2016 was accurate to what that coverage was in 2006.

In addition, FBI Special Agent Kevin Boles revealed to the court that it was not uncommon for Cristin Smith to display inactivity on his phone during the hours in question. A sufficient amount of cellphone records were not obtained by investigators to even determine a pattern of cellphone habits.

Special Agent Boles also elaborated that the service in Pinyon Pines was so poor in 2006 that Rebecca Friedli wasn’t able to use her cell phone at home, but had to rely on a landline – confirmed by JG – which could very well contradict findings related to cell coverage in the 2010s.

There is even more forensics that point to the innocence of Pape and Smith.

Steve Carmen’s arson analysis and Elaine Pope’s body burn analysis present timelines that when viewed aside dispatch reports and testimony of those first on scene, basically prove that not only is it unlikely that Pape and Smith committed these horrific acts (for which motive was never produced), but that it would have been impossible for them to have committed this crime.

According to Carmen, the Friedli residence was set on fire at about 9:30.  Burn analyst Pope places the time that Rebecca Friedli is set on fire at approximately 9:55.

Per a number of vehicle drive tests performed by investigators Bodmer and Harvey, the drive time from the crime scene to the area where Pape’s cell phone would ping at 10:23 p.m., that drive (and this performed exceeding the speed limit much of the way) was anywhere between 35 to 45 minutes.  None of the neighbors who arrived first on scene saw a vehicle depart from the drive of the home.

The estimate of the arrival of neighbor TS is 9:55. And this essential witness also expressed a belief that someone involved in the crime may still have been present when he walked to the Friedli home and discovered Rebecca Friedli’s body. By TS’s account, and that of other first responders, it is almost certain that whoever committed this crime either parked a distance from the home or were able to vanish back into the neighborhood.

But even if they managed to exit the Friedli drive at 9:55 p.m. without being seen, given the fastest drive-time of tests performed, they would not have been able to get to the valley floor and the location where Pape pings Tower 88 by 10:23 p.m. The earliest arrival time would have been 10:30 p.m. And that’s only if they encountered zero obstacles and sped the entire drive there.

Robert Pape and Cristin Smith were convicted of a triple homicide and arson in 2018 that occurred 12 years prior-on evidence that, for the most part, was known to investigators and the DA since 2008.  The evidence used to convict appears to have been based largely on conjecture, incomplete data and hearsay."

The entire story can be read at:


https://www.davisvanguard.org/2021/01/two-convicted-men-remain-incarcerated-for-triple-murder-and-arson-case-13-years-later-despite-suspicions-of-innocence/

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;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD (FOR NOW!): "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they’ve exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: (Dear readers: Moving into 2021 - while doing my best to forget most of 2020 - and sending you my best wishes: The good news is that I am following some fascinating cases, trends and developments into the new year - and am very curious to see how they will develop. Please keep sending me tips on cases and developments relevant to the Blog which may be of interest. Hang in there and be well. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: As we go into 2021 (and many of us can't wait to get out of 2020) I want to give thanks  to the organisations and web sites that have been grist for The Charles Smith Blog mill over the past year - and to the individuals around the globe (some who do not wish to be named but know who they are) who have brought important developments, cases, and issues to my attention:  

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

Networked Knowledge: (Dr. Robert Moles)

http://www.netk.net.au/whatsnew.asp

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

Wrongful Conviction Report: (Andrew L. Urban):

https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org

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

CSSIDDS: Forensics and Law in Focus: (Dr. Michael Bowers):

https://csidds.com

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

The Registry of Exonerations:

http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx

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

Death Penalty Information Center;

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org

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

The Crime Report:

https://thecrimereport.org

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

The Marshall Report:

https://www.themarshallproject.org

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

Marshall Project: Next to die.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/next-to-die/fe

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

The Innocence Project:

innocence project

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

Northern California Innocence Project:

http://ncip.org

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

Grits For Breakfast: (Scott Henson):

https://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com

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

Innocence Canada: (exonerations):

exonerations

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

Courthouse News:

exonerations

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

California Innocence Project:

https://californiainnocenceproject.org

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

Northern California Innocence Project:

/http://ncip.org

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

The Appeal:

https://theappeal.org

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

Davis Vanguard. (David Greenwald): 

https://www.davisvanguard.org

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

The Intercept:

https://theintercept.com

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

Forensic Magazine

https://www.forensicmag.com

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

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  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;

-----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD (FOR NOW!): "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they’ve exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------