Thursday, October 9, 2025

October 9: Robert Roberson: Death Row: Texas; Publisher's Note: Dear readers: Since I will be 'out of commission' for the month of October, I will be unable to report on developments surrounding Robert Roberson's scheduled execution by the State of Texas, which is to be carried out on October 16. Here's how you can keep plugged in on developments in my absence, thanks to The Center for Integrity in Forensic Science and The Innocence Project. Links provided. HL: PS: Public Pressure is crucial: I have also provided a link to the Innocence Project's petition I just signed. I hope you will too. HL;


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dear Readers: Since I will be undertaking a writing project for the month of October, I will be unable to report on  developments surrounding his imminent execution by the State of  Texas, which  is to be carried out on  October 16 - unless, as I truly hope will happen, the authorities will buckle under public pressure, and cancel the execution. You can sign the Innocence Project petition  as I have just done - and help assert that  pressure - at:

https://innocenceproject.org/petitions/justice-for-robert-roberson/

I have been following the Roberson case - (with mounting rage) in which the State of  of Texas (to its eternal discredit)  has been thirsting to kill an innocent,  autistic, grieving father on  the basis of debunked junk  shaken baby syndrome' (SBS)   so-called 'science' for years - and will be able to continue publishing until  Wednesday, October 1.

For the rest of October, I suggest  you check in regularly to  the Centre for The Integrity of Forensic Science (CIFS)  and The Innocence Project, for up-to-date reporting and analysis. They can be be accessed at the following links.

Center for integrity  in forensic science:(CIFS) 

https://cifsjustice.org/news/

Innocence Project;

https://innocenceproject.org/

————————————————————————————————————


Timeline: Dallas Observer: September 22, 2025;

January 2022

Roberson takes his daughter, Nikki, to an emergency room in Palestine, saying that he found the girl unresponsive after she fell from her bed. In the days prior, Nikki had been diagnosed with a respiratory illness, had recorded a fever of 104.5 degrees and was given prescriptions for promethazine to treat the illness. Doctors later pronounced the toddler dead.

A doctor diagnoses Nikki with Shaken Baby Syndrome, a form of child abuse, and Roberson is charged with the death of his daughter and arrested.\

February 2003

During Roberson’s trial, medical providers testiy that they found Roberson’s response to his daughter’s illness suspicious, because he did not present the amount of distress they’d expect from a father whose daughter has just died. The experts also say they believe that Nikki died of head trauma that resulted from Roberson shaking her violently, and that an autopsy revealed brain bleeds and bruising.

One expert also testifies that they believe Roberson had sexually assaulted Nikki, but the claim is dropped after no evidence is found to support the claim.

Roberson’s lawyers, rather than argue that Nikki’s condition could have resulted from lifesaving measures taken or her prior illness, say the man did not intend to kill his daughter. At the trial’s end, Roberson is found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to death by an Anderson County court.

July 2007

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismisses an appeal filed by Roberson’s attorneys, the first of several requests to reexamine the case that will be struck down. In the summer of 2015, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down additional appeals requests.

2013


Texas becomes the first state in the United States to pass a law that allows criminal cases to be reexamined if they were argued using science that has since been disproven, known as the “junk science law.” 

Around the same time, questions regarding the legitimacy of the “Shaken Baby Syndrome” theory as a medical diagnosis begin to gain traction, with some researchers arguing that shaking a child with the rigor that would result in death would also result in other symptoms often unseen in SBS cases. In subsequent filings, Roberson’s legal team argues that Nikki’s diagnosed pneumonia, which developed into sepsis, should have been considered as a contributor to her death.

June 2016 

Lawyers argue that the scientific community’s evolving understanding of Shaken Baby Syndrome allowed the case to be granted a second look under Texas’ junk science law, and that testimony presented during the initial trial violated Roberson’s constitutional right to a fair proceeding.

Roberson’s first execution is stayed four days before he is scheduled to be killed, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals sends his case back to his Anderson County trial court to be reevaluated.

2018

Roberson is diagnosed with Autism, which some experts say could have contributed to his behavior on the day of Nikki’s death.

2021 


During the evidentiary trial, the defense presents updated scientific analysis that they believe brings the conclusion that Roberson killed Nikki by shaking her into question.

2023


In January, the court finds that there is not enough evidence to warrant Roberson’s case being overturned.

Roberson’s attorneys file an appeal to the United States Supreme Court outlining the case in May. The filing argues that the evidentiary trial’s refusal to thoroughly reexamine Roberson’s case proves that Texas’ junk science law is “meaningless.”

The Supreme Court rejects the appeal in October.

May 2024

Brian Wharton, the detective who investigated and testified against Roberson, tells The Dallas Morning News that he has regretted his involvement in the case “for 20 years,” and urges the State of Texas to take Roberson off death row.

“It would be a ter­ri­ble lega­cy for all of us to be asso­ci­at­ed with exe­cut­ing an inno­cent man based on a rush to judg­ment and bad sci­ence,” said Wharton. รข€‹”We must pre­vent Texas from mak­ing a trag­ic, irreversible mistake.”

July 2024

An Anderson County court convenes in July and determines that Roberson will be killed in October, his second execution date. Although his lawyers file additional appeals, arguing that Roberson’s autism diagnosis prevented him from being fairly tried, the requests are denied over the subsequent months.

October 2024


In the days leading up to Roberson’s execution, scheduled for Oct. 17, several appeals and pleas for clemency are ignored or denied, and outrage surrounding the case grows. On Oct. 15, two days before he is set to be killed, the Texas Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence approves a subpoena that calls for Roberson to testify before the committee.

The Texas parole board votes against commuting Roberson’s sentence, eliminating the final path for Gov. Greg Abbott to grant a pardon in the case. Abbott remains largely silent on the case even as attention grows.

Oct. 17, 2024

Roberson is scheduled to be killed by lethal injection at 6:00 p.m.

In the hours leading up to 6:00 p.m., members of the Texas Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence begin filing appeals in the case, arguing that the state carrying out the execution would override their right to subpoena Roberson, who is scheduled to testify on Oct. 21.

At 10:00 p.m., the Texas Supreme Court issues a stay on the execution, arguing that the conflicting interests of the judicial and legislative branches have introduced a constitutional crisis. Attorneys say Roberson is “shocked” to learn his execution has once again been delayed.

November 2024

Attorney General Ken Paxton bars Roberson from testifying in person before the Texas Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence.

The Texas Supreme Court rules that state lawmakers violated their constitutional duties by interfering with the scheduled execution of Roberson. Still, the body acknowledges the committee’s right to have Roberson testify, as he is alive.

July 2025

A judge schedules a third execution date for Roberson. He is scheduled to be killed at the Texas State Penitentiary on Oct. 16 at 6 p.m.

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/timeline-robert-roberson-shaken-baby-texas-death-row-case-23308744/

 those who are not familiar with the Roberson case, it will be helpful to  read the letter released by The CFIS,  and signed by 20 exonerees, including five who, like Mr. Roberson who appear on the SBS exoneree list maintained by the National Registry of Exonerations. 

The extraordinary letter calls on  Texas authorities to do everything in their power to prevent Mr. Roberson's execution, at the link below, saying, in part, "The signatories express relief for their own exonerations “after years of heartache, anguish, and despair,” and gratitude to finally be “reunited with our families and communities, free to rebuild the lives stolen from us by the State.” They urge: “This is what we want for Robert and what he deserves,” and implore the Texas authorities “to prevent the wrongful execution of this innocent father.”

THE ENTIRE LETTER CAN BE READ AT: 

part-2-robert-roberson-death-row-texas.html

————————————-

All being well, I will be back in action at the beginning of November, and in the meantime I invite readers to keep sending me  comments,  suggestions, developments and tips, whatever,  at:

hlevy15@gmail.com

Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog:

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

Wednesday, October 8, 2025

October 8: Robert Roberson: Death Row: Texas; Publisher's Note: Dear readers: Since I will be 'out of commission' for the month of October, I will be unable to report on developments surrounding Robert Roberson's scheduled execution by the State of Texas, which is to be carried out on October 16. Here's how you can keep plugged in on developments in my absence, thanks to The Center for Integrity in Forensic Science and The Innocence Project. Links provided. HL: PS: Public Pressure is crucial: I have also provided a link to the Innocence Project's petition I just signed. I hope you will too. HL;


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dear Readers: Since I will be undertaking a writing project for the month of October, I will be unable to report on  developments surrounding  his imminent execution by the State of  Texas, which  is to be carried out on  October 16 - unless, as I truly hope will happen, the authorities will buckle under public pressure, and cancel the execution. You can sign the Innocence Project  petition  as I have just done - and help assert that  pressure - at:

https://innocenceproject.org/petitions/justice-for-robert-roberson/

I have been following the Roberson case - (with mounting rage) in which the State of  of Texas (to its eternal discredit)  has been thirsting to kill an innocent,  autistic, grieving father on  the basis of debunked junk  shaken baby syndrome' (SBS)   so-called 'science' for years  - and will be able to continue publishing until  Wednesday, October 1.

For the rest of October, I suggest  you check in regularly to  the Centre for The Integrity of Forensic Science (CIFS)  and The Innocence Project, for up-to-date reporting and analysis. They can be be accessed at the following links.

Center for integrity  in forensic science:(CIFS) 

https://cifsjustice.org/news/

Innocence Project;

https://innocenceproject.org/

————————————————————————————————————

For those who are not familiar with the Roberson case, it will be helpful to  read the letter released by The CFIS,  and signed by 20 exonerees, including five who, like Mr. Roberson who appear on the SBS exoneree list maintained by the National Registry of Exonerations. 

The extraordinary letter calls on  Texas authorities to do everything in their power to prevent Mr. Roberson's execution, at the link below, saying, in part, "The signatories express relief for their own exonerations “after years of heartache, anguish, and despair,” and gratitude to finally be “reunited with our families and communities, free to rebuild the lives stolen from us by the State.” They urge: “This is what we want for Robert and what he deserves,” and implore the Texas authorities “to prevent the wrongful execution of this innocent father.”

THE ENTIRE LETTER CAN BE READ AT: 

part-2-robert-roberson-death-row-texas.html

————————————-

Timeline: Dallas Observer: September 22, 2025;

January 2022

Roberson takes his daughter, Nikki, to an emergency room in Palestine, saying that he found the girl unresponsive after she fell from her bed. In the days prior, Nikki had been diagnosed with a respiratory illness, had recorded a fever of 104.5 degrees and was given prescriptions for promethazine to treat the illness. Doctors later pronounced the toddler dead.

A doctor diagnoses Nikki with Shaken Baby Syndrome, a form of child abuse, and Roberson is charged with the death of his daughter and arrested.\

February 2003

During Roberson’s trial, medical providers testiy that they found Roberson’s response to his daughter’s illness suspicious, because he did not present the amount of distress they’d expect from a father whose daughter has just died. The experts also say they believe that Nikki died of head trauma that resulted from Roberson shaking her violently, and that an autopsy revealed brain bleeds and bruising.

One expert also testifies that they believe Roberson had sexually assaulted Nikki, but the claim is dropped after no evidence is found to support the claim.

Roberson’s lawyers, rather than argue that Nikki’s condition could have resulted from lifesaving measures taken or her prior illness, say the man did not intend to kill his daughter. At the trial’s end, Roberson is found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to death by an Anderson County court.

July 2007

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismisses an appeal filed by Roberson’s attorneys, the first of several requests to reexamine the case that will be struck down. In the summer of 2015, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down additional appeals requests.

2013


Texas becomes the first state in the United States to pass a law that allows criminal cases to be reexamined if they were argued using science that has since been disproven, known as the “junk science law.” 

Around the same time, questions regarding the legitimacy of the “Shaken Baby Syndrome” theory as a medical diagnosis begin to gain traction, with some researchers arguing that shaking a child with the rigor that would result in death would also result in other symptoms often unseen in SBS cases. In subsequent filings, Roberson’s legal team argues that Nikki’s diagnosed pneumonia, which developed into sepsis, should have been considered as a contributor to her death.

June 2016 

Lawyers argue that the scientific community’s evolving understanding of Shaken Baby Syndrome allowed the case to be granted a second look under Texas’ junk science law, and that testimony presented during the initial trial violated Roberson’s constitutional right to a fair proceeding.

Roberson’s first execution is stayed four days before he is scheduled to be killed, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals sends his case back to his Anderson County trial court to be reevaluated.

2018

Roberson is diagnosed with Autism, which some experts say could have contributed to his behavior on the day of Nikki’s death.

2021 


During the evidentiary trial, the defense presents updated scientific analysis that they believe brings the conclusion that Roberson killed Nikki by shaking her into question.

2023


In January, the court finds that there is not enough evidence to warrant Roberson’s case being overturned.

Roberson’s attorneys file an appeal to the United States Supreme Court outlining the case in May. The filing argues that the evidentiary trial’s refusal to thoroughly reexamine Roberson’s case proves that Texas’ junk science law is “meaningless.”

The Supreme Court rejects the appeal in October.

May 2024

Brian Wharton, the detective who investigated and testified against Roberson, tells The Dallas Morning News that he has regretted his involvement in the case “for 20 years,” and urges the State of Texas to take Roberson off death row.

“It would be a ter­ri­ble lega­cy for all of us to be asso­ci­at­ed with exe­cut­ing an inno­cent man based on a rush to judg­ment and bad sci­ence,” said Wharton. รข€‹”We must pre­vent Texas from mak­ing a trag­ic, irreversible mistake.”

July 2024

An Anderson County court convenes in July and determines that Roberson will be killed in October, his second execution date. Although his lawyers file additional appeals, arguing that Roberson’s autism diagnosis prevented him from being fairly tried, the requests are denied over the subsequent months.

October 2024


In the days leading up to Roberson’s execution, scheduled for Oct. 17, several appeals and pleas for clemency are ignored or denied, and outrage surrounding the case grows. On Oct. 15, two days before he is set to be killed, the Texas Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence approves a subpoena that calls for Roberson to testify before the committee.

The Texas parole board votes against commuting Roberson’s sentence, eliminating the final path for Gov. Greg Abbott to grant a pardon in the case. Abbott remains largely silent on the case even as attention grows.

Oct. 17, 2024

Roberson is scheduled to be killed by lethal injection at 6:00 p.m.

In the hours leading up to 6:00 p.m., members of the Texas Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence begin filing appeals in the case, arguing that the state carrying out the execution would override their right to subpoena Roberson, who is scheduled to testify on Oct. 21.

At 10:00 p.m., the Texas Supreme Court issues a stay on the execution, arguing that the conflicting interests of the judicial and legislative branches have introduced a constitutional crisis. Attorneys say Roberson is “shocked” to learn his execution has once again been delayed.

November 2024

Attorney General Ken Paxton bars Roberson from testifying in person before the Texas Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence.

The Texas Supreme Court rules that state lawmakers violated their constitutional duties by interfering with the scheduled execution of Roberson. Still, the body acknowledges the committee’s right to have Roberson testify, as he is alive.

July 2025

A judge schedules a third execution date for Roberson. He is scheduled to be killed at the Texas State Penitentiary on Oct. 16 at 6 p.m.

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/timeline-robert-roberson-shaken-baby-texas-death-row-case-23308744/

All being well, I will be back in action at the beginning of November, and in the meantime I invite readers to keep sending me  comments,  suggestions, developments and tips, whatever,  at:

hlevy15@gmail.com

Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog:

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

Tuesday, October 7, 2025

Back In Action: New South Wales: Australia; Stephen “Shorty” Jamieson; False statements and 'verballing'; 'The Conversation' reveals "new linguistic research" which casts doubt on his decades-old murder conviction, noting that: "The detectives, under oath, told the jury the transcript captured the confession “exactly as Jamieson said it." Our research really questions whether that claim can possibly be true. Many assume Jamieson’s signature proves the confession was genuine, if not exact. However, flaws in this assumption were clear as far back as 1987. According to the Australian Law Reform Commission: just as oppressive conduct can cause a suspect to make false admissions, so it can cause a suspect to sign a document containing those admissions. This was one reason behind 1995 legislation introducing compulsory electronic recording of interviews. By then, it had been officially acknowledged at the highest levels that admitting an unverified transcript risks verballing. Jamieson’s interview was completely unverified. He was alone with the detectives until a Justice of the Peace came to read the record of interview back to him (he couldn’t read at the time), and witness him signing his “voluntary” confession (which he withdrew as soon as the interview was over)."


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: In a nutshell,  the term 'verballing' refers to the police practice of fabricating or misrepresenting a suspect's statements to make it appear as if a confession was made, even if it never occurred. HL;

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Of course, none of this proves conclusively that Jamieson was verballed. What it does do, surely, is strengthen the case for review of his conviction, to be made again in coming weeks. Jamieson’s 1990 jury reached their verdict on the basis of testimony that has been acknowledged to be inaccurate, under legal procedures that have been acknowledged to be deeply flawed. As long ago as 1989, a Queensland inquiry made a recommendation that resonates beyond state borders: special consideration be given for a review of the convictions of any individuals who have raised allegations of “verballing” […] who are still in prisonMore to the story? It’s comfortable to think the possibility of verballing died with mandatory electronic recording. But it lives on for those convicted under pre-1995 rules. It also survives in legal procedures that still allow juries to be misled by inaccurately transcribed confessions."

————————————————————

STORY: "New linguistic research casts doubt on decades-old murder conviction, published by The Conversation, on October 30, 2025. The Conversation promise 'academic rigour, journalistic flair.'

GIST: On September 8 1988, 20-year-old Janine Balding was abducted, raped, and brutally murdered in New South Wales. Police quickly arrested four youths, who accused an older man nicknamed “Shorty”.

Two weeks later, police interviewed Stephen “Shorty” Jamieson. Within a few hours, they had a full confession, typed by one of the detectives, and signed by Jamieson as a “record of interview” given of his own free will.

But when Jamieson arrived at his committal hearing, the youths called out to authorities: “you’ve got the wrong Shorty!”. It seems they had been referring to another man, also nicknamed Shorty, known to wear a black bandanna similar to the one used to gag the victim.

Nevertheless, Jamieson’s trial continued. In June 1990, he was convicted, along with two of the youths, and sentenced to life in prison. There he remains to this day, despite longstanding efforts by solicitor Peter Breen to have his conviction reviewed.

Recent hearings have focused on DNA analysis of the black bandanna. Our new linguistics research casts doubt on the confession that convicted Jamieson.

Confessions as legal gospel

It’s important to be clear that while the other two were convicted on the basis of substantial evidence of guilt (which both later admitted), Jamieson’s conviction depended wholly on the confession transcribed by police.

Nowadays, police interviews must be electronically recorded. At the time of Jamieson’s trial, a verbal confession could be admitted as a typed “record of interview”.


However, the risk of “verballing” (police faking a confession that was never really made) was already well known.

Jamieson’s lawyers opposed the transcript vigorously during the trial, but the detectives testified it was accurate:

Defence lawyer: You see there is a very lengthy answer there that goes on for something in excess of half a page?

Detective: Yes.

Lawyer: Are you saying that those words were recorded exactly as Jamieson said it?

Detective: Yes, I am saying that.

Lawyer: You did not need to prompt him in any way?

Detective: No

Lawyer: Didn’t need to remind him about anything?

Detective: No. I did not.

In convicting Jamieson, the jury must have been persuaded by the detectives’ strong testimony.

A 1992 appeal was unsuccessful. The defence had one last hope: official review of the conviction.

Just the ‘gist’

A 2001 application to review Jamieson’s conviction included linguistic analysis by Rod Gardner (one of the authors of this piece), who compared the 1988 police transcript to a professional transcript of another interview with Jamieson, audio-recorded in 1995.

Finding many differences, Gardner concluded:

it is extremely unlikely that [the police transcript] is an accurate record of what would have been said in a police interview with Jamieson.

However, Justice Bruce James rejected the application, dismissing Gardner’s conclusion. He acknowledged the transcript was not Jamieson’s exact words, but thought it captured the gist of a genuine confession. Any inaccuracies simply reflected the detective typist’s “limited proficiency”.

He even excused the detective’s strong testimony, saying it was merely “an emphatic denial” of the defence suggestion, during cross-examination, that police “had concocted the whole interview”.

Confession or construction?

The Research Hub for Language in Forensic Evidence has undertaken a fresh analysis of Jamieson’s case.

This asked if the detectives could have transcribed even the gist of an interview in real time, as they claimed.

A new experiment simulating their task suggests not. It used the video of a recent (unrelated) police interview. Participants had to type as much as they could of a three minute clip, without pausing.


All participants were fast typists. Average speed was 68 words per minute – well into the professional typing range. One live-captioning expert managed an astonishing 142 words per minute.

Nevertheless, their average accuracy was only 34%, compared to the reference transcript.

Importantly, those who typed around 40 words per minute (surely the most Jamieson’s transcriber could claim, given his “limited proficiency”) averaged a mere 20% accuracy. That’s hardly the “gist” of an interview.

What does this mean for the 1990 trial?

The detectives, under oath, told the jury the transcript captured the confession “exactly as Jamieson said it”. Our research really questions whether that claim can possibly be true.

Many assume Jamieson’s signature proves the confession was genuine, if not exact. However, flaws in this assumption were clear as far back as 1987. According to the Australian Law Reform Commission:

just as oppressive conduct can cause a suspect to make false admissions, so it can cause a suspect to sign a document containing those admissions.

This was one reason behind 1995 legislation introducing compulsory electronic recording of interviews. By then, it had been officially acknowledged at the highest levels that admitting an unverified transcript risks verballing.

Jamieson’s interview was completely unverified. He was alone with the detectives until a Justice of the Peace came to read the record of interview back to him (he couldn’t read at the time), and witness him signing his “voluntary” confession (which he withdrew as soon as the interview was over).

Where to from here?

Of course, none of this proves conclusively that Jamieson was verballed.

What it does do, surely, is strengthen the case for review of his conviction, to be made again in coming weeks.

Jamieson’s 1990 jury reached their verdict on the basis of testimony that has been acknowledged to be inaccurate, under legal procedures that have been acknowledged to be deeply flawed.

As long ago as 1989, a Queensland inquiry made a recommendation that resonates beyond state borders: special consideration be given for a review of the convictions of any individuals who have raised allegations of “verballing” […] who are still in prison.

More to the story?

It’s comfortable to think the possibility of verballing died with mandatory electronic recording. But it lives on for those convicted under pre-1995 rules.

It also survives in legal procedures that still allow juries to be misled by inaccurately transcribed confessions.

The entire story can be read at:

https://theconversation.com/new-linguistics-research-casts-doubt-on-decades-old-murder-conviction-267425

———————————————————

THE AUTHORS: 

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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.

SEE BREAKDOWN OF  SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG,  AT THE LINK BELOW:  HL:


https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985


———————————————————————————————

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: "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;


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