PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Toronto Star reporter Theresa Boyle's memorable story on Dr. Charles Smith's innocent victims - published on March 9, 2008 - was featured on this Blog on March 17, 2008;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: An overview of Joshua's case prepared by Commission staff indicates that:
Joshua was born in Belleville, Ontario on September 23, 1995 to Sherry Lee-Ann Sherret and Peter. Joshua had an older half-brother born on July 4, 1994 to Sherry and another partner. Sherry, Peter, Joshua and Joshua's bother all resided together in Trenton, Ontario. Joshua died on January 23, 1996, at the age of four months in Trenton,Ontario.
At the time of Joshua's death Sherry was 20 years old. On March 27, 1996, sherry was charged with first-degree murder in Joshua's death. After a preliminary inquiry she was committed to stand trial on that charge. However, that committal was subsequently quashed and she was ordered to stand trial on a charge of second-degree murder instead.
On January 4, 1999, a new indictment charging infanticide was placed before the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division). Sherry entered a plea of not guilty. However, the Crown then read into the record certain agreed facts. The defence called no evidence in response to the facts read in and did not dispute them. As a result sherry was convicted of infanticide. On June 2, 1999, she was sentenced to a one-year custodial term followed by two years of probation. Just prior to the laying of the criminal charge, on March 7, 1996, Joshua's brother was apprehended by the Northumberland Children's Aid Society and placed in foster care. He was ultimately adopted by his foster family. In September, 2005, Sherry had another child, a daughter. The Children's Aid Society obtained a Supervision Order in October, 2006, in relation to this child. On April 11, 2007, that order was terminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post, which delved into Sherry Sherret's tragic situation, ran on March 17, 2008, as follows:
Part One: Collateral Damage: Dr. Charles Smith's Forgotten Victims;
"THE BOY, CHRISTOPHER (NOT HIS REAL NAME), IS ONE OF AT LEAST 17 CHILDREN WHOSE LIVES WERE THROWN INTO CHAOS AFTER THE DEATH OF A SIBLING. IN EACH CASE, DISGRACED PATHOLOGIST DR. CHARLES SMITH PERFORMED AN AUTOPSY OR OFFERED A CONSULTING OPINION ON THE DEATHS. BAD ENOUGH THEY HAD LOST A SISTER OR A BROTHER. BUT SMITH'S MISTAKES HELPED IMPLICATE THEIR PARENTS AND RESULTED IN THESE CHILDREN BEING REMOVED FROM THEIR HOMES BY CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES."
THERESA BOYLE: TORONTO STAR;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "collateral damage" caused by Dr. Charles Smith has been vividly captured by Toronto Star reporter Theresa Boyle, in a story, published on March 9, 2008, that focuses on "The 'forgotten victims' torn from their homes."
The disturbing story is accompanied by a photograph of Sherry Sherret in her home, holding the baby album of the son taken away from her for adoption.
Boyle's story makes the point that much of the damage caused by Smith - and those who failed to rein him in - will linger for years to come.
"July 2012. This date won't come soon enough for Sherry Sherret," Boyle's story begins;
"It's when her first born will turn 18. And it's when the Belleville mother will finally be reunited with the son who was put up for adoption when he was only 5," it continues.
"The boy, Christopher (not his real name), is one of at least 17 children whose lives were thrown into chaos after the death of a sibling. In each case, disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith performed an autopsy or offered a consulting opinion on the deaths. Bad enough they had lost a sister or a brother. But Smith's mistakes helped implicate their parents and resulted in these children being removed from their homes by children's aid societies.
At least three children, including Christopher, were adopted out to other families. There is no legal recourse to undo adoptions as the Child and Family Service Act stipulates that once an adoption order is finalized, it cannot be reviewed.
The remaining children were sent to live with relatives or foster families for as long as two years.These children are from the 20 botched death investigations that have been explored at the ongoing Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology. A panel of renowned forensic pathologists determined Smith erred in all these cases.
While attention has largely been focused on potentially wrongful convictions, these children have been the "forgotten victims" of his errors, says Julie Kirkpatrick, lawyer for one family.
The upheaval they faced is "among the worst consequences of Smith's mistakes," she says, adding they are no less victims of miscarriages of justice.
One of the many issues explored at the inquiry is that of child protection. Child advocates are putting forth an array of recommendations on behalf of the displaced children, including possible reconciliation of broken-up families.
Twice a year, Sherret, 32, gets letters and pictures from Christopher. She stares at the photos intently, looking for signs of her son's growth. From a picture he sent this past Christmas, she can see his face had filled out some. He looks more like his dad, her ex, she notes. But she can see her own DNA in his eyes.
"He's a gorgeous young man. He will be 14 years old in July. I keep thinking to myself, four more years," she says.
In his letters to her, he addresses her as "Dear Sherry."
"That hurts," she says. "But it's understandable."
She signs her letters back, "Love, Mommy Sherry."
Sherret lost two sons in 1996. That January, she discovered 4-month-old Joshua dead in his playpen. Smith said the child was suffocated, as evidenced by marks on his neck. The pathologist also said the boy had a fractured skull. Sherret was charged with first-degree murder.
Years later, when Smith's work came under scrutiny, Joshua's body was exhumed. It was revealed his skull wasn't fractured and the marks on his neck were actually created by Smith, himself, during the autopsy. Experts who reviewed the case said Joshua had accidentally asphyxiated in an unsafe sleep environment. He had slept in a playpen, under a sleeping bag, comforter and blankets.
Child-welfare workers removed Christopher, then 18 months, from her custody. He was first placed with his grandparents and then with a foster family.
In January 1999, Sherret was convicted on a reduced charge of infanticide. The following June she was sentenced to a year in jail and two years probation. Meantime, Sherret learned children's aid was putting forth an application to the courts to have Christopher move from foster care to adoption. The foster family told Sherret they would be willing to make him a permanent part of their family.
Evoking the parable of King Solomon threatening to split a baby to determine its rightful mother, Sherret made the difficult decision to let this family adopt her son, fearing he could otherwise bounce around different homes. The adoption agreement included the exchange of letters, annual phone calls from Christopher's foster mother and plans for a reunion when he turns 18.
Lawyer Suzan Fraser has been representing Defence for Children International at the inquiry. The group aims to protect the rights of youngsters and is going to bat for the 17 displaced children.
"The big problem is that there is no process for dealing with apprehension or adoption orders made on the basis of flawed pathology evidence," Fraser remarks.
She says the damage inflicted on the affected children is immeasurable. "Imagine the anger and the sorrow to learn that you had been wrongfully taken from your mother or father. Imagine the taunts of the other children in foster care teasing you because your mother killed your sister.
"Imagine the horror of losing your sibling and then your mother, when your mother was actually protective rather than the killer everyone thought she was? Imagine having no power to fix it."
Fraser is fearful there may be even more children out there who were uprooted from their homes because of errors Smith made in child-death investigations. Undoing Smith's mistakes isn't so easy. The Child and Family Services Act makes no provision to appeal an adoption order except within the first 30 days after it has been made.
"The best interests and stability of a child require that the adoption order is not subject to further review, even if unjust and based on a clearly erroneous factual premise," states a paper prepared for the inquiry by Queen's law professor Nicholas Bala and McGill social work professor Nico Trocme.
"However, if it is established that a child was removed from parental custody due to an erroneous belief that the parent was responsible for the death of a sibling, it may well be in the best interests of the children to have at least some contact with the parents, depending on their age and wishes. At the very least, the adoptive parents, and through them the children, should be informed of the new circumstances," they continue.
Sherret says Christopher doesn't know why she gave him up for adoption.
He only recently learned he has a 2-year-old sister. This is Sherret's third child, the only one with her. Christopher's adoptive mother was afraid to tell him about his new sibling, lest it raise questions about why his biological mother could keep one child and not another, Sherret says.
While she dreams about the day they'll see each other again, she has nightmares about the last time she saw him. It was in a playroom at the Northumberland Children's Aid Society. Sherret knew she wouldn't see her son, then 5, again until he was 18. She kept her eye on the clock, savouring her last three hours with him.
Mom and child played for the first 2 1/2 hours, but as the end of their visit neared, Sherret pulled the lad onto her lap for a serious chat. "I told him that mommy still has some problems to deal with and that he couldn't come home," Sherret recounts.
The lad reacted angrily. "He told me I lied," she says, explaining how Christopher reminded her of a previous promise that he could come home. "He wanted to come home and he wanted to know if he could keep Whisper, his kitty."
In his letters to her now, Christopher asks if she still has Whisper. She does.
Sherret wept during her final minutes with her son. Her tears continued to flow in the car on her way home. She had lost her two sons now and was on her way to prison.
The next day, she was sent to the Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton, where other inmates called her a "baby killer." She ignored their taunts until one day it became too much. She overheard one women ask another: "Do you know how Sherry killed her baby?"
"I remember just coming around the corner and starting to beat on her," recalls Sherret, who was moved to segregation and then to another detention centre.
As devastating as it was to be blamed, jailed and taunted for Joshua's death, those experiences paled in comparison to losing custody of Christopher, she says. "Having a child taken from you is like having your life taken from you. I just didn't want to be around. I didn't want to live. But then I sat there and thought, I've got to go on because I know I'll get a chance to see him at some point."
Despite the hell a biological parent like Sherret has gone though, returning custody of a child may not be the best idea, experts warn.
"While the unmerited separation of children from their parents is a great injustice, it does not necessarily follow that returning these children to the care of their parents is in their best interest," Bala and Trocme write in their report for the inquiry.
"In particular, if children are returned to their parents' custody after several years in a stable foster home, they may well be traumatized by the stress of separation from their foster families and the experience of returning to a now unfamiliar environment," they continue.
Still, Sherret's lawyer, James Lockyer, hopes adoptive parents would be open to allowing some sort of contact between the birth parents and the children.
"What you would hope is that the adoptive parent might have the foresight, strength, courage to consider allowing the children to recontact the parent. But that's a pretty tall order," he admits, likening the struggle to Bertolt Brecht's The Caucasian Chalk Circle, a play about a literal tug-of-war over a child.
Lockyer doesn't blame children's aid societies in these cases. They were just sadly relying on bad information from sources like Smith, he notes. "Wrongful convictions have consequences way beyond someone being in jail for something they didn't do."
less than three years ago, Sherret discovered she was pregnant again. Her first reaction was panic. Her name was still on the province's child-abuse registry and she faced the prospect of having her third child taken from her, too.
Her reaction wasn't so unusual. In another case in which Smith was involved, a couple decided to have an abortion after learning of an unexpected pregnancy. Angela Veno and Anthony Kporwodu had their toddler son seized by children's aid after they were charged with the 1998 death of their infant daughter. They were told any new child would also be seized. Sherret was duty bound to report her pregnancy to CAS, which she did. This is how she discovered serious questions were being raised about Smith's work. A CAS official told her the doctor was being investigated.
Sherret contacted the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted and Lockyer, who would assist her in trying to clear her name. He would also help her in her efforts to keep her third child. Initially, the CAS wanted to remove Sherret from her home when the baby was born, leaving the infant to reside with its father. Eventually they settled for a supervisory order, meaning Sherret could never be alone with the baby.
The child was born on Sept. 29, 2005.
For the first 11 months of the child's life, father Rob couldn't even go to the store without waking the baby and taking her with him.
But last April, a provincial court ruled that the supervision order be dropped. By this time, two outside experts had confirmed there was no foul play involved involved in Joshua's death.
"I believe I lost a special 11 months with her. It was an 11 months I could not be alone with my beautiful girl," Sherret says. "I had to go though hell to stay in her life."
Sherret has been diagnosed with major, chronic depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. "I'm exhausted physically, mentally."
Her children keep her going.
"I'm mad, but I have to live every day for my daughter and (Christopher), not just me," she says.
While she dreams about the day she'll see Christopher again, she has no illusions. "He's grown up with his family pretty much most of his life and it would just be wrong to take him away from them. I just want some kind of a relationship with him."
She's kept a lot of Christopher's old toys. She watches her daughter play with them, remembering her son doing the same.
"I would be so happy if I could see them play together," she says."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Monday, November 23, 2009
BREAKING NEWS: SHERRY SHERRET CASE: CANADIAN PRESS REPORTS CROWN AGREES TO SHERRY SHERRET'S ACQUITTAL;
"SMITH DETERMINED ASPHYXIA WAS THE CAUSE OF DEATH. HIS OPINION THAT JOSHUA'S DEATH WAS SUSPICIOUS WAS DUE IN PART TO HIS FINDINGS OF A SKULL FRACTURE AND NECK HEMORRHAGES, BUT BOTH OF THOSE FINDINGS HAVE SINCE BEEN REFUTED BY POLLANEN AND OTHER EXPERTS WHO REVIEWED THE CASE.
THERE WAS NO SKULL FRACTURE, THE EXPERTS FOUND, AND THE NECK HEMORRHAGES WERE IN FACT CAUSED BY SMITH DURING THE AUTOPSY, POLLANEN WROTE."
REPORTER ALLISON JONES: CANADIAN PRESS;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: An overview of Joshua's case prepared by Commission staff indicates that:
Joshua was born in Belleville, Ontario on September 23, 1995 to Sherry Lee-Ann Sherret and Peter. Joshua had an older half-brother born on July 4, 1994 to Sherry and another partner. Sherry, Peter, Joshua and Joshua's bother all resided together in Trenton, Ontario. Joshua died on January 23, 1996, at the age of four months in Trenton, Ontario.
At the time of Joshua's death Sherry was 20 years old. On March 27, 1996, sherry was charged with first-degree murder in Joshua's death. After a preliminary inquiry she was committed to stand trial on that charge. However, that committal was subsequently quashed and she was ordered to stand trial on a charge of second-degree murder instead. On January 4, 1999, a new indictment charging infanticide was placed before the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division). Sherry entered a plea of not guilty. However, the Crown then read into the record certain agreed facts. The defence called no evidence in response to the facts read in and did not dispute them. As a result sherry was convicted of infanticide. On June 2, 1999, she was sentenced to a one-year custodial term followed by two years of probation. Just prior to the laying of the criminal charge, on March 7, 1996, Joshua's brother was apprehended by the Northumberland Children's Aid Society and placed in foster care. He was ultimately adopted by his foster family. In September, 2005, Sherry had another child, a daughter. The Children's Aid Society obtained a Supervision Order in October, 2006, in relation to this child. On April 11, 2007, that order was terminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TORONTO — An Ontario woman convicted of killing her four-month-old son after a now-disgraced pathologist concluded the child's death was suspicious should be acquitted of infanticide, both the Crown and defence say in new court filings," the Canadian Press story by reporter Allison Jones published earlier today begins.
"Sherry Sherret-Robinson was found guilty in 1999 of killing her infant son Joshua due in part to evidence from Dr. Charles Smith, whose opinion at the time carried much weight," the story, continues, under the heading, "Court should acquit mom of infanticide in disgraced pathologist case: Crown."
"Since then his findings in dozens of cases have been called into question or discredited. A report on pediatric forensic pathology from Justice Stephen Goudge last year found the failings of the "arrogant" Smith, once considered the dean of his profession, and his bosses were at the heart of several miscarriages of justice.
Though Sherret-Robinson had initially pleaded not guilty to infanticide, the Crown and her lawyer drafted an agreed statement of facts that said she smothered Joshua, causing his death, and she was found guilty in a Belleville, Ont., court.
Her trial lawyer writes in an affidavit that had he known then what he knows now about Smith he would have told Sherret-Robinson to vigorously fight the charge.
Sherret-Robinson takes her bid to clear her name before the Ontario Court of Appeal on Dec. 7, and a factum filed with the court shows the Crown will recommend an acquittal.
New expert evidence "conclusively refutes critical aspects of Dr. Smith's opinion" and Sherret-Robinson's conviction should be quashed and an acquittal entered in its place, the Crown says in the documents.
Dr. Michael Pollanen, Ontario's chief forensic pathologist, re-autopsied Joshua's body in 2006 and concluded there is no definitive cause of death.
Smith determined asphyxia was the cause of death. His opinion that Joshua's death was suspicious was due in part to his findings of a skull fracture and neck hemorrhages, but both of those findings have since been refuted by Pollanen and other experts who reviewed the case.
There was no skull fracture, the experts found, and the neck hemorrhages were in fact caused by Smith during the autopsy, Pollanen wrote.
The experts concluded there is no basis in the pathology to support Smith's inference the baby was deliberately smothered or suffocated, but that it can't be ruled out.
Instead, Pollanen suggested, the autopsy findings and the fact that Joshua had numerous layers of blankets under, around and on top of him, "reasonably support the conclusion that death occurred by an accidental asphyxial means in an unsafe sleeping environment."
In an affidavit filed with the court Sherret-Robinson says she has always wondered if she put too many blankets around Joshua that night and now will have to live with the knowledge that probably led to his death.
"I will never forget the terror I felt when I reached down to pick him up and discovered that he was blue and his little body was completely stiff," she writes.
After the police arrived, the next thing she remembers is sitting in the emergency room, hugging a picture of Joshua and sobbing.
"Eventually the doctors came and told me he had died, and let me hold him to say goodbye," Sherret-Robinson writes.
"I sang him a lullaby and refused to let go of him. Even to this day I cannot get that image out of my head."
Goudge referred to Sherret-Robinson's case in his report, saying Smith "inappropriately" formed his opinion using matters outside the pathology, such as statements Sherret-Robinson had made one month before the death that she was depressed and was going to smother her baby."
The story can be found at:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5ibi5YwxRiC4ZAlcY9HRXR8o3Ieog
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
THERE WAS NO SKULL FRACTURE, THE EXPERTS FOUND, AND THE NECK HEMORRHAGES WERE IN FACT CAUSED BY SMITH DURING THE AUTOPSY, POLLANEN WROTE."
REPORTER ALLISON JONES: CANADIAN PRESS;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: An overview of Joshua's case prepared by Commission staff indicates that:
Joshua was born in Belleville, Ontario on September 23, 1995 to Sherry Lee-Ann Sherret and Peter. Joshua had an older half-brother born on July 4, 1994 to Sherry and another partner. Sherry, Peter, Joshua and Joshua's bother all resided together in Trenton, Ontario. Joshua died on January 23, 1996, at the age of four months in Trenton, Ontario.
At the time of Joshua's death Sherry was 20 years old. On March 27, 1996, sherry was charged with first-degree murder in Joshua's death. After a preliminary inquiry she was committed to stand trial on that charge. However, that committal was subsequently quashed and she was ordered to stand trial on a charge of second-degree murder instead. On January 4, 1999, a new indictment charging infanticide was placed before the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division). Sherry entered a plea of not guilty. However, the Crown then read into the record certain agreed facts. The defence called no evidence in response to the facts read in and did not dispute them. As a result sherry was convicted of infanticide. On June 2, 1999, she was sentenced to a one-year custodial term followed by two years of probation. Just prior to the laying of the criminal charge, on March 7, 1996, Joshua's brother was apprehended by the Northumberland Children's Aid Society and placed in foster care. He was ultimately adopted by his foster family. In September, 2005, Sherry had another child, a daughter. The Children's Aid Society obtained a Supervision Order in October, 2006, in relation to this child. On April 11, 2007, that order was terminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TORONTO — An Ontario woman convicted of killing her four-month-old son after a now-disgraced pathologist concluded the child's death was suspicious should be acquitted of infanticide, both the Crown and defence say in new court filings," the Canadian Press story by reporter Allison Jones published earlier today begins.
"Sherry Sherret-Robinson was found guilty in 1999 of killing her infant son Joshua due in part to evidence from Dr. Charles Smith, whose opinion at the time carried much weight," the story, continues, under the heading, "Court should acquit mom of infanticide in disgraced pathologist case: Crown."
"Since then his findings in dozens of cases have been called into question or discredited. A report on pediatric forensic pathology from Justice Stephen Goudge last year found the failings of the "arrogant" Smith, once considered the dean of his profession, and his bosses were at the heart of several miscarriages of justice.
Though Sherret-Robinson had initially pleaded not guilty to infanticide, the Crown and her lawyer drafted an agreed statement of facts that said she smothered Joshua, causing his death, and she was found guilty in a Belleville, Ont., court.
Her trial lawyer writes in an affidavit that had he known then what he knows now about Smith he would have told Sherret-Robinson to vigorously fight the charge.
Sherret-Robinson takes her bid to clear her name before the Ontario Court of Appeal on Dec. 7, and a factum filed with the court shows the Crown will recommend an acquittal.
New expert evidence "conclusively refutes critical aspects of Dr. Smith's opinion" and Sherret-Robinson's conviction should be quashed and an acquittal entered in its place, the Crown says in the documents.
Dr. Michael Pollanen, Ontario's chief forensic pathologist, re-autopsied Joshua's body in 2006 and concluded there is no definitive cause of death.
Smith determined asphyxia was the cause of death. His opinion that Joshua's death was suspicious was due in part to his findings of a skull fracture and neck hemorrhages, but both of those findings have since been refuted by Pollanen and other experts who reviewed the case.
There was no skull fracture, the experts found, and the neck hemorrhages were in fact caused by Smith during the autopsy, Pollanen wrote.
The experts concluded there is no basis in the pathology to support Smith's inference the baby was deliberately smothered or suffocated, but that it can't be ruled out.
Instead, Pollanen suggested, the autopsy findings and the fact that Joshua had numerous layers of blankets under, around and on top of him, "reasonably support the conclusion that death occurred by an accidental asphyxial means in an unsafe sleeping environment."
In an affidavit filed with the court Sherret-Robinson says she has always wondered if she put too many blankets around Joshua that night and now will have to live with the knowledge that probably led to his death.
"I will never forget the terror I felt when I reached down to pick him up and discovered that he was blue and his little body was completely stiff," she writes.
After the police arrived, the next thing she remembers is sitting in the emergency room, hugging a picture of Joshua and sobbing.
"Eventually the doctors came and told me he had died, and let me hold him to say goodbye," Sherret-Robinson writes.
"I sang him a lullaby and refused to let go of him. Even to this day I cannot get that image out of my head."
Goudge referred to Sherret-Robinson's case in his report, saying Smith "inappropriately" formed his opinion using matters outside the pathology, such as statements Sherret-Robinson had made one month before the death that she was depressed and was going to smother her baby."
The story can be found at:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5ibi5YwxRiC4ZAlcY9HRXR8o3Ieog
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
UP-DATE: BITE-MARK EVIDENCE; DOUGLAS PRADE CASE; INNOCENCE NETWORK FILES BRIEF; FOUR CASES OF ERRONEOUS BITE-MARK EVIDENCE CITED;
"THE INNOCENCE NETWORK HAS FILED A BRIEF WITH THE OHIO SUPREME COURT ON BEHALF OF FORMER AKRON POLICE CAPT. DOUGLAS PRADE. THE GOAL IS NEW DNA TESTING OF BITE-MARK EVIDENCE TO OVERTURN HIS CONVICTION FOR THE 1997 MURDER OF HIS EX-WIFE, DR. MARGO PRADE.
FOUR SIMILAR CASES OF ERRONEOUS BITE-MARK EVIDENCE WERE CITED BY THE INNOCENCE NETWORK IN THE PRADE DEFENSE BRIEF."
REPORTER ED MEYER: BEACON JOURNAL;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"New York attorney Barry Scheck was part of the defense team that represented O.J. Simpson in his 1995 murder trial", the Beacon Journal story by reporter Ed Meyer begins, under the heading "Lawyers compare four cases to Prade's" and the sub-heading, "Expert testimony helps convict men, but DNA finally sets them free".
"Attorneys won an acquittal for Simpson in the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman," the story, published on November 22, 2009, continues.
"Scheck, 60, is a co-founder of the nationally renowned Innocence Network. It is dedicated to pro bono criminal cases involving wrongful convictions based on erroneous forensic evidence.
The Innocence Network has filed a brief with the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of former Akron police Capt. Douglas Prade. The goal is new DNA testing of bite-mark evidence to overturn his conviction for the 1997 murder of his ex-wife, Dr. Margo Prade.
Four similar cases of erroneous bite-mark evidence were cited by the Innocence Network in the Prade defense brief.
Edmund Burke case: Police arrested Burke in 1998 for the murder of a 75-year-old woman in Walpole, Mass. The woman was strangled, beaten and stabbed, and there was a bite mark on her left breast.
The probable cause for Burke's arrest was the findings of forensic odontologist Dr. Lowell Levine, who was a prosecution witness in Prade's case.
Levine told police that the bite mark in Burke's case matched the evidence on the victim to a ''reasonable degree of scientific certainty.''
Despite Levine's opinion, new DNA analysis of the bite-mark evidence excluded Burke as the source. The case against him later was dismissed.
The killer later was identified by matching the DNA derived from the bite mark to a DNA profile in a national database.
Ray Krone case: Krone, a U.S. Air Force veteran without a criminal history, was convicted of the 1992 murder of a cocktail waitress in Phoenix. He was sentenced to death.
Bite marks were found on the victim's neck and, through her tank top, on her left breast. Two forensic odontologists identified Krone as the biter.
In 2002, new DNA testing of the saliva-stained tank top exonerated Krone.
The new DNA profile was run against the FBI's national database and identified the killer.
Roy Brown case: Brown went on trial and was convicted in 1992 of the murder of a social worker in Auburn, N.Y. Seven bite marks were found on her body.
In 1994, Brown was denied new DNA testing of saliva samples from the victim's nightgown. During the next decade in prison, he learned the identity of the killer, and prosecutors finally agreed to the new DNA testing in 2006.
Those DNA tests confirmed that the saliva samples matched the individual Brown identified as the killer.
Brown was freed in 2007 after 15 years in prison.
Robert Lee Stinson case: Stinson is the most recent person exonerated by new DNA evidence after being convicted on erroneous bite-mark testimony.
He was sentenced to life in prison for the 1984 murder of a 63-year-old woman in Milwaukee. The conviction was supported by the testimony of two forensic odontologists, including one of the experts in the Krone case.
In 2004, prosecutors gave Stinson access to the sweater the victim wore during the attack. New DNA testing detected male saliva that did not belong to Stinson.
Stinson was granted a new trial and released from prison in January. Prosecutors said in July they would not retry him.
''These four cases show that saliva from bite marks can be outcome determinative, especially in the face of a dispute among forensic odontologists as to whether such bite marks are actually a match,'' the Innocence Network states in its brief in Prade's case.
Scheck's brief in the Prade case states that the FBI's national data bank of convicted felons, unsolved crimes and missing persons contains more than 7.13 million DNA profiles, as of June.
That FBI data bank has produced more than 93,000 hits, assisting in more than 91,800 criminal investigations, Prade's brief states.
New York attorney Barry Scheck was part of the defense team that represented O.J. Simpson in his 1995 murder trial.
Attorneys won an acquittal for Simpson in the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.
Scheck, 60, is a co-founder of the nationally renowned Innocence Network. It is dedicated to pro bono criminal cases involving wrongful convictions based on erroneous forensic evidence.
The Innocence Network has filed a brief with the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of former Akron police Capt. Douglas Prade. The goal is new DNA testing of bite-mark evidence to overturn his conviction for the 1997 murder of his ex-wife, Dr. Margo Prade.
Four similar cases of erroneous bite-mark evidence were cited by the Innocence Network in the Prade defense brief.
Edmund Burke case: Police arrested Burke in 1998 for the murder of a 75-year-old woman in Walpole, Mass. The woman was strangled, beaten and stabbed, and there was a bite mark on her left breast.
The probable cause for Burke's arrest was the findings of forensic odontologist Dr. Lowell Levine, who was a prosecution witness in Prade's case.
Levine told police that the bite mark in Burke's case matched the evidence on the victim to a ''reasonable degree of scientific certainty.''
Despite Levine's opinion, new DNA analysis of the bite-mark evidence excluded Burke as the source. The case against him later was dismissed.
The killer later was identified by matching the DNA derived from the bite mark to a DNA profile in a national database.
Ray Krone case: Krone, a U.S. Air Force veteran without a criminal history, was convicted of the 1992 murder of a cocktail waitress in Phoenix. He was sentenced to death.
Bite marks were found on the victim's neck and, through her tank top, on her left breast. Two forensic odontologists identified Krone as the biter.
In 2002, new DNA testing of the saliva-stained tank top exonerated Krone.
The new DNA profile was run against the FBI's national database and identified the killer.
Roy Brown case: Brown went on trial and was convicted in 1992 of the murder of a social worker in Auburn, N.Y. Seven bite marks were found on her body.
In 1994, Brown was denied new DNA testing of saliva samples from the victim's nightgown. During the next decade in prison, he learned the identity of the killer, and prosecutors finally agreed to the new DNA testing in 2006.
Those DNA tests confirmed that the saliva samples matched the individual Brown identified as the killer.
Brown was freed in 2007 after 15 years in prison.
Robert Lee Stinson case: Stinson is the most recent person exonerated by new DNA evidence after being convicted on erroneous bite-mark testimony.
He was sentenced to life in prison for the 1984 murder of a 63-year-old woman in Milwaukee. The conviction was supported by the testimony of two forensic odontologists, including one of the experts in the Krone case.
In 2004, prosecutors gave Stinson access to the sweater the victim wore during the attack. New DNA testing detected male saliva that did not belong to Stinson.
Stinson was granted a new trial and released from prison in January. Prosecutors said in July they would not retry him.
''These four cases show that saliva from bite marks can be outcome determinative, especially in the face of a dispute among forensic odontologists as to whether such bite marks are actually a match,'' the Innocence Network states in its brief in Prade's case.
Scheck's brief in the Prade case states that the FBI's national data bank of convicted felons, unsolved crimes and missing persons contains more than 7.13 million DNA profiles, as of June.
That FBI data bank has produced more than 93,000 hits, assisting in more than 91,800 criminal investigations, Prade's brief states."
The story can be found at:
http://www.ohio.com/news/70755192.html
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
FOUR SIMILAR CASES OF ERRONEOUS BITE-MARK EVIDENCE WERE CITED BY THE INNOCENCE NETWORK IN THE PRADE DEFENSE BRIEF."
REPORTER ED MEYER: BEACON JOURNAL;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"New York attorney Barry Scheck was part of the defense team that represented O.J. Simpson in his 1995 murder trial", the Beacon Journal story by reporter Ed Meyer begins, under the heading "Lawyers compare four cases to Prade's" and the sub-heading, "Expert testimony helps convict men, but DNA finally sets them free".
"Attorneys won an acquittal for Simpson in the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman," the story, published on November 22, 2009, continues.
"Scheck, 60, is a co-founder of the nationally renowned Innocence Network. It is dedicated to pro bono criminal cases involving wrongful convictions based on erroneous forensic evidence.
The Innocence Network has filed a brief with the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of former Akron police Capt. Douglas Prade. The goal is new DNA testing of bite-mark evidence to overturn his conviction for the 1997 murder of his ex-wife, Dr. Margo Prade.
Four similar cases of erroneous bite-mark evidence were cited by the Innocence Network in the Prade defense brief.
Edmund Burke case: Police arrested Burke in 1998 for the murder of a 75-year-old woman in Walpole, Mass. The woman was strangled, beaten and stabbed, and there was a bite mark on her left breast.
The probable cause for Burke's arrest was the findings of forensic odontologist Dr. Lowell Levine, who was a prosecution witness in Prade's case.
Levine told police that the bite mark in Burke's case matched the evidence on the victim to a ''reasonable degree of scientific certainty.''
Despite Levine's opinion, new DNA analysis of the bite-mark evidence excluded Burke as the source. The case against him later was dismissed.
The killer later was identified by matching the DNA derived from the bite mark to a DNA profile in a national database.
Ray Krone case: Krone, a U.S. Air Force veteran without a criminal history, was convicted of the 1992 murder of a cocktail waitress in Phoenix. He was sentenced to death.
Bite marks were found on the victim's neck and, through her tank top, on her left breast. Two forensic odontologists identified Krone as the biter.
In 2002, new DNA testing of the saliva-stained tank top exonerated Krone.
The new DNA profile was run against the FBI's national database and identified the killer.
Roy Brown case: Brown went on trial and was convicted in 1992 of the murder of a social worker in Auburn, N.Y. Seven bite marks were found on her body.
In 1994, Brown was denied new DNA testing of saliva samples from the victim's nightgown. During the next decade in prison, he learned the identity of the killer, and prosecutors finally agreed to the new DNA testing in 2006.
Those DNA tests confirmed that the saliva samples matched the individual Brown identified as the killer.
Brown was freed in 2007 after 15 years in prison.
Robert Lee Stinson case: Stinson is the most recent person exonerated by new DNA evidence after being convicted on erroneous bite-mark testimony.
He was sentenced to life in prison for the 1984 murder of a 63-year-old woman in Milwaukee. The conviction was supported by the testimony of two forensic odontologists, including one of the experts in the Krone case.
In 2004, prosecutors gave Stinson access to the sweater the victim wore during the attack. New DNA testing detected male saliva that did not belong to Stinson.
Stinson was granted a new trial and released from prison in January. Prosecutors said in July they would not retry him.
''These four cases show that saliva from bite marks can be outcome determinative, especially in the face of a dispute among forensic odontologists as to whether such bite marks are actually a match,'' the Innocence Network states in its brief in Prade's case.
Scheck's brief in the Prade case states that the FBI's national data bank of convicted felons, unsolved crimes and missing persons contains more than 7.13 million DNA profiles, as of June.
That FBI data bank has produced more than 93,000 hits, assisting in more than 91,800 criminal investigations, Prade's brief states.
New York attorney Barry Scheck was part of the defense team that represented O.J. Simpson in his 1995 murder trial.
Attorneys won an acquittal for Simpson in the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.
Scheck, 60, is a co-founder of the nationally renowned Innocence Network. It is dedicated to pro bono criminal cases involving wrongful convictions based on erroneous forensic evidence.
The Innocence Network has filed a brief with the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of former Akron police Capt. Douglas Prade. The goal is new DNA testing of bite-mark evidence to overturn his conviction for the 1997 murder of his ex-wife, Dr. Margo Prade.
Four similar cases of erroneous bite-mark evidence were cited by the Innocence Network in the Prade defense brief.
Edmund Burke case: Police arrested Burke in 1998 for the murder of a 75-year-old woman in Walpole, Mass. The woman was strangled, beaten and stabbed, and there was a bite mark on her left breast.
The probable cause for Burke's arrest was the findings of forensic odontologist Dr. Lowell Levine, who was a prosecution witness in Prade's case.
Levine told police that the bite mark in Burke's case matched the evidence on the victim to a ''reasonable degree of scientific certainty.''
Despite Levine's opinion, new DNA analysis of the bite-mark evidence excluded Burke as the source. The case against him later was dismissed.
The killer later was identified by matching the DNA derived from the bite mark to a DNA profile in a national database.
Ray Krone case: Krone, a U.S. Air Force veteran without a criminal history, was convicted of the 1992 murder of a cocktail waitress in Phoenix. He was sentenced to death.
Bite marks were found on the victim's neck and, through her tank top, on her left breast. Two forensic odontologists identified Krone as the biter.
In 2002, new DNA testing of the saliva-stained tank top exonerated Krone.
The new DNA profile was run against the FBI's national database and identified the killer.
Roy Brown case: Brown went on trial and was convicted in 1992 of the murder of a social worker in Auburn, N.Y. Seven bite marks were found on her body.
In 1994, Brown was denied new DNA testing of saliva samples from the victim's nightgown. During the next decade in prison, he learned the identity of the killer, and prosecutors finally agreed to the new DNA testing in 2006.
Those DNA tests confirmed that the saliva samples matched the individual Brown identified as the killer.
Brown was freed in 2007 after 15 years in prison.
Robert Lee Stinson case: Stinson is the most recent person exonerated by new DNA evidence after being convicted on erroneous bite-mark testimony.
He was sentenced to life in prison for the 1984 murder of a 63-year-old woman in Milwaukee. The conviction was supported by the testimony of two forensic odontologists, including one of the experts in the Krone case.
In 2004, prosecutors gave Stinson access to the sweater the victim wore during the attack. New DNA testing detected male saliva that did not belong to Stinson.
Stinson was granted a new trial and released from prison in January. Prosecutors said in July they would not retry him.
''These four cases show that saliva from bite marks can be outcome determinative, especially in the face of a dispute among forensic odontologists as to whether such bite marks are actually a match,'' the Innocence Network states in its brief in Prade's case.
Scheck's brief in the Prade case states that the FBI's national data bank of convicted felons, unsolved crimes and missing persons contains more than 7.13 million DNA profiles, as of June.
That FBI data bank has produced more than 93,000 hits, assisting in more than 91,800 criminal investigations, Prade's brief states."
The story can be found at:
http://www.ohio.com/news/70755192.html
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Sunday, November 22, 2009
CRITICAL COMMENT: CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM CASE; HOUSTON CHRONICLE TAKES ON "FOUL POLITICS" EMANATING FROM TEXAS GOVERNOR'S OFFICE;
"IT DOESN'T TAKE A CRACK CSI SLEUTH LIKE THE CHARACTERS PLAYED BY LAURENCE FISHBURNE AND MARG HELGENBERGER TO SMELL SOME FOUL POLITICS EMANATING FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND THE NEW LEADERSHIP AT THE TEXAS FORENSIC SCIENCE COMMISSION. BY ATTACKING THE VERY PEOPLE AND GROUPS THAT HAVE DEVOTED THEIR EFFORTS TO SPOTLIGHTING WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS AND FREEING THE INNOCENT, CHAIRMAN BRADLEY HAS CERTAINLY NOT ALLAYED SUSPICIONS THAT HIS FIRST PRIORITY IN HIS NEW POST IS PROTECTING THE MAN WHO APPOINTED HIM RATHER THAN THOSE UNJUSTLY CONVICTED OF CRIMES."
EDITORIAL; HOUSTON CHRONICLE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background: (Wikipedia); Cameron Todd Willingham (January 9, 1968 – February 17, 2004), born in Carter County, Oklahoma, was sentenced to death by the state of Texas for murdering his three daughters—two year old Amber Louise Kuykendall, and one year old twins Karmon Diane Willingham and Kameron Marie Willingham— by setting his house on fire. The fire occurred on December 23, 1991 in Corsicana, Texas. Lighter fluid was kept on the front porch of Willingham’s house as evidenced by a melted container found there. Some of this fluid may have entered the front doorway of the house carried along by fire hose water. It was alleged this fluid was deliberately poured to start the fire and that Willingham chose this entrance way so as to impede rescue attempts. The prosecution also used other arson theories that have since been brought into question. In addition to the arson evidence, a jailhouse informant claimed Willingham confessed that he set the fire to hide his wife's physical abuse of the girls, although the girls showed no other injuries besides those caused by the fire. Neighbors also testified that Willingham did not try hard enough to save his children. They allege he "crouched down" in his front yard and watched the house burn for a period of time without attempting to enter the home or go to neighbors for help or request they call firefighters. He claimed that he tried to go back into the house but it was "too hot". As firefighters arrived, however, he rushed towards the garage and pushed his car away from the burning building, requesting firefighters do the same rather than put out the fire. After the fire, Willingham showed no emotion at the death of his children and spent the next day sorting through the debris, laughing and playing music. He expressed anger after finding his dartboard burned in the fire. Firefighters and other witnesses found him suspicious of how he reacted during and after the fire. Willingham was charged with murder on January 8, 1992. During his trial in August 1992, he was offered a life term in exchange for a guilty plea, which he turned down insisting he was innocent. After his conviction, he and his wife divorced. She later stated that she believed that Willingham was guilty. Prosecutors alleged this was part of a pattern of behavior intended to rid himself of his children. Willingham had a history of committing crimes, including burglary, grand larceny and car theft. There was also an incident when he beat his pregnant wife over the stomach with a telephone to induce a miscarriage. When asked if he had a final statement, Willingham said: "Yeah. The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man - convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do. From God's dust I came and to dust I will return - so the earth shall become my throne. I gotta go, road dog. I love you Gabby." However, his final words were directed at his ex-wife, Stacy Willingham. He turned to her and said "I hope you rot in hell, bitch" several times while attempting to extend his middle finger in an obscene gesture. His ex-wife did not show any reaction to this. He was executed by lethal injection on February 17, 2004. Subsequent to that date, persistent questions have been raised as to the accuracy of the forensic evidence used in the conviction, specifically, whether it can be proven that an accelerant (such as the lighter fluid mentioned above) was used to start the fatal fire. Fire investigator Gerald L. Hurst reviewed the case documents including the trial transcriptions and an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene. Hurst said, "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire." Two days before the Forensic Science Commission was to question Beyler in a public forum, the governor replaced its chairman and two other members whose terms were up. That forced the commission to delay the hearing so new members could read up on the case, and no new date has been set. Perry has since replaced a third member of the commission.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Try to imagine how the writers and actors of the three popular CSI: Crime Scene Investigation dramas on TV would handle this story line," the November 17, 2009, Houston Chronicle editorial begins.
"After numerous wrongful convictions of innocent Texans using flawed evidence, particularly in cases processed at the Houston Police Crime Lab, in 2005 the state Legislature mandated the creation of the Texas Forensic Science Commission to examine the work of crime scene investigators and the quality of forensic science practiced here," the editorial continues.
"One of the first cases tackled by the nine-member commission (including seven forensic specialists) was the arson conviction and subsequent execution in 2004 of a Corsicana man, Cameron Todd Willingham, for the deaths of his three daughters in a 1991 house fire. A final appeal before the execution to Texas Gov. Rick Perry challenging the validity of the arson evidence was denied.
The commission, composed of gubernatorial appointees, hired a nationally recognized arson expert, Craig Beyler, to evaluate the evidence. Without reaching a conclusion on Willingham's guilt or innocence, his report harshly criticized the scientific conclusions of law enforcement investigators that Willingham deliberately started the fire.
Shortly before the commission was to hear from Beyler, Perry replaced four commission members, including the chairman, Austin attorney Sam Bassett. His choice for the new chairman was former Harris County prosecutor and Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley, who canceled the meeting and raised a number of issues about the commission's lack of rules and procedures. While he pledged to continue the probe of the Willingham case, it's clear his timetable would push it beyond Governor Perry's March primary date with Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Thus the governor would avoid a potentially embarrassing campaign issue — greenlighting the execution of an innocent man.
At a hearing of the state Senate Criminal Justice Committee last week, Bradley suggested putting the commission's work on cases behind closed doors. He also challenged Houston state Sen. Rodney Ellis' participation, citing Ellis' chairmanship of the board of the Innocence Project, one of the key agents in uncovering the Houston Police Crime Lab scandal and an architect of the eventual plan to reform it. The Innocence Project also filed the complaint with the commission on the Willingham case and played a role in the exoneration of another man convicted in a similar arson case.
Ellis responded that in his testimony the chairman seemed bent on stalling the Willingham probe and that “he seemed unaware or unconcerned about the political implication surrounding his appointment by the governor. Texans lack confidence in the forensic science used in Texas cases, and Bradley's testimony did little to restore that confidence.” Ellis said his involvement in the Innocence Project is simply to make sure innocent people are not convicted and sent to prison.
Bradley's comments also initiated a retort from former Chairman Bassett, who pointed out that the law creating the commission called for timely investigations, and two of the three cases it is looking at date from complaints filed in 2006 that now may not be concluded until 2011 or later.
Innocence Project co-director and attorney Barry Scheck says Bradley's dismissive comments about the Innocence Project showed either ignorance or insensitivity to his group's role in exposing injustices in the Texas criminal justice system. “He obviously hasn't been following the exonerations,” said Scheck, “the forensic issues raised in Houston and how the forensic commission came into being.”
As committee chair Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, observed, without the Innocence Project's campaign there likely wouldn't have been a law passed creating the commission in the first place. He expressed hope that the current controversy will raise the forensic commission's profile and influence down the road.
It doesn't take a crack CSI sleuth like the characters played by Laurence Fishburne and Marg Helgenberger to smell some foul politics emanating from the governor's office and the new leadership at the Texas Forensic Science Commission. By attacking the very people and groups that have devoted their efforts to spotlighting wrongful convictions and freeing the innocent, Chairman Bradley has certainly not allayed suspicions that his first priority in his new post is protecting the man who appointed him rather than those unjustly convicted of crimes."
The editorial can be found at:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/6725914.html
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Saturday, November 21, 2009
UPDATE; TAINTED MEDICAL TESTS; SASKATCHEWAN; TSATSI GRANTED ADJOURNMENT OF SENTENCING HEARING; CANNOT PRACTICE PENDING ULTIMATE DECISION;
"TSATSI'S WORK WAS CALLED INTO QUESTION BACK IN THE SPRING WHEN MISTAKE WERE FOUND IN DOZENS OF HIS CASES. OVER 47 000 RADIOLOGY EXAMS WERE PLACED UNDER REVIEW. THE RESULTS ON JUST OVER HALF ARE IN. BUT TSATSI'S LEGAL REPRESENTATION, MICHELLE OULETTE, WANTS TO SEE ALL OF THEM BEFORE ANY DECISIONS AFFECTING HER CLIENT ARE HANDED DOWN."
REPORTER CHRIS CARR: NEWSTALK 650.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background: Saskatchewan is the province where Dr. Charles Smith was hired on a one-year contract with the expectation that he would eventually become a full-time employee - with the support of a colleague from medical school - to work as a pathologist after he left Ontario in disgrace. (Smith's contact was terminated after news of his employment became public);
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported on May 31, 2009, that: "Questions of competency were raised 2½ years ago about the radiologist (Dr. Darius Tsatsi) whose work has led to an unprecedented review of 70,000 medical images, a spokesman for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan says."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dr. Darius Tsatsi wants to see the results on a massive review of his work before any decisions are made involving his fate," reporter Chris Carr's Newstalk 680 story begins, under the heading "A Saskatchewan radiologist wants to wait."
"A ruling was expected today on whether Tsatsi's should have his license revoked, or suspended until he upgrades his skills," the story continues.
"Tsatsi's work was called into question back in the spring when mistake were found in dozens of his cases. Over 47 000 radiology exams were placed under review. The results on just over half are in. But Tsatsi's Legal Representation, Michelle Oulette, wants to see all of them before any decisions affecting her client are handed down.
"I'm going to take the next period of time to see whether there is any more information that will go along with it that will add to the ability to use it, or to determine its value in this process."
Oulette says she wants to see how the results might impact the outcome.
"Because radiology is not just a science, but a bit of an art, there is, by its very nature, interpretation involved. There's always going to be some variance, depending on who's looking at the film."
An adjournment has been granted under the condition Tsatsi not practice before the review panel comes back with their decision. That is expected to happen sometime in January."
The story can be found at:
http://www.newstalk650.com/story/20091120/25674
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
REPORTER CHRIS CARR: NEWSTALK 650.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background: Saskatchewan is the province where Dr. Charles Smith was hired on a one-year contract with the expectation that he would eventually become a full-time employee - with the support of a colleague from medical school - to work as a pathologist after he left Ontario in disgrace. (Smith's contact was terminated after news of his employment became public);
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported on May 31, 2009, that: "Questions of competency were raised 2½ years ago about the radiologist (Dr. Darius Tsatsi) whose work has led to an unprecedented review of 70,000 medical images, a spokesman for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan says."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dr. Darius Tsatsi wants to see the results on a massive review of his work before any decisions are made involving his fate," reporter Chris Carr's Newstalk 680 story begins, under the heading "A Saskatchewan radiologist wants to wait."
"A ruling was expected today on whether Tsatsi's should have his license revoked, or suspended until he upgrades his skills," the story continues.
"Tsatsi's work was called into question back in the spring when mistake were found in dozens of his cases. Over 47 000 radiology exams were placed under review. The results on just over half are in. But Tsatsi's Legal Representation, Michelle Oulette, wants to see all of them before any decisions affecting her client are handed down.
"I'm going to take the next period of time to see whether there is any more information that will go along with it that will add to the ability to use it, or to determine its value in this process."
Oulette says she wants to see how the results might impact the outcome.
"Because radiology is not just a science, but a bit of an art, there is, by its very nature, interpretation involved. There's always going to be some variance, depending on who's looking at the film."
An adjournment has been granted under the condition Tsatsi not practice before the review panel comes back with their decision. That is expected to happen sometime in January."
The story can be found at:
http://www.newstalk650.com/story/20091120/25674
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Friday, November 20, 2009
UPDATE; TAINTED MEDICAL TESTS; SASKATCHEWAN; DR. DARIUS TSATSI HELD INCOMPETENT; HEARING SET FOR TODAY; WILL HIS LICENSE BE REVOKED?
""THEY GAVE HIM A WRITTEN EXAMINATION," BRYAN SALTE, THE ASSOCIATE REGISTRAR AND LAWYER FOR THE COLLEGE, TOLD CBC NEWS. "THEY EXAMINED THE INTERPRETATIONS HE HAD MADE OF A NUMBER OF MODALITIES: CT SCANNINGS, X-RAYS AND SO ON.
"THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION OF THE COMPETENCY COMMITTEE WAS THAT DR. TSATSI LACKED SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE TO PRACTISE AS A RADIOLOGIST," SALTE SAID. "THEY RECOMMENDED THAT HE SPEND A YEAR OF RETRAINING IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO RETURN TO THE PRACTISE OF RADIOLOGY.""
CBC NEWS;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background: Saskatchewan is the province where Dr. Charles Smith was hired on a one-year contract with the expectation that he would eventually become a full-time employee - with the support of a colleague from medical school - to work as a pathologist after he left Ontario in disgrace. (Smith's contact was terminated after news of his employment became public);
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported on May 31, 2009, that: "Questions of competency were raised 2½ years ago about the radiologist (Dr. Darius Tsatsi) whose work has led to an unprecedented review of 70,000 medical images, a spokesman for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan says."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Yorkton, Sask., doctor at the centre of a review of thousands of medical tests does not have the skills or knowledge to practise radiology, the College of Physicians and Surgeons announced Friday," the CBC story under the heading "Sask. radiologist fails competency test," began.
"Dr. Darius Tsatsi's work interpreting X-rays, mammograms, and other diagnostic images came into question in May," the story continued.
"The provincial Ministry of Health and several regional health authorities have been reviewing every case he provided an opinion on.
"Some 70,000 images are connected to the massive review, which is not yet complete," the story continued.
"On Friday, the regulating body that oversees Saskatchewan doctors released the findings of a competency committee that assessed Tsatsi.
"They gave him a written examination," Bryan Salte, the associate registrar and lawyer for the college, told CBC News. "They examined the interpretations he had made of a number of modalities: CT scannings, X-rays and so on.
"The ultimate conclusion of the competency committee was that Dr. Tsatsi lacked skill and knowledge to practise as a radiologist," Salte said. "They recommended that he spend a year of retraining in order to be able to return to the practise of radiology."
Salte said that the doctor did not contest the finding.
Tsatsi agreed in May to a voluntary suspension.
College to consider status
Tsatsi's future will be considered by the college on Nov. 20.
There are three options:
* Revoke his licence to practise medicine.
* Continue the suspension.
* Allow him to resume his practice, with conditions."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CBC reported on November 18, 2009, that: "On Wednesday, the Sunrise Health Region released its latest set of findings on the work of Dr. Darius Tsatsi, who was one of three radiologists s with privileges at Yorkton Regional Health Centre, about 200 kilometres northeast of Regina."
"In May, Tsatsi agreed to a voluntary suspension while the Saskatchewan Health Ministry ordered a massive review of his work," the story continued.
"That review is still underway, with 39,711 out of 47,646 radiology exams having been re-read.
The health region says 946 of those exams — or 2.38 per cent — have "discordances" that could affect the patient. It didn't say whether anyone's health was affected, only that there was a potential for it to have been affected.
Another 5,804 (14.6 per cent) were considered "substantially correct with minor discrepancies." With the rest, there was no difference of interpretation.
The region didn't provide any analysis of the numbers or say what an acceptable problem rate is.
The exams reviewed were initially done in the period from 2007 to 2009. Those that still remain to be reviewed are from 2004 to 2006.
Radiologists are involved in interpreting x-rays and magnetic resonance imaging scans, including those for cardiac and cancer patients.
An update of a review of a Yorkton, Sask., radiologist has found that about two per cent of roughly 40,000 examinations he performed had the potential to negatively affect the patient."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
"THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION OF THE COMPETENCY COMMITTEE WAS THAT DR. TSATSI LACKED SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE TO PRACTISE AS A RADIOLOGIST," SALTE SAID. "THEY RECOMMENDED THAT HE SPEND A YEAR OF RETRAINING IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO RETURN TO THE PRACTISE OF RADIOLOGY.""
CBC NEWS;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background: Saskatchewan is the province where Dr. Charles Smith was hired on a one-year contract with the expectation that he would eventually become a full-time employee - with the support of a colleague from medical school - to work as a pathologist after he left Ontario in disgrace. (Smith's contact was terminated after news of his employment became public);
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported on May 31, 2009, that: "Questions of competency were raised 2½ years ago about the radiologist (Dr. Darius Tsatsi) whose work has led to an unprecedented review of 70,000 medical images, a spokesman for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan says."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Yorkton, Sask., doctor at the centre of a review of thousands of medical tests does not have the skills or knowledge to practise radiology, the College of Physicians and Surgeons announced Friday," the CBC story under the heading "Sask. radiologist fails competency test," began.
"Dr. Darius Tsatsi's work interpreting X-rays, mammograms, and other diagnostic images came into question in May," the story continued.
"The provincial Ministry of Health and several regional health authorities have been reviewing every case he provided an opinion on.
"Some 70,000 images are connected to the massive review, which is not yet complete," the story continued.
"On Friday, the regulating body that oversees Saskatchewan doctors released the findings of a competency committee that assessed Tsatsi.
"They gave him a written examination," Bryan Salte, the associate registrar and lawyer for the college, told CBC News. "They examined the interpretations he had made of a number of modalities: CT scannings, X-rays and so on.
"The ultimate conclusion of the competency committee was that Dr. Tsatsi lacked skill and knowledge to practise as a radiologist," Salte said. "They recommended that he spend a year of retraining in order to be able to return to the practise of radiology."
Salte said that the doctor did not contest the finding.
Tsatsi agreed in May to a voluntary suspension.
College to consider status
Tsatsi's future will be considered by the college on Nov. 20.
There are three options:
* Revoke his licence to practise medicine.
* Continue the suspension.
* Allow him to resume his practice, with conditions."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CBC reported on November 18, 2009, that: "On Wednesday, the Sunrise Health Region released its latest set of findings on the work of Dr. Darius Tsatsi, who was one of three radiologists s with privileges at Yorkton Regional Health Centre, about 200 kilometres northeast of Regina."
"In May, Tsatsi agreed to a voluntary suspension while the Saskatchewan Health Ministry ordered a massive review of his work," the story continued.
"That review is still underway, with 39,711 out of 47,646 radiology exams having been re-read.
The health region says 946 of those exams — or 2.38 per cent — have "discordances" that could affect the patient. It didn't say whether anyone's health was affected, only that there was a potential for it to have been affected.
Another 5,804 (14.6 per cent) were considered "substantially correct with minor discrepancies." With the rest, there was no difference of interpretation.
The region didn't provide any analysis of the numbers or say what an acceptable problem rate is.
The exams reviewed were initially done in the period from 2007 to 2009. Those that still remain to be reviewed are from 2004 to 2006.
Radiologists are involved in interpreting x-rays and magnetic resonance imaging scans, including those for cardiac and cancer patients.
An update of a review of a Yorkton, Sask., radiologist has found that about two per cent of roughly 40,000 examinations he performed had the potential to negatively affect the patient."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
UPDATE; JURYGATE; LAWYERS CHARGE CYNICAL MOVE BY ONTARIO GOVERNMENT TO LEGITIMIZE CONDEMNED JURY-VETTING PRACTICES;
""THIS IS AN AFFRONT TO DEMOCRACY," SAID LAWYER EDWARD SAPIANO. "THEY GOT CAUGHT DOING SOMETHING WRONG AND NOW THEY ARE CHANGING THE RULES TO THEIR ADVANTAGE. IS THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SAYING THAT SOMEONE WHO GOT CAUGHT STEALING A CHOCOLATE BAR YEARS AGO CAN NEVER SERVE ON A JURY," HE ASKED.
TORONTO DEFENCE LAWYER TYLER SMITH SUGGESTED THE PROVINCE HAS CRAFTED THE NEW LAW TO TRY TO REDUCE THE CHANCES OF ANYONE WHO MAY BE SKEPTICAL OF POLICE OR THE CROWN, FROM ENDING UP ON A JURY.
THE CHANGES IN ALBERTA AND ONTARIO COULD FACE CHALLENGES UNDER THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS, SAID UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LAW PROFESSOR SANJEEV ANAND."
REPORTER SHANNON KARI: THE NATIONAL POST;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background: In a previous post I asked: "Why didn't Ontario prosecutors examine Dr. Charles Smith's qualifications a bit more closely over the years, pay more attention to court decisions suggesting he was biased towards the Crown and that that his opinions were seriously flawed - or at least share the existence of these decisions with the defence?"
My answer was that some prosecutors cared more about winning the case than the possibility that an innocent person might be convicted;
I buttressed my response with the story recently broken by the National Post that prosecutors in several parts of Ontario have been asking police to do secret background checks on jurors.
This controversy has lead to numerous requests for mistrials and could result in a bids to open numerous cases where accused persons have been convicted in the shadow of the illegal practice which taints a criminal jury trial from the outset.
The Charles Smith Blog is very much concerned with the question as to how far prosecutors will go to win the case and is therefore monitoring developments on a regular basis;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TORONTO -- The Ontario government has introduced legislation that will sharply limit who can serve as a juror in the province," the story by National Post reporter Shannon Kari begins, under the heading "Ontario moves to limit jury pool" and the sub-heading "Excludes most convictions."
" People convicted of relatively minor offences such as shoplifting, assault or mischief would no longer be eligible for jury duty under changes listed deep within an omnibus bill called The Good Government Act 2009," the story continues.
"The planned changes, which were not announced publicly, come after the province was forced to admit it had allowed police in some regions to probe the backgrounds of potential jurors.
The new rules would effectively make legal what some Crown offices were accused of doing before the Ontario Privacy Commissioner investigated the practice -- impanel juries made up of people who have never had a brush with the law.
Several lawyers contacted by the National Post were alarmed by the amendments, saying they would tilt jury trials in favour of the Crown.
The amendments are similar to a law enacted in Alberta last month that prohibits individuals even facing a criminal charge from serving on a jury.
In Ontario, people called upon to perform their civic duty will also be subject to background checks performed by police and court services staff within the Ministry of the Attorney-General, to confirm eligibility.
The proposed changes come a month after Attorney-General Chris Bentley stated "the buck stops here" and promised to follow the recommendations of Anne Cavoukian, the Ontario Privacy Commissioner.
Her investigation revealed that one in three Crown offices had engaged in improper background checks of potential jurors. Personal information was turned over by police only to the Crown to assist in jury selection, raising both privacy and fair trial issues.
The province called a halt to the jury checks and promised to protect the privacy interests of people called for jury duty in Ontario.
A short news release issued on Oct. 27 announced amendments to the Juries Act. It made no mention of the eligibility changes. Under the present Juries Act only someone convicted of an indictable offence (the most serious offences) is ineligible to serve as a juror. The amendments expand this restriction to cover anyone convicted of a "hybrid" offence. More than 90% of all offences in the Criminal Code, including minor charges, are considered hybrid in nature.
Valerie Hopper, a spokeswoman for the Ministry of the Attorney-General, said the amendments are to "update the language in the Act" and reflect that many indictable offences are now hybrid.
It is an explanation that is not sitting well with defence lawyers in the province, who were not consulted about the change in juror eligibility.
"This is an affront to democracy," said lawyer Edward Sapiano. "They got caught doing something wrong and now they are changing the rules to their advantage. Is the Attorney-General saying that someone who got caught stealing a chocolate bar years ago can never serve on a jury," he asked.
Toronto defence lawyer Tyler Smith suggested the province has crafted the new law to try to reduce the chances of anyone who may be skeptical of police or the Crown, from ending up on a jury.
The changes in Alberta and Ontario could face challenges under the Charter of Rights, said University of Alberta law professor Sanjeev Anand.
"This is really extreme. Basically, anyone ever convicted of a criminal offence will not be permitted to serve," observed Mr. Anand. "What is prompting governments to do this," he asked. "There is no evidence that someone with a criminal record will be a biased juror."
The amendments in Ontario will permit the "sheriff " to retain police to conduct criminal record checks to determine the eligibility of potential jurors, using the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) database. Other databases may also be accessed to assist in the record checks since CPIC requires a date of birth, which jurors are not required to disclose.
While the new bill refers to the "sheriff," the administration of jury lists in the province is administered by court services employees within the Ministry of the Attorney-General."
The story can be found at:
http://www.canada.com/news/story.html?id=2200746
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
