DEREK TICE: (THE NORFOLK FOUR); WASHINGTON POST SAYS IT WOULD BE "THE HEIGHT OF INJUSTICE" NOT TO CLEAR THE OTHER THREE MEN;

"Mr. Tice got a huge break in the spring when a federal appeals court in Virginia threw out his conviction based on his trial lawyers’ failure to seek suppression of his confession. On Aug. 4, Virginia prosecutors announced that they would not lodge new charges. “It still feels like a dream,” Mr. Tice told the Virginian-Pilot. “It’s a victory for me, but there’s still three other guys.”

The others are Danial Williams, Joseph Dick Jr. and Eric Wilson, and their records, too, should be cleared. The Virginia Supreme Court is scheduled to take up their cases Aug. 31, but the three men have run into obstacles that Mr. Tice did not face because of Virginia deadlines governing criminal appeals........."


EDITORIAL: THE WASHINGTON POST;

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

BACKGROUND: FORONTLINE; "(Derek) Tice's complicated road to exoneration was profiled in our November 2010 film The Confessions, which investigated the problematic way Tice's case -- and the cases of three other men, a group known as the "Norfolk Four" -- were handled by Virginia's justice system. All four Navy men underwent long interrogations before breaking under pressure, admitting they took part in Moore-Bosko's violent death. It wasn't until 1999, after the Norfolk Four were incarcerated, that another inmate named Omar Ballard confessed that he committed the crime alone. Ballard's DNA matched evidence found at the scene of Moore-Bosko's death, while no physical evidence could connect the Norfolk Four to the crime. "It's a victory for me, but there's still three other guys," Tice said upon hearing the news. (He was officially freed early in August 2011 after two felony charges were dropped against him) The guys, Joe Dick Jr., Eric Wilson and Danial Williams, have all filed appeals to the Virginia Supreme Court after a lower court dismissed earlier petitions in March."

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

"DEREK TICE has been out of prison for two years, but it was not until last week that he was truly a free man," the Washington Post editorial published on August 12, 2011 under the heading, "Finally, justice for one of the ‘Norfolk Four’," begins.

"Mr. Tice is one of the “Norfolk 4,” a clutch of sailors accused of the 1997 rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko. From the beginning, the evidence — or more accurately, the lack of it — pointed to their innocence," the story continues.

"Although they were accused of brutally gang-raping and stabbing Ms. Moore-Bosko, none of the sailors’ DNA was found at the scene or on the victim. After denying involvement, all four confessed after lengthy and questionable interrogation sessions conducted by a detective who would later be convicted of corruption and bribery charges. The men’s stories continued to change, and their versions of events often contradicted each other and known facts gathered by investigators. For example, Mr. Tice asserted that one of the sailors used a claw hammer to break into the victim’s apartment; there was no evidence of forced entry.

In 2000, a man named Omar A. Ballard, who was already in prison for another crime, confessed to the rape and murder and said he acted alone; the DNA found at the crime scene was a match for Mr. Ballard’s. But it would take another nine years before then-Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) granted the Norfolk 4 a conditional pardon. Although the move allowed the three sailors still incarcerated at the time to leave prison, it left intact their convictions. Among other things, the men were forced to register as sex offenders. Jobs were hard to come by under these circumstances, and even social visits were made difficult if friends or family lived near schools or playgrounds.

Mr. Tice got a huge break in the spring when a federal appeals court in Virginia threw out his conviction based on his trial lawyers’ failure to seek suppression of his confession. On Aug. 4, Virginia prosecutors announced that they would not lodge new charges. “It still feels like a dream,” Mr. Tice told the Virginian-Pilot. “It’s a victory for me, but there’s still three other guys.”

The others are Danial Williams, Joseph Dick Jr. and Eric Wilson, and their records, too, should be cleared. The Virginia Supreme Court is scheduled to take up their cases Aug. 31, but the three men have run into obstacles that Mr. Tice did not face because of Virginia deadlines governing criminal appeals. It would be the height of injustice to allow technicalities to block these men’s quest for full exoneration."

The editorial can be found at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/finally-justice-for-one-of-the-norfolk-four/2011/08/10/gIQAQ0dvBJ_story.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;

HENRY KEOGH: THE "SIXTY MINUTES" VIDEO; A POWERFUL TESTIMONIAL TO HIS INNOCENCE;

There has been considerable movement in Australia towards establishment of an independent criminal cases review commission. This movement has been helped by fine journalism such as the recent Sixty Minutes story on the case of Henry Keogh, which aired on Sunday 5th June 2011, and can be accessed at:


http://bestfreetvshows.com/60-minutes-henry-keogh/

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

PUBLISHER'S VIEW: : This Blog has devoted numerous posts to the conviction and incarceration of Henry Keogh in August 1995 for the murder of his fiancée, Anna Jane Cheney in the face of what Dr. Bob Moles, who has deeply investigated the case, has called "a combination of fraud, deceit and manifest error." Dr. Moles and his colleagues have launched one of the most thorough, intensive attacks on pathology evidence in a criminal case that I have ever seen - and have come up over the years with cogent new evidence destroying the prosecution's forensic case. It is most disturbing to note that the South Australian government has chosen to look the other way while this apparent miscarriage continues to fester and Henry Keogh remains behind bars. All that is being sought, in the face of the mountain of evidence discrediting the conviction is a fresh look by South Australia's Attorney General and an order for a new trial. This, however, appears to be too much to ask. The government's intransigence is all the more reason for the establishment, without delay, of an independent criminal cases review commission.

HAROLD LEVY: PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;

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

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;

HENRY KEOGH: MOBILE BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN; PETITION; TOP JUSTICE OFFICIALS PROVE TO BE VERY SLOW READERS; 18 MONTHS AND IT'S STILL NOT READ! ABC

"Ian Henschke: … we’ve been told by Bob Moles that the petition has been on the desk of the Attorney-General , this is the way he put it, for 18 months and the Solicitor-General is looking at it; he’s wondering why it’s taking so long to get a final decision on it?)

John Rau: Well, if it’s been on there for 18 months it didn’t come to me … it came to my predecessor.

Ian Henschke: … in fact this is why the billboards are out there – ‘We ask that you send an email to the Attorney-General, John Rau, demanding Henry Keogh’s case be sent back to the Court of Appeal’. So I suppose they’re hoping that you as the new Attorney-General will take a look at it but you’re saying you will look at it?

John Rau: I’m saying I’ll be guided by the Solicitor-General but I don’t wish that to imply that I have any reason to believe that something new has been revealed which changes the way the thing is presently.........

Ian Henschke: one of the things I think a lot of the listeners would like to know is who’s paying for these billboards and why are they out there at the moment?

Bob Moles: Okay, there’s a fellow called John Lewis who used to run Bulls Transport; he’s kindly decided to devote his time and some money to setting up these billboards because he’s convinced, like many other ordinary people, that Keogh did not get a fair trial. He knows that the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General have had compelling evidence on their desks for at least eight years."

ABC NEWS;

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

PUBLISHER'S VIEW: : This Blog has devoted numerous posts to the conviction and incarceration of Henry Keogh in August 1995 for the murder of his fiancée, Anna Jane Cheney in the face of what Dr. Bob Moles, who has deeply investigated the case, has called "a combination of fraud, deceit and manifest error." Dr. Moles and his colleagues have launched one of the most thorough, intensive attacks on pathology evidence in a criminal case that I have ever seen - and have come up over the years with cogent new evidence destroying the prosecution's forensic case. It is most disturbing to note that the South Australian government has chosen to look the other way while this apparent miscarriage continues to fester and Henry Keogh remains behind bars. All that is being sought, in the face of the mountain of evidence discrediting the conviction is a fresh look by South Australia's Attorney General and an order for a new trial. This, however, appears to be too much to ask. The government's intransigence is all the more reason for the establishment, without delay, of an independent criminal cases review commission.

HAROLD LEVY: PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;

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

THE FOLLOWING INTERVIEW BETWEEN IAN HENSCHKE AND ATTORNEY ENERAL JOHN RAU WAS BROADCAST ON ABC RADIO ON JULY 27, 2011

"Ian Henschke: … before you leave us … driving around Adelaide recently you might have noticed these mobile billboards; they were around a while ago demanding justice for Henry Keogh, they’ve popped up again … I understand that a petition has gone to you as the new Attorney-General asking you to in effect look at this case again and give … the Keogh case another look and another trial. Your reaction to the petition?

John Rau: Well look, I don’t recall having seen a petition; that doesn’t mean it hasn’t turned up and I am aware that there are people who for a long time have been concerned about this case and from time to time that concern bubbles over into a public debate about the matter. Some time ago I asked the Solicitor-General to have a look at the material and he’s got a number of things to do but he’s working his way through that material. I have to say though my predecessor had this matter looked at and I’m sure it’s been looked at a number of times. At this stage nobody has been able to ascertain that there are things which are so wrong about this case that require some intervention which is outside of the current judicial system. Now, if the Solicitor-General tells me that there is some thing there which others have not found then obviously I’d have a good think about that.

Ian Henschke: … we’ve been told by Bob Moles that the petition has been on the desk of the Attorney-General , this is the way he put it, for 18 months and the Solicitor-General is looking at it; he’s wondering why it’s taking so long to get a final decision on it?)

John Rau: Well, if it’s been on there for 18 months it didn’t come to me … it came to my predecessor.

Ian Henschke: … in fact this is why the billboards are out there – ‘We ask that you send an email to the Attorney-General, John Rau, demanding Henry Keogh’s case be sent back to the Court of Appeal’. So I suppose they’re hoping that you as the new Attorney-General will take a look at it but you’re saying you will look at it?

John Rau: I’m saying I’ll be guided by the Solicitor-General but I don’t wish that to imply that I have any reason to believe that something new has been revealed which changes the way the thing is presently. But if the Solicitor-General said to me ‘I’ve found some matter here that others have not found and it warrants looking at, I would look at it but nothing that he has said to me or anyone else has said to me suggests that there has been any change in that particular regard.

Ian Henschke: Alright, thank you very much for your time.

Introducing Dr Bob Moles, just before we begin, you’ve got an Honours Law Degree from Belfast, you’ve taught at the University of Belfast, the ANU and Adelaide University … you’re a specialist in the law –

Bob Moles: And then we have a PhD from Edinburgh as well.

Ian Henschke: John Rau was just saying if there’s any new evidence – now you’re saying that you’ve just published a book, September last year, that says that the Keogh case is like no other case you’ve ever seen in any jurisdiction like ours?

Bob Moles: Okay, let me just explain the book that we published last year is called Forensic Investigations and Miscarriages of Justice. It examines the law and forensic cases in Australia, Britain and Canada; it doesn’t go into the detail of the Keogh case because we published a book covering that some time before. What I’m saying is there is no other case in Australia, Britain or Canada which has the same combination of errors as the Keogh case has. In the Keogh case we have the prosecution witnesses who have given evidence, forensic witnesses who’ve given evidence before the Medical Board and the Medical Tribunal. On at least 10 issues in their sworn evidence, long after the trial, they have admitted that the evidence they gave at trial was either incorrect or they’ve contradicted the evidence they gave at trial and that makes it a most unusual case. Because normally when you go on appeal you’re merely making allegations of error but now we have admissions of error by the witnesses in the case and it’s given in sworn evidence in other proceedings. And under the law laid down by the High Court, if you only had one such error you’re absolutely entitled to have the conviction set aside and we’ve got at least 10 of them.

Ian Henschke: And why these billboards now then?

Bob Moles: Well, because the thing has gone on for so long. When the Attorney-General says ‘Well if anything new has come up’ – well in fact we don’t need anything new. Within two weeks of the Keogh trial concluding the Coroner issued his findings in the baby deaths case. Those findings were completed before Keogh’s trial took place and were withheld during his trial. At the time at which they were published, that became a conclusive reason and it still is a conclusive reason for setting the conviction aside. Because in those baby deaths findings they cast serious questions about the competence and integrity of one of the prosecution witnesses at the trial and that evidence should have been available at Keogh’s trial.

Ian Henschke: one of the things I think a lot of the listeners would like to know is who’s paying for these billboards and why are they out there at the moment?

Bob Moles: Okay, there’s a fellow called John Lewis who used to run Bulls Transport; he’s kindly decided to devote his time and some money to setting up these billboards because he’s convinced, like many other ordinary people, that Keogh did not get a fair trial. He knows that the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General have had compelling evidence on their desks for at least eight years.

Ian Henschke: How does John Lewis know about the legal matters?

Bob Moles: Because we’ve explained them to him and even he can understand. He says ‘Look, I’m not a lawyer, I’m just an ordinary person’. I frequently give talks at Rotary and Probus and things like that and ordinary people can understand when a fairly basic error has been made - and we have quite an accumulation of them. So John Lewis simply decided that as we’ve got a new Attorney-General we should do some new signs and bring them around the town to let the people in South Australia know that the legal system here in respect of criminal appeals isn’t working properly.

Ian Henschke: Alright, thanks for your time this morning … you’ll see these signs around town … over the next weeks and months ahead and we’ll follow up with Attorney-General, John Rau, what the Solicitor-General says about the petition."

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

The story can be found at:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/16/2956081.htm

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

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;

DIXMOORE FIVE AND ENGLEWOOD CASES; (SAUNDERS AND BAR): INNOCENCE PROJECT ISSUES "PLEA FOR HELP". DNA EVIDENCE POINTS ELSEWHERE;

'The nine men were convicted of two separate murders three years and 12 miles apart, but their cases bear striking similarities. All nine were teenagers when they were arrested. Seven of them confessed under pressure, and all seven have since said the confessions were coerced during intense interrogations. DNA test results from key evidence in both cases implicates other perpetrators who have committed similar crimes, but Cook County prosecutors have attempted to downplay the evidence, arguing to keep the convictions of these nine young men intact.'

THE INNOCENCE PROJECT; (SEE BACKGROUND ON THE DIXMOORE AND ENGLEWOOD CASES BELOW);

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

"New DNA test results prove that nine Chicago-area men were convicted in the 1990s of crimes they didn’t commit. Five of them remain behind bars in Illinois, and prosecutors are refusing to cooperate with the Innocence Project and other attorneys seeking their release," the plea for help from the Innocence Project published on August 9, 2011 under the heading, "Help Free Five Innocent Men in Illinois," begins.

"Today the Innocence Project partnered with Color of Change and other organizations to launch a petition calling on Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez to join us in calling for the men's convictions to be vacated," the plea for help continues.

The nine men were convicted of two separate murders three years and 12 miles apart, but their cases bear striking similarities. All nine were teenagers when they were arrested. Seven of them confessed under pressure, and all seven have since said the confessions were coerced during intense interrogations. DNA test results from key evidence in both cases implicates other perpetrators who have committed similar crimes, but Cook County prosecutors have attempted to downplay the evidence, arguing to keep the convictions of these nine young men intact.

In both cases, the Innocence Project is working with the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth (at Northwestern Law School), the Exoneration Project (at the University of Chicago Law School) and private attorneys.

Sign the petition here, and read more background on these cases.

We’ll post updates here as the campaign progresses."

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

BACKGROUND ON THE DIXMOORE AND ENGLEWOOD CASES; (THE INNOCENCE PROJECT);

"In 1991, a 14-year-old girl was sexually assaulted and killed in Dixmoor, a village in south suburban Chicago. Ten months after the victim’s body was found, police focused their investigation around Robert Taylor, Jonathan Barr, James Harden, Robert Lee Veal and Shainne Sharp. Three of them confessed after high-pressure police interrogations, and all five were arrested and charged with the crime.

DNA testing was conducted on sperm cells from swabs of the victim’s body, and the profile pointed to a single unidentified male – excluding all five teens. Regardless, the five men were charged with the crime. Two of them pled guilty and testified against the others in exchange for shorter sentences. Both men have since recanted their testimony. The other three were convicted after trials, and each was sentenced to at least 80 years in prison.

In March 2011, DNA from semen found on the victim’s body was linked to a man with a lengthy record including sexual assault and armed robbery convictions. He was 32 years old when his DNA was found in the 14-year-old victim’s body, and he currently lives in Chicago. In a written motion opposing the release of the Dixmoor Five, the State’s Attorney’s office downplayed the significance of the DNA results, which clearly implicate a man with no connection to the five teens convicted of the crime.

In this case, the Innocence Project represents Barr, who has served 13 years in prison so far for this crime. Taylor and Harden are also still incarcerated. The Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth at Northwestern University Law School represents Taylor, and the Exoneration Project at the University of Chicago Law School represents Harden. Veal is represented by attorneys at Valorem Law Group, and Sharp is represented by Jerry Peteet.

Englewood Cases

In November of 1994, the naked body of a 30-year-old woman was found strangled to death behind a house in the Englewood neighborhood of Chicago’s South Side. Four months later, a tip allegedly led police to investigate five teenagers in the murder. After intense interrogations, police said that all five had confessed to raping and killing the woman, although there were major factual discrepancies in their statements. Semen was identified on samples collected from the victim’s body and an early form of DNA testing was conducted, excluding all five suspects as possible contributors. Despite this evidence, prosecutors went forward with trials.

Based almost exclusively on the confessions, three of the men – Terrill Swift, Harold Richardson and Michael Saunders — were convicted by a judge and sentenced to 30-40 years in prison. A fourth, Vincent Thames, pled guilty in exchange for a 30 year sentence. Prosecutors dropped charges against the fifth man after his confession was suppressed.

In May 2011, a complete DNA profile of the semen found on the victim’s body after the crime was compared to a national database at the request of the Innocence Project and other organizations. The profile implicated another man, now deceased, who had been connected to a series of violent assaults and murders . Court filings by the State argue that any DNA match in this case would be inconclusive due to the lifestyle of the victim, who was known to engage in prostitution. However, the semen found in the strangled body of Ms. Glover is from a man that the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office has long believed was responsible for two strangulation-murders of prostitutes and violent assaults of at least five others.

In this case, the Innocence Project represents Michael Saunders, who has served 17 years in prison and is still behind bars at Dixon Correctional Center in Dixon, Illinois. Richardson, who is represented by the Exoneration Project at the University of Chicago Law School, is also still incarcerated. The Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth at Northwestern University Law School represents Swift, who is on parole. Thames, who served his complete sentence and was released recently, is represented by attorneys at Valorem Law Group."

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

The plea for help can be found at:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Help_Free_Five_Innocent_Men_in_Illinois.php

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;

CASEY ANTHONY; LAW PROF. CALLS FOR SYSTEM TO TRACK AND REPORT THE ERRORS OF FORENSIC SCIENTISTS. HERE AND NOW. (NPR); HMMMM!

"Jonathan Koehler, Beatrice Kuhn professor of law at Northwestern University, told Here & Now‘s Robin Young, “Forensic errors are nothing new.”

In fact, he said forensic experts don’t have to be licensed and not all of the laboratories they work in are even accredited.

Koehler is calling for a system to track and report the errors of forensic scientists."


HERE AND NOW; NPR;

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

"The long and complicated trial and acquittal of Casey Anthony in the murder of her 2-year-old daughter has raised a lot of questions," the August 4, 2011 Here and Now NPR broadcast begins, under the heading, "Why Flawed Evidence Makes It To Trial."

"For instance, during the trial, the prosecution claimed that Anthony had searched the term “chloroform” 84 times on her computer," the broadcast continues.

"But it turns out, the software was wrong, and there was only a single search for chloroform.

The software developer said he even told prosecutors about the initial error, but the questionable evidence was never retracted. How is it that such flawed information can make its way into a trial?

Jonathan Koehler, Beatrice Kuhn professor of law at Northwestern University, told Here & Now‘s Robin Young, “Forensic errors are nothing new.”

In fact, he said forensic experts don’t have to be licensed and not all of the laboratories they work in are even accredited.

Koehler is calling for a system to track and report the errors of forensic scientists.

“We need there to be a mechanism for testing experts on a regular basis to identify the error rates in the various forensic disciplines,” Koehler said.

Once the error rates are know, Koehler says they should be reported to juries, so that they can take that information into account when weighing the evidence."

The broadcast can be found at:

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/08/04/casey-anthony-forensic


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;

SEASONAL BREAK;

Dear reader.

I have decided that it's time to take a "seasonal break" - as the last one was over a year ago. I have, however, pre-scheduled a number of posts which I hope that you will like. I will be back in the fall with much fresh grist for the Charles Smith Blog mill - including several life and death matters. Enjoy the rest of the summer.

See you soon!

Harold Levy. Publisher. The Charles Smith Blog.

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;

THE HARDEST CASES: PROMINENT PEDIATRICIAN PRESSES FOR BETTER INVESTIGATIONS OF CHILD DEATHS; AARTI SHAHANI; PROPUBLICA;

"You testify in child abuse criminal cases monthly and in cases involving child death four or five times a year. Are you more concerned about innocent parents and caregivers being convicted or guilty ones walking free?

Obviously both are not good outcomes. When people who've hurt children aren't held accountable, it puts other children at risk. No one would advocate putting innocent parents in jail. That's why the quality of scientific practice has to be very high.

(DR. CAROLE JENNY): We work with the medical examiners in Rhode Island, who are board-certified forensic pathologists. None [of the three] are board-certified in pediatric pathology. It's not a very well-developed field. In general, many jurisdictions underfund it. There's not a lot of people that go into the specialty [of forensic pathology]. It doesn't make a lot of money. It's not like being a plastic surgeon or dermatologist."

AARTI SHAHANI: PROPUBLICA;

Aarti Shahani has contributed to outlets including The Washington Post, NPR, Salon.com, New America Media and ColorLines. She begins a Kroc Fellowship at NPR in Fall 2011.

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

"ProPublica, in collaboration with Frontline and NPR, recently published "The Hardest Cases," a report about how medical examiners and coroners have mishandled child death investigations. In some cases, their errors helped put innocent people behind bars," the Propublica story published by alternet.org by Aarti Shahani, published on August 2, 2011 under the heading, "Prominent Advocate Presses for Better Investigations of Child Deaths: Dr. Carole Jenny says the quality of scientific practice has to be very high to avoid putting innocent parents and caregivers in jail," begins.

"Recently, we interviewed Dr. Carole Jenny, a pediatrician at Hasbro Children's Hospital and a leading figure at the National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome. She is a high-profile advocate for putting more resources toward investigating suspect child deaths," the story continues.

"According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, there were 1,700 child maltreatment deaths last year. Yet, according to the FBI, there were 500 child homicides. Why is there such a big discrepancy?

The FBI data comes from medical examiners and state health departments. The NCANS [data] is from child protection agencies. Child death review team data is yet another source. Different agencies have different ways of collecting data. I don't think any of them are all that good. The techniques people use to obtain that data are very, very different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Last week you told the House Ways and Means Committee that progress has been made in tracking pediatric maltreatment, and now the field needs federal money. Could you elaborate on what you meant?

There is now a board-certified sub-specialty called child abuse pediatrics. Physicians who are already board-certified pediatricians take three extra years of training, learning about all aspects of child maltreatment. Most of the folks who go through this—there's 187 in the U.S.—will work at children's hospitals, doing child protection full time. Here we have three physicians and three fellows in training who do child abuse cases. We keep very busy. It's not cheap.

ProPublica's partner NPR recently reported on how scientists are rethinking Shaken Baby Syndrome. Years ago you credited Dr. Norman Guthkelch, the pediatric neurosurgeon, for first observing the condition in children in a 1971 paper for the British Medical Journal. What's your reaction to his recent statements that doctors are over-diagnosing SBS?

I've talked with him. He has the same position as many of us. We do know that kids' heads don't spontaneously explode. But sometimes we don't know if [they've] been shaken, hit or both. The Shaken Baby Syndrome diagnosis presumes a mechanism—major traumatic injury to the head that has absolutely no accidental explanation. Sometimes it's obviously [that]. Sometimes it's not.

Medical examiner Dr. Jon Thogmartin, another expert we interviewed in The Child Cases, says that when a child dies, people presume it's murder. A prosecutorial mindset sets in. Do you agree?

No, that's not true. When a child collapses unexpectedly, child protective services and law enforcement do get involved. Somebody has to do a scene investigation, and it's not going to be the doctors. I'm not going to go to the house to look for toxins or poisons. No one presumes that child injury is abuse. Abuse is a diagnosis we make after we rule out a long, extensive list of physical and accidental ideologies that would explain the degree and severity of the injuries we see.

You testify in child abuse criminal cases monthly and in cases involving child death four or five times a year. Are you more concerned about innocent parents and caregivers being convicted or guilty ones walking free?

Obviously both are not good outcomes. When people who've hurt children aren't held accountable, it puts other children at risk. No one would advocate putting innocent parents in jail. That's why the quality of scientific practice has to be very high.

We work with the medical examiners in Rhode Island, who are board-certified forensic pathologists. None [of the three] are board-certified in pediatric pathology. It's not a very well-developed field. In general, many jurisdictions underfund it. There's not a lot of people that go into the specialty [of forensic pathology]. It doesn't make a lot of money. It's not like being a plastic surgeon or dermatologist.

Is the "CSI effect" an issue with juries? Will they only convict if they believe the medical science is foolproof, or are they hungry to convict regardless?

I'm not so sure the two poles are opposite. I haven't seen the "CSI-effect." Juries take the material they get and deal with it the best they can.

Instead of arguing these issues in the lab, [doctors] are confronted with an adversarial justice system. We shouldn't do research in the courtroom. We should do research in the lab and at the bedside.

Is there a problem with the standards for those who testify as experts?

People are for sale. Obviously not all. Some who testify are extremely ethical and professionally responsible.

There's no quality control. Some of the experts who give the most outrageous testimony are in very high demand. They are making very large amounts of money.

It's an area where there seems to be no downside to irresponsible expert witness testimony. Most of the folks who do it are retired, doing it as a hobby. State medical societies won't take it on for fear of liability or litigation. State medical boards in most states don't consider expert testimony to be "the practice of medicine," so they don't take it on. And most prosecutors are very hesitant to charge anyone with perjury because this is, in fact, their opinion. If you have an opinion, it may be false. But it's not necessarily a lie.

Is there a solution to this?

I think the medical societies should take a more proactive stance. In the OBGYN societies, they've taken on the issue of malpractice testimony—people going around the country, providing false testimony, causing ethical, competent doctors to be sued.

I know the American Academy of Pediatrics won't touch this. It has lots of missions to promote child health. If they had to tie up millions in child lawsuits, it would decrease their resources for other core missions.

The American Academy of Emergency Medicine has taken an interesting [stance] on this. If their members feel that other members have testified irresponsibly, they will put the transcripts online so that others can read it and comment. It's kind of like a public shaming.

Why did Hasbro Children's Hospital start its Child Protection Program?

It started in 1996, in response to an incident that happened years before. A baby was brutally abused and seen at three different health care institutions. The abuse wasn't recognized. The child went on to be permanently and seriously disabled with a devastating brain injury. A task force formed to look at why this happened. They [concluded] that there was no physician in Rhode Island who had expertise in child abuse. They raised money to endow the first chair in child abuse pediatrics in the country. They went out looking for someone to take it. They ended up recruiting me. In the first year we saw 79 kids. Now we see 1,800 plus per year. If you build it, they will come.

Correction (July 18): This post originally said the American College of Emergency Physicians had posted transcripts of what some of its members see as irresponsible court testimony. It is actually the American Academy of Emergency Medicine that has done this."

The story can be found at:

http://www.alternet.org/story/151899/prominent_advocate_presses_for_better_investigations_of_child_deaths?page=entire

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;