Bulletin: Ivan Henry; British Columbia; Ian Mulgrew; The Vancouver Sun: Ian Mulgrew: Vancouver launches all-fronts attack on Ivan Henry; " In an aggressive statement in B.C. Supreme Court, lawyer Bruce Quayle said city police should be judged only by the standards of the last century and the City Analyst’s Lab crime scene work should be considered little more than amateur forensics — a self-taught expert working with makeshift equipment salvaged from RCMP castoffs. Quayle maintained the lab was “understaffed, underfunded, under-resourced and seemingly on the verge of extinguishment at all times.” “The city defendants expect that the evidence will demonstrate that it really was a different world back then,” Quayle insisted. “They are not to be judged with hindsight by today’s standards. So much of the evidence will be aimed at attempting to show through … the mists of time what those standards were back then.”

STORY: "Vancouver launches all-fronts attack on Ivan Henry," by reporter Ian Mulgrew," published by the Vancouver Sun On October 23, 2015.'

SUB-HEADING: "City view: He would have ended up in prison anyway."

PHOTO CAPTION: "Ivan Henry, front left, who was wrongfully convicted of sexual assault in 1983, and his daughter Tanya Olivares leave B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver earlier in the trial in which he is seeking compensation."

GIST: "The city of Vancouver has come out swinging at Ivan Henry, implying he deserves little compensation for his wrongful conviction for a series of sexual assaults in the 1980s. In an aggressive statement in B.C. Supreme Court, lawyer Bruce Quayle said city police should be judged only by the standards of the last century and the City Analyst’s Lab crime scene work should be considered little more than amateur forensics — a self-taught expert working with makeshift equipment salvaged from RCMP castoffs. Quayle maintained the lab was “understaffed, underfunded, under-resourced and seemingly on the verge of extinguishment at all times.” “The city defendants expect that the evidence will demonstrate that it really was a different world back then,” Quayle insisted. “They are not to be judged with hindsight by today’s standards. So much of the evidence will be aimed at attempting to show through … the mists of time what those standards were back then.” With Henry’s lawyers having rested their case after nearly two months, Quayle began the city’s defence by filing expert reports that diminished the miscarriage of justice. Stephen Wormith, a psychologist from the University of Saskatchewan, said that Henry was a high-risk offender in 1980 with a 70 per cent chance of ending up back behind bars within three years of his release even if he wasn’t imprisoned indefinitely as a dangerous offender in 1983. But he acknowledged in cross-examination that doing a risk-assessment after three decades was novel territory and he was only providing actuarial numbers, not a personal clinical evaluation of Henry. A second report, by economic consultant Doug Hildebrand, opined that Henry’s 27 years of incarceration didn’t really amount to much in terms of lost earnings — about $250,000 at most!.........Astoundingly, Quayle said he plans to probably call 27 witnesses — mostly retired police officers and a victim who didn’t testify at his trial but who will appear 33 years later to point the finger. “She will testify regarding among other things or primarily about the assault she experienced in the early morning hours of June 8, 1982,” Quayle explained, “the photo lineup that was shown to her and with which she identified (Henry) as the man who had attacked her on that date. She’ll talk about the preliminary inquiry, the reasons that she chose not to return to Vancouver to testify at trial and she’ll speak about that letter that she wrote to (Det. William) Harkema in the early part of the spring of 1983 about which (Henry’s) counsel made such a big fuss a month or so before the trial, my Lord.” Such evidence would fly in the face of the Oct. 2010 B.C. Court of Appeal ruling that ordered Henry acquitted of the sexual assaults, leading to this lawsuit for compensation from the city, the province and the federal government for their roles in his ordeal."

The entire story can be  found at:

/news/mulgrew+vancouver+launches+fronts+attack+ivan+henry/11460632/story.html#ixzz3pPtq57iX

 PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
 
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
 
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.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html  

I look forward to hearing from readers at:

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

Bulletin: David Camm: Indiana; Acquitted on his third trial, his prosecutor, Keith Henderson, awaits a decision from the Indiana Supreme Court to rule on alleged ethics violations. Henderson got to this point for negotiating a book dealing after the second trial, signing an agreement and then using Floyd County funds to pay his legal fees once the complaint was filed. WDRB:

"Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson's future will soon be in the hands of the Indiana Supreme Court. Keith Henderson walked out of a courtroom at the statehouse in Indianapolis Wednesday, still the Floyd County Prosecutor and confident that won't change as a result of an ethics complaint. "You know, I'm not worried," Henderson said. "When you do the right thing, I am not concerned." At the time, Henderson went through a three-day ethics hearing after being accused of "professional misconduct" leading up to David Camm's third murder trial.  Camm was twice convicted of killing his wife and two children in the garage of their Georgetown home in Sept. 2000, but both convictions were overturned by higher courts and a third jury acquitted Camm. Charles Boney was eventually convicted of the crime...Henderson got to this point for negotiating a book dealing after the second trial, signing an agreement and then using Floyd County funds to pay his legal fees once the complaint was filed... "Both sides of the case will submit proposals to the hearing officer, the hearing officers will write a report and it will go to the Indiana Supreme Court," said Pruden. "Possibilities in this case are that Mr. Henderson could be found to have not to have violated any rules, or if he has violated rules...he could be reprimanded or he could be suspended, he could be disbarred." The Indiana Supreme Court could take several weeks to make a decision."
http://www.wdrb.com/story/30327002/indiana-supreme-court-to-rule-on-ethics-violations-against-keith-henderson


Sent from my iPhone

Bulletin: Junk bite-mark 'science': Radley Balko points to more overturned convictions and more scrutiny for bite mark analysis - as he makes a cogent point: "I suppose it’s great that these “expert” witnesses are recanting their testimony. But as I’ve written here before, we’ve entrusted judges to be the gatekeepers of scientific evidence. That evidence this transparently ridiculous was even admitted in these cases — not to mention hundreds of others, and not to mention the thousands of other cases tainted by bogus or overstated forensic analysis — is a pretty good indication that putting judges in charge of sorting good science from bad has been disastrous."

 

"There have been a number of new developments since we last visited the issue of bite mark analysis..........(He outlines these developments); I suppose it’s great that these “expert” witnesses are recanting their testimony. But as I’ve written here before, we’ve entrusted judges to be the gatekeepers of scientific evidence. That evidence this transparently ridiculous was even admitted in these cases — not to mention hundreds of others, and not to mention the thousands of other cases tainted by bogus or overstated forensic analysis — is a pretty good indication that putting judges in charge of sorting good science from bad has been disastrous. The other major development takes us back to Texas, where the state’s Forensic Science Commission has now turned its sights on bite mark evidence. The commission was formed in the wake of the growing evidence that the state executed an innocent man, Cameron Todd Willingham, after convicting him with arson science now widely recognized as fraudulent. I’d suggest that the commission take a hard look at the case of David Wayne Spence, who was executed in 1997 for his alleged role in the 1982 Lake Waco murders. "Radley Balko blogs about criminal justice, the drug war and civil liberties for The Washington Post. He is the author of the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/10/22/more-overturned-convictions-more-scrutiny-for-bite-mark-analysis/

Bulletin: Indiana; Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson takes stand again in own ethics hearing: "In a complaint filed in March of 2015, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission accused Henderson of "professional misconduct" for allegedly violating portions of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct by securing a deal to write a book about the Camm case after Camm's second trial, while the case was still in the appeals process. Henderson says there was never an actual book contract during the Camm trial, only a "literary agreement."

"Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson took the stand Wednesday to fight for his career and law license. Today is expected to be the last day of testimony.
Henderson’s colleagues and fellow Indiana prosecutors were first on the stand. Melvin Wilhelm is Franklin County’s Prosecuting Attorney, and one of the most senior prosecutors in the state. He said Henderson is one of the most ethical prosecutors he knows. On the other hand, Stacie Uliana, the defense attorney for David Camm -- a man who was twice convicted, and finally acquitted of the murders of his wife and children -- argued that Henderson caused irreparable harm to the justice system in Floyd County. "The harm of having two interests: one, your personal interest and making money, and another, the interest of justice for representing the state and doing what’s right," Uliana said. "You can’t have them both."......... In a complaint filed in March of 2015, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission accused Henderson of "professional misconduct" for allegedly violating portions of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct by securing a deal to write a book about the Camm case after Camm's second trial, while the case was still in the appeals process.  Henderson says there was never an actual book contract during the Camm trial, only a "literary agreement."......... Henderson is also accused of violating ethics rules by using $27,500 in taxpayer money for his personal attorney to fight claims about the book deal. After today's testimony concludes, the hearing officer will submit a report to the Indiana Supreme Court, which could take a few months to make a decision."
http://www.wdrb.com/story/30314172/ethics-hearing-for-floyd-county-prosecutor-to-conclude-today

Bulletin: Texas: Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg says hundreds of criminal cases will be reviewed after learning of scientific concerns with the way examiners analyze evidence that includes genetic material from multiple people - and that her office also discovered an issue with the database it uses to calculate DNA statistics, which are presented in court as probabilities that a given sample included the DNA of a certain person. Lehmberg says her office is unsure how many Travis County cases are affected but says it is working to identify them and notify the parties involved. " “Just to be on the safe side, they are not going to count all the data they can count,” said Rob Kepple, the executive director of the Texas District and County Attorney’s Association. The old testing could have determined that there was a probability that someone’s DNA was included in an evidence sample, but the new testing could show that scientists can’t determine whether someone’s DNA was included, Kepple said. “That’s important for a defendant to know.” Such disclosures are important as labs test smaller and smaller traces of DNA found on objects, such as firearms or countertops."

"Prosecutors in Travis and Williamson counties will review hundreds of criminal cases after learning of scientific concerns with the way examiners analyze evidence that includes genetic material from multiple people. In a statement Wednesday, Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg said her office also discovered an issue with the database it uses to calculate DNA statistics, which are presented in court as probabilities that a given sample included the DNA of a certain person. Lehmberg says her office is unsure how many Travis County cases are affected but says it is working to identify them and notify the parties involved. “The potential impact of changes to the mixture protocols and the database is still unknown, but they may have a material impact on some criminal cases,” Lehmberg said. “This is expected to be a large undertaking, requiring the addition of attorneys and paralegals to our Conviction Integrity Unit. In the interim, this office will work to facilitate any requests for DNA reviews based on the changes.” The FBI first notified crime labs across the country this spring that it had discovered state labs were using outdated protocols to interpret results from DNA data. The problem led to prosecutors overstating the reliability of some DNA evidence in court, which is often presented as accurate to within a fraction of a fraction of a percent. The errors were said to have affected thousands of cases going back to 1999, but officials initially downplayed the impact, saying they were unlikely to result in dramatic changes.........The Department of Public Safety sent a letter Sept. 10 notifying state officials of the changes. But how widespread the problem is and how many cases will be affected across the state remains in question. The Department of Public Safety controls only eight of the DNA crime labs in Texas; counties and police departments oversee others. The advent of DNA testing revolutionized criminal investigations for its reliability in tying suspects to objects collected at the scenes of crimes. But the forensic science continues to evolve and interpretations of the results constantly change. In the latest interpretation guidelines, a given sample will have lower probabilities, translating to more conservative statistics, the DPS letter said. “Just to be on the safe side, they are not going to count all the data they can count,” said Rob Kepple, the executive director of the Texas District and County Attorney’s Association. The old testing could have determined that there was a probability that someone’s DNA was included in an evidence sample, but the new testing could show that scientists can’t determine whether someone’s DNA was included, Kepple said. “That’s important for a defendant to know.” Such disclosures are important as labs test smaller and smaller traces of DNA found on objects, such as firearms or countertops."

 http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/crime-law/concerns-over-dna-analysis-spur-review-of-hundreds/nn7SZ/

Steven Mark Chaney: Texas: Reporter Michael Hall focuses on another Texas exoneration which calls bite mark evidence into question. Texas Monthly.

STORY: “Another Texas exoneration calls bite mark evidence into question,” by reporter Michael Hall, published by Texas Monthly on October 20, 2015.

SUB-HEADING: Steven Chaney became the twenty-sixth person to be wrongly convicted or indicted based on bite mark evidence. The two dental experts who testified against him have also testifiedin numerous cases - and they’ve been wrong before.

GIST: “The outcome of Chaney’s case is yet another notable strike against the controversial practice of using bite marks  to secure convictions.  For decades, testimony from forensic dentists – who inspect the injuries of the victims and attempt to match them to the dental patterns of alleged perpetrators – has been admissible in court. Often, this  testimony is the prosecutor’s only physical evidenc evidence…A review of old bite mark cases will almost certainly reveal more false identifications, simply because of the nature of the way experts thought and testified.”.

The entire story can be found at:

http://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2015/10/22/another-texas-exoneration-calls-bite-mark-evidence-into-question/

See related post on the Law Diva's Blog (Georgialee Lang):  "In 1987 Dentist Jim Hales was one of two dentists that testified at Chaney’s trial that there was a “1 to a million” chance that someone other than Chaney made the bite marks found on the male victim’s body. The jury, like other juries before and after this trial, relied on the expert evidence to convict Chaney. It is not uncommon that medical testimony from seemingly qualified doctors is considered to be scientifically infallible because of the elevated positions physicians hold in society. This, despite alibi testimony from nine of Chaney’s friends who said they saw him the day of the slayings and he couldn’t have killed the Sweeks. Chaney’s attorney and the New York-based Innocence Project asked Judge Dominique Collins to overturn their client’s conviction after prosecutors admitted that bite-mark analysis was unreliable and flawed. Chaney received a pumpkin pie from the judge who wanted him to enjoy the taste after eating bland prison food for so long. Steven Chaney is among a group of alleged murderers and rapists whose convictions were secured by bite-mark evidence. Since 2000 at least 24 men in the United States have been exonerated of heinous crimes after convictions based on this junk science.........Meanwhile Chris Fabricant, director of litigation with the New York Innocence Project says “Bite mark evidence is the poster child of unreliable forensic science.”

https://lawdiva.wordpress.com/tag/steven-mark-chaney/

See the related Innocence Project post:  "The practice of using bite marks to secure convictions in the court of law is coming under increasing scrutiny following a series of wrongful convictions based almost entirely on the unreliable and “controversial” practice, according to an article in Texas Monthly. 

“The truth is, there was never any conclusive data or rigorous studies to back up bite mark evidence, which has been under fire from scientists and defense lawyers ever since it was first allowed in court in 1974,” says the Austin-based publication, noting that forensic odontologists—or forensic dentists—“sometimes can’t even agree” on whether marks found on skin come from teeth or not. The Texas Monthly’s article on what is regarded as unreliable forensic science by the Innocence Project and the National Academy of Sciences, comes on the heels of the release of Steven Mark Chaney—a Dallas man who had his 1987 murder conviction reversed by a court last week due to discredited bite mark testimony. Chaney was convicted of the murder of John Sweek based largely on the testimony of two forensic dentists who claimed that his teeth matched to a mark on Sweek’s body. As a result, Chaney spent 28 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Nevertheless, testimony from forensic dentists who inspect the injuries of victims and attempt to match them to the dental patterns of alleged perpetrators has long been admissible in court and is often the prosecutor’s only physical evidence, reports the Texas Monthly. Jurors are often confronted with bite mark testimony and the forensic experts who tout it as full-proof even though a 2009 report issued by the National Academy of Sciences confirmed that “the scientific basis is insufficient to conclude that bite mark comparisons can result in a conclusive match.” This discredited practice has contributed to sending innocent people to prison. According to Texas Monthly, when asked why he voted to convict Chaney, one juror admitted: “The bite mark.” Beyond Chaney’s wrongful conviction, however, the article observes that bite mark evidence was also used in Texas’ wrongful convictions of Calvin Washington and Joe Sidney Williams— two co-defendants in a 1987 rape and murder case—as well as the wrongful conviction of David Spence in his tragic death penalty case two years earlier. It adds that in both cases, the effect of the forensic dentist’s testimony on the jury was “powerful.”
 

The practice of using bite marks to secure convictions in the court of law is coming under increasing scrutiny following a series of wrongful convictions based almost entirely on the unreliable and “controversial” practice, according to an article in Texas Monthly.
“The truth is, there was never any conclusive data or rigorous studies to back up bite mark evidence, which has been under fire from scientists and defense lawyers ever since it was first allowed in court in 1974,” says the Austin-based publication, noting that forensic odontologists—or forensic dentists—“sometimes can’t even agree” on whether marks found on skin come from teeth or not.
The Texas Monthly’s article on what is regarded as unreliable forensic science by the Innocence Project and the National Academy of Sciences, comes on the heels of the release of Steven Mark Chaney—a Dallas man who had his 1987 murder conviction reversed by a court last week due to discredited bite mark testimony. Chaney was convicted of the murder of John Sweek based largely on the testimony of two forensic dentists who claimed that his teeth matched to a mark on Sweek’s body. As a result, Chaney spent 28 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.
Nevertheless, testimony from forensic dentists who inspect the injuries of victims and attempt to match them to the dental patterns of alleged perpetrators has long been admissible in court and is often the prosecutor’s only physical evidence, reports the Texas Monthly. Jurors are often confronted with bite mark testimony and the forensic experts who tout it as full-proof even though a 2009 report issued by the National Academy of Sciences confirmed that “the scientific basis is insufficient to conclude that bite mark comparisons can result in a conclusive match.” This discredited practice has contributed to sending innocent people to prison. According to Texas Monthly, when asked why he voted to convict Chaney, one juror admitted: “The bite mark.”
Beyond Chaney’s wrongful conviction, however, the article observes that bite mark evidence was also used in Texas’ wrongful convictions of Calvin Washington and Joe Sidney Williams— two co-defendants in a 1987 rape and murder case—as well as the wrongful conviction of David Spence in his tragic death penalty case two years earlier. It adds that in both cases, the effect of the forensic dentist’s testimony on the jury was “powerful.”
- See more at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-exonerations/bite-mark-testimony-comes-under-fire-yet-again#sthash.GCTrj9oC.dpuf

http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-exonerations/bite-mark-testimony-comes-under-fire-yet-again

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
 
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
 
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.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html  

I look forward to hearing from readers at:

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

David Camm: Indiana: Ethics hearing of prosecutor in this high profile case continues. Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson is accused of negotiating a book deal leading up to the third trial, and then using taxpayer money to cover his legal fees. Camm was twice convicted of the murders of his wife and children, but he was eventually acquitted at a third trial. Charles Boney is now serving a life sentence for the crimes." WDRB:

"Tuesday brought the second day of testimony in the ethics hearing for Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson. Henderson is accused of negotiating a book deal leading up to the third trial, and then using taxpayer money to cover his legal fees. Henderson counters that there was never anything in writing. The hearing was moved to the state house in Indianapolis to allow David Camm's defense attorneys to testify. First on the stand today was Indianapolis attorney Stacy Uliana, who represented Camm in his second and third trials. The hearing started off pretty tame, but things got heated when Uliana was questioned about her personal relationship with Camm. She admits her sister did have a relationship with Camm after the third trial, but then stressed to us after testifying that this is not about any personal relationships, or even David Camm, for that matter. "This proceeding is about the harm that was done to the Floyd Count taxpayers, and about the harm that was done to my profession -- the legal profession -- by Mr. Henderson's conduct," Uliana said. "I felt then -- I feel now -- it was a trial tactic to get me off," Henderson said. "Kudos to them. They were successful. But it was certainly related to the appeal that was pending up at the court of appeals. But with that, I don't really want to say any more until after I testify.".........All of this stems from Henderson's handling of the high-profile David Camm case. Camm was twice convicted of the murders of his wife and children, but he was eventually acquitted at a third trial. Charles Boney is now serving a life sentence for the crimes."
http://www.wdrb.com/story/30307534/keith-henderson-ethics-hearing-continues-defense-attorney-admits-sister-had-relationship-with-david-camm

See Wikipedia report:  "David Ray Camm (born March 23, 1964) is a former state trooper who was acquitted and released in 2013 after his third trial on charges of murdering his wife, Kimberly, and children, Brad, 7, and Jill, 5, at their Georgetown, Indiana home on September 28, 2000. He had been found guilty in two earlier trials, but these verdicts were overturned on appeal. Camm now works as a case coordinator for a non-profit wrongful conviction advocacy organization called Investigating Innocence that provides criminal defense investigations for inmates.........The case was covered extensively by the media in the southern Indiana and the Louisville, Kentucky area, as well as by national news programs including Nancy Grace, 48 hours, and Dateline. The case is noted for the extensive allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, including witness tampering, evidence tampering, perjury and an overall shoddy investigation and has been detailed in numerous forensic textbooks."