Dwayne Buck: Texas: Who Is Dangerous, and Who Dies? Dr. James Grigson? (AKA Dr. Death) Dr. Walter Quijano? Other experts who routinely found that a defendant posed a risk of future dangerousness? Errol Morris notes that "an appalling and racialized standard of “future dangerousness” has found its way into American courts. (Morris focuses on Duane Buck and Cristina Swarns, his hard-hitting attorney who has fought this 'life and death' madness in the courts..."I first became involved with all this while making my film “The Thin Blue Line.” I had read about Dr. James Grigson, an expert witness regularly called by the state of Texas. Some referred to him as “Dr. Death” because he would routinely find that the defendant posed a risk of future dangerousness, and thus should be executed. I met with Dr. Grigson in 1985, and on his recommendation I started interviewing Texas death row inmates. Among those Dr. Grigson had testified posed a risk of future dangerousness was Randall Dale Adams, a convicted cop killer — or at least, so it seemed. My film was finished, and Mr. Adams was exonerated. I had thought — stupidly, it turned out — that Dr. Grigson had been put out of business. Not so. The “dangerousness” provision of the Texas law remained very much in place. But I forgot about it. I had done my fair share of good — got an innocent man out of prison. Then, not long ago, I read about the case of Buck v. Davis, decided by the Supreme Court on Feb. 22. Duane Buck had been convicted of capital murder in 1997. He killed his ex-girlfriend and one of her friends. The details of the crime are appalling, but no less appalling is that Dr. Walter Quijano discussed Mr. Buck’s race as a factor in determining his future dangerousness. African-Americans, Dr. Quijano argued, are more likely to commit acts of violence. Though Dr. Quijano opined that Mr. Buck was not a risk of future dangerousness, his testimony about race remained an element for the jury to consider. Dr. Quijano has given similar testimony in other death penalty cases since 1991."

COMMENTARY: "Who Is Dangerous, and Who Dies? An appalling and racialized standard of “future dangerousness” has been used to condemn defendants. This lawyer fought it," by Errol Morris, published by The New York Times on June 7, 2017. (Errol Morris is a writer and filmmaker. He lives with his wife and French bulldog in Cambridge.)

GIST: "The death penalty, like abortion, is one of those hot-button topics that keeps popping up into the public consciousness, a roach motel for meretricious ideas and bad public policy — including racism. I would bet that if it involved putting white people to death for killing black people, it would have been abolished years ago. Still, it persists. Except our society — until recently — has come to believe that overt expressions of racism might not be a good thing. Better to keep a fig leaf over it than to explore its underbelly. In 1972, the Supreme Court found in the 5-4 decision of Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty as practiced in this country was unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. But the majority couldn’t agree on a rationale for its decision, so instead of one majority opinion, five separate concurrences were produced. While Justices Brennan and Marshall found the death penalty itself to be cruel and unusual punishment, Justices Stewart, White and Douglas focused on its arbitrariness, leaving the door wide open for states to rejigger their statutes and return to executions. In 1973, Texas did just that — the sentencing phase of a capital trial was separated from the guilt phase, and the jury was asked to consider “whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society [future dangerousness].” In response to the Furman decision, Governor Preston Smith commuted the death sentences of 52 inmates in Texas, clearing out death row entirely. In 1976, consolidating cases from five different states (Georgia, Florida, Texas, North Carolina and Louisiana), the court in Gregg v. Georgia found that the death penalty was not unconstitutional in every case. Executions in Texas, now by lethal injection — Old Sparky, the Texas electric chair, had been retired — started back up in 1982. I first became involved with all this while making my film “The Thin Blue Line.” I had read about Dr. James Grigson, an expert witness regularly called by the state of Texas. Some referred to him as “Dr. Death” because he would routinely find that the defendant posed a risk of future dangerousness, and thus should be executed. I met with Dr. Grigson in 1985, and on his recommendation I started interviewing Texas death row inmates. Among those Dr. Grigson had testified posed a risk of future dangerousness was Randall Dale Adams, a convicted cop killer — or at least, so it seemed. My film was finished, and Mr. Adams was exonerated. I had thought — stupidly, it turned out — that Dr. Grigson had been put out of business. Not so. The “dangerousness” provision of the Texas law remained very much in place. But I forgot about it. I had done my fair share of good — got an innocent man out of prison. Then, not long ago, I read about the case of Buck v. Davis, decided by the Supreme Court on Feb. 22. Duane Buck had been convicted of capital murder in 1997. He killed his ex-girlfriend and one of her friends. The details of the crime are appalling, but no less appalling is that Dr. Walter Quijano discussed Mr. Buck’s race as a factor in determining his future dangerousness. African-Americans, Dr. Quijano argued, are more likely to commit acts of violence. Though Dr. Quijano opined that Mr. Buck was not a risk of future dangerousness, his testimony about race remained an element for the jury to consider. Dr. Quijano has given similar testimony in other death penalty cases since 1991. Prompted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Saldaño v. Texas (2000), which vacated the sentence of Victor Hugo Saldaño because Dr. Quijano had testified that Mr. Saldaño’s Hispanic ethnicity made him a greater risk of future dangerousness, State Attorney General John Cornyn promised that his office would not object if the other defendants (Mr. Buck among them) sought to overturn their death sentences based on Dr. Quijano’s testimony. In Mr. Buck’s case, though, they did object, claiming that since it was the defense attorney who put Dr. Quijano on the stand and allowed his testimony into the record without objection, the State of Texas owed the defendant nothing. I called Mr. Buck’s attorney Christina Swarns, litigation director of the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund Inc., to discuss the case....(Read on  at the link below for a fascinating discussion  between Errol Morris and Christina Swarns. HL) And so we’re back where we started, except things have gotten worse. We have elected a president who invokes future dangerousness with respect to country of national origin (and also religion). In 1977 it was Dr. Grigson and sociopathy; in 1997, Dr. Quijano and race; and now it is Donald Trump and a list of six countries. Think of it as a very thinly disguised form of racism against Muslims. Christina Swarns sent me several legal briefs submitted to the Supreme Court in support of Buck, among them, a brief from the National Black Law Students Association. “Whether by a judge, a prosecutor or defense counsel, an appeal to a jury based on racial prejudice poisons our system of justice.” And from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: “Mr. Buck was entitled to have his dangerousness assessed on an individualized basis based on his personal attributes. Instead he received a death sentence tainted by 400 years of racial stereotyping.” Notwithstanding, the concept of dangerousness is alive and well. It took an egregious error to call it into question in Duane Buck’s case. But it should have been ruled as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1976 (under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments) and should be seen as unconstitutional today. Admittedly, there is a difference between a court of law and a presidential order involving immigration. But under any circumstance, should public policy be held hostage to racial and religious discrimination?"

The entire commentary can be found at:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/opinion/errol-morris-interview-death-penalty.html?_r=0&referer=

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

Tyrone Noling: Ohio; Bulletin: On-going appeal for DNA testing; "Death row inmate Tyrone Noling’s life may depend on DNA testing, attorney tells high court; Portage prosecutor say further delays not needed."...Death row inmate Tyrone Noling’s life may depend on the DNA testing he is seeking to potentially exonerate him in the 1990 murder of an Atwater Township couple, his attorney told the Ohio Supreme Court on Tuesday. “This case has consequences,” attorney Brian Howe said during oral arguments. “There is the possibility of executing an innocent man.”...Reporter Stephanie Warsmith; The Beacon Journal; June 21, 2017.

.
"Prosecution’s theory: Tyrone Noling, then 18, shot and killed Cora and Bearnhardt Hartig, both 81, in 1990 in their Atwater Township home during a robbery attempt. Pending issue: The 11th District Court of Appeals remanded Noling’s request for a new trial to the trial court. Noling’s attorneys say prosecutors failed to disclose evidence of an alternate suspect. The DNA testing issue first must be decided. To watch oral arguments before the Ohio Supreme Court: Visit http://bit.ly/2snlD2V. Death row inmate Tyrone Noling’s life may depend on the DNA testing he is seeking to potentially exonerate him in the 1990 murder of an Atwater Township couple, his attorney told the Ohio Supreme Court on Tuesday. “This case has consequences,” attorney Brian Howe said during oral arguments. “There is the possibility of executing an innocent man.” Portage County Prosecutor Victor Vigluicci, however, told the justices that no additional steps are needed and that any further testing will delay justice for the victims in the long-pending case. “This has to end at some point,” he said. It now will be up to the justices to decide if Noling’s testing requests should be granted. Noling’s attorneys are asking the high court for access to the complete results of DNA testing already done, for shell casings to be run through a federal database to see if the murder weapon was used in any other crimes, and for a reputable lab to do DNA testing using the latest technology for shell casings and ring boxes from the crime scene. Portage County prosecutors claim Noling, 45, shot and killed Cora and Bearnhardt Hartig, both 81, in a robbery attempt. The case hinges on the testimony of Noling’s co-defendants, all of whom have recanted. No fingerprints or other evidence put him at the scene. He has maintained his innocence. Howe, who is with the Ohio Innocence Project, pointed during his oral argument Tuesday to the case of Clarence Elkins, who was exonerated based on DNA evidence. Elkins was wrongfully imprisoned and spent nearly eight years in prison for the murder of his Barberton mother-in-law. He was freed after a DNA test of a cigarette butt from another prison inmate was linked to DNA from the crime scene. Earl Gene Mann, the inmate, pleaded guilty and is now serving a life sentence. The Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI), the state’s crime lab, determined that DNA tests of casings and ring boxes in the Noling case were contaminated by detectives and crime lab technicians. The same argument was initially made in the Elkins case. If DNA testing hadn’t been done, Howe said, “Earl Mann would still be a free man.” Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor asked Howe if it’s true that “an item can be contaminated, but still contain important information.” Howe said it can, unless it is determined that the item is “so contaminated that it is unsuitable for testing.” O’Connor asked Howe if the defense’s goal is to compare the DNA profiles of the shell casings, ring boxes and a cigarette butt found in the Hartigs’ driveway. Howe said if a male profile was found on these items that didn’t belong to Noling, this would be a strong argument that Noling should be excluded as a suspect and granted a new trial. O’Connor asked Vigluicci during his oral argument whether he thought DNA on these items — not belonging to Noling — would be probative or important evidence. Vigluicci said this wouldn’t be possible because BCI determined the shell casings and ring boxes had been contaminated. O’Connor pressed him again, though, on whether this result would be significant. “No. We have no evidence Noling was in the room where the ring boxes are,” Vigluicci said. “We have no evidence he loaded the gun that killed the Hartigs."
http://www.ohio.com/news/local/death-row-inmate-tyrone-noling-s-life-may-depend-on-dna-testing-attorney-tells-high-court-portage-prosecutor-say-further-delays-not-needed-1.775703

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

Frits Van Beelen; South Australia; Bulletin; On-going appeal: 9 News: 22 June; 2017..."Defence counsel Kevin Borick QC told the court that evidence on the time of death from pathologist Colin Manock's was so wrong it should never have been presented to the jury as a key factor in the case. "It had no basis at all in science," Mr Borick said. "It had no scientific validity. Dr Manock was completely wrong." As a result, Mr Borick said there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice."

"A High Court hearing is set to continue as an Adelaide man, found guilty of murdering a teenage girl 45 years ago, makes his last bid to overturn his conviction. Frits Van Beelen was originally sentenced to death but served 17 years' jail for murdering 15-year-old Deborah Leach, who was found buried in seaweed at Taperoo Beach in July 1971. The Full Bench of the South Australian Supreme Court rejected his latest appeal in July last year, ruling against his contention that new and compelling evidence had emerged. But the High Court is considering an appeal against that ruling and was told on Wednesday that later science had seriously discredited forensic evidence at Van Beelen's trial. Defence counsel Kevin Borick QC told the court that evidence on the time of death from pathologist Colin Manock's was so wrong it should never have been presented to the jury as a key factor in the case. "It had no basis at all in science," Mr Borick said. "It had no scientific validity. Dr Manock was completely wrong." As a result, Mr Borick said there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice.
Van Beelen has always maintained his innocence........The High Court hearing continues on Thursday with more evidence from Director of Public Prosecutions Adam Kimber.On Wednesday, he said while Dr Manock had been wrong to limit the time of death to a period of one hour, that did not eliminate Van Beelen as the possible killer."

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/06/22/03/34/van-beelen-high-court-appeal-to-continue

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

Frits Van Beelen: South Australia; Graham Archer's excellent 'Today Tonight Adelaide' Documentary' on his case: A 'must see' backgrounder for today's appeal - with fascinating video footage..." "For 45 years he's maintained his innocence. Now, could one of South Australia's most controversial convictions be overturned?"...From ABC News story: (Reporter Candice Prosser): ""In order for Van Beelen to be convicted the jury had to accept Dr Manock's evidence that the death occurred between 4:10 and 4:30," Mr Borick said. "They had to accept that the death occurred at the time he was at the beach, that's 4:15 and 4:30 but that's an error, Dr Manock was completely wrong." Mr Borick told the court the evidence presented at trial was unreliable. "The miscarriage of justice occurs because an unscientific opinion was expressed which was not only wrong, but it was scientifically invalid," he said. He said evidence of fibres found on the teenager's clothing that allegedly matched Mr Van Beelen's clothing was also disputed at the time. "The value of that fibre evidence, in my submission, falls away to nothing until we have Van Beelen at the beach at the relevant time ... when the death occurred," Mr Borick said. "It's still always going to come back to the fact that the jury were told that the death occurred before 4.30. If it occurred after 4.30, which had to be a reasonable possibility, then the jury could not have convicted."

GIST: "For 45 years he's  maintained his innocence. Now,  could one of South Australia's most controversial convictions be overturned?"

The entire documentary can be found at:

https://www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/stories/van-beelen

See ABC News Story (Reporter Candice Prosser) on the on-going  appeal  before five justices at the link below: (Under the heading 'Van Beelen murder appeal lawyer citicizes original evidence as 'unscientific.')..."A man convicted of murdering an Adelaide teenager more than 40 years ago has appealed to the High Court, arguing flawed forensic evidence presented at his trial amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice. Frits Van Beelen, 70, was originally sentenced to death over the murder of Deborah Leach but was later released from prison after serving 17 years. The 15-year-old girl was drowned and sexually assaulted at Taperoo Beach in 1971. Mr Van Beelen has launched a new appeal on the grounds of "fresh and compelling" evidence under recent legislative amendments. His lawyers have argued flawed evidence presented at his trial by forensic pathologist Dr Colin Manock about the time of the teenager's death cast doubt over the conviction. Mr Van Beelen lost a Supreme Court appeal in a majority decision, and is now seeking to have that ruling overturned in the High Court. It is the first time the new appeal laws have been tested in the High Court. Mr Van Beelen's lawyer, Kevin Borick QC, told the court there had been a miscarriage of justice. "In order for Van Beelen to be convicted the jury had to accept Dr Manock's evidence that the death occurred between 4:10 and 4:30," Mr Borick said. "They had to accept that the death occurred at the time he was at the beach, that's 4:15 and 4:30 but that's an error, Dr Manock was completely wrong." Mr Borick told the court the evidence presented at trial was unreliable. "The miscarriage of justice occurs because an unscientific opinion was expressed which was not only wrong, but it was scientifically invalid," he said. He said evidence of fibres found on the teenager's clothing that allegedly matched Mr Van Beelen's clothing was also disputed at the time. "The value of that fibre evidence, in my submission, falls away to nothing until we have Van Beelen at the beach at the relevant time ... when the death occurred," Mr Borick said. "It's still always going to come back to the fact that the jury were told that the death occurred before 4.30. If it occurred after 4.30, which had to be a reasonable possibility, then the jury could not have convicted.""

 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-21/evidence-disputed-at-van-beelen-murder-appeal/8639604

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

Keith Kutska: Wisconsin...Bulletin: One of five men still in prison for their involvement in the death of Tom Monfils, he is seeking a U.S. Supreme Court review of Monfils murder case...USA Today Network; June 13, 2017...."Keith Kutska is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review his conviction in the 1992 murder of Tom Monfils at a Green Bay paper mill. Kutska filed a request for review of the case by the Supreme Court on May 18. One of five men serving life in prison for Monfils' death, Kutska appealed his conviction in Brown County Circuit Court in 2015, arguing that his trial lawyer and subsequent lawyers were ineffectual."...(From earlier post)..."So, what does Cal Monfils think happened to his brother that November day in 1992? Monfils finds himself leaning to the latest defense theory, pitched by lawyers from the Minnesota Innocence Project, that Tom Monfils killed himself "It's my brother, and I don't want to say that, but it's a possibility," Monfils said. "I feel bad for his wife, his kids and everybody if it happened that way, but it sure would be terrible to have six lives put away for nothing." Tom Monfils' widow, Susan, originally told family members she thought Tom had committed suicide, Cal Monfils said. That information had never been shared with the defendants, their lawyers or the jury, according to defense lawyers who have taken up the case for the five remaining defendants. Those lawyers claim in newly filed court documents that Tom Monfils was depressed and stressed from his troubled marriage and from realizing he was on the outs with co-workers for reporting the theft of a piece of extension cord by fellow union member Keith Kutska. Cal Monfils won't pretend to know what was on his brother's mind, but "I also can't say it didn't happen."..." Those defense lawyers, who have mounted an effort to get a new trial for the men, claim the original defense lawyers were lulled into accepting a false conclusion by the medical examiner claiming that Tom Monfils was clearly murdered. New defense lawyers now say independent medical experts dispute then-medical examiner Dr. Helen Young's conclusion that injuries on Tom Monfils' body happened before he died and before he was in the vat, indicating he was murdered. Those lawyers argue in court documents that their medical experts say the injuries more likely happened to Monfils' body while inside the vat. "If you get a diagnosis from a doctor, people will tell you to get a second opinion, yet they got one opinion from the coroner," Cal Monfils said."

"Keith Kutska is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review his conviction in the 1992 murder of Tom Monfils at a Green Bay paper mill. Kutska filed a request for review of the case by the Supreme Court on May 18. One of five men serving life in prison for Monfils' death, Kutska appealed his conviction in Brown County Circuit Court in 2015, arguing that his trial lawyer and subsequent lawyers were ineffectual. Reserve Judge James Bayorgeon, who heard the original case in 1995, rejected Kutska's bid for a new trial, as did a state court of appeals.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to review the case in April. Kutska and five others were convicted in 1995 of conspiring to murder Monfils. Prosecutors said Monfils was killed after he told authorities Kutska had stolen a piece of electrical wiring from the former James River mill, where they both worked. Kutska was suspended from work and then incited others to confront Monfils, 35, who disappeared that day. His body was found a day or two later in a pulp vat. Rey Moore, Michael Hirn, Dale Basten and Michael Johnson are each serving life terms.Mike Piaskowski was released when a federal appellate judge ruled there had been insufficient evidence to convict him."

The entire story can be found at:

 http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2017/06/12/kutska-seeks-supreme-court-review-monfils-murder-case/390702001/

See earlier post at the link below: ""Cal Monfils finds it easier to believe his brother committed suicide in 1992 than thinking six guys murdered him in a Green Bay paper mill and kept quiet about it all these years. "It's almost more believable than that six guys kept a secret for 20 years for what they say was union brotherhood," Monfils said. A jury found otherwise in 1995, and the six men went to prison for conspiracy to murder Thomas Monfils at the then-James River Mill.........Cal Monfils, 47, of Green Bay finds himself in the unusual position of having joined the defendants' battle for freedom. Cal says he is at odds with most of his family on the issue, but he can't swallow the notion the men are anything other than innocent. "These six people, they all had children, houses, they held responsible jobs," Monfils said. "It really makes no sense. It's hard to believe someone could be in jail all these years, remaining quiet. … It's a pretty weak glue that holds them together. Somebody would have cracked. Or told their wife or best buddy, and none of those came forward either." Back in the 1990s, when his brother's death was an unsolved crime, police secretly recorded conversations, performed garbage searches and took a variety of other extreme measures, "and it all yielded nothing," Cal Monfils said. "It kind of makes you think there was nothing. "These guys would not have been sharp enough to throw off police so completely." Monfils said police even sent him undercover to talk to one of the defendants, Michael Hirn, in hope that Monfils would record him saying something incriminating. "He said, 'Cal, I don't know what happened …. But the police have it wrong. We need to get the FBI in on this.' And his family did contact the FBI, because they felt the police were heading in the wrong direction," Cal Monfils said. "I'm not saying I believed him, but it raised doubt." That doubt has continued to grow, he said. He was unconvinced at the trial, unsurprised in 2001 when a federal judge threw out the case against defendant Mike Piaskowski, and found himself even more convinced after reading "The Monfils Conspiracy," a book by two local authors that claims to reveal fatal errors in the police investigation of the case. So, what does Cal Monfils think happened to his brother that November day in 1992? Monfils finds himself leaning to the latest defense theory, pitched by lawyers from the Minnesota Innocence Project, that Tom Monfils killed himself "It's my brother, and I don't want to say that, but it's a possibility," Monfils said. "I feel bad for his wife, his kids and everybody if it happened that way, but it sure would be terrible to have six lives put away for nothing." Tom Monfils' widow, Susan, originally told family members she thought Tom had committed suicide, Cal Monfils said. That information had never been shared with the defendants, their lawyers or the jury, according to defense lawyers who have taken up the case for the five remaining defendants. Those lawyers claim in newly filed court documents that Tom Monfils was depressed and stressed from his troubled marriage and from realizing he was on the outs with co-workers for reporting the theft of a piece of extension cord by fellow union member Keith Kutska. Cal Monfils won't pretend to know what was on his brother's mind, but "I also can't say it didn't happen. "He was forever going to be the guy that made the call. He was going to be that guy." Cal Monfils accepts the claim by defense lawyers that investigators should have at least given credence to that theory back during the investigation and done psychological analysis. Those defense lawyers, who have mounted an effort to get a new trial for the men, claim the original defense lawyers were lulled into accepting a false conclusion by the medical examiner claiming that Tom Monfils was clearly murdered. New defense lawyers now say independent medical experts dispute then-medical examiner Dr. Helen Young's conclusion that injuries on Tom Monfils' body happened before he died and before he was in the vat, indicating he was murdered. Those lawyers argue in court documents that their medical experts say the injuries more likely happened to Monfils' body while inside the vat. "If you get a diagnosis from a doctor, people will tell you to get a second opinion, yet they got one opinion from the coroner," Cal Monfils said. "One person looked at the body." The lawyers of the Minnesota Innocence Project, who took up the case after friends of the authors of "The Monfils Conspiracy" shared the book with contacts in the Minneapolis area, recently filed a motion with the Brown County Clerk of Court's office asking to vacate the convictions "in the interest of justice." The case was automatically assigned to Circuit Court Branch VI, the branch presided over by Judge John Zakowski, who was the district attorney prosecuting the case when the six men were convicted in 1992. "I could have taken care of it in 10 minutes," joked Zakowski this week. Zakowski took himself off the new case, which was then reassigned to another branch. Zakowski continues to defend the convictions, as he has done during appeals processes through the years and upon the publishing of "The Monfils Conspiracy." The book, done with Piaskowski's help, claims police botched the investigation from the beginning and concocted the mill confrontation between Monfils and the six defendants. "That's how far we've come — now the argument is he wasn't even murdered," Zakowski said of the latest defense gambit. "It's just ridiculous." http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/local/2014/11/08/new-legal-team-argues-monfils-death-suicide/18730633/

Frits Van Beelen: South Australia; Murder appeal set for June 21: ABC News (reporter Matt Coleman) says "questionable pathology evidence is again the issue."...Parallels drawn with role played by disgraced pathologist Dr. Colin Manock in the Henry Keogh case:..."Mr Rau's changes to the law allowed people to appeal in court again, if they had what the court deemed "fresh and compelling" evidence. When Mr Keogh did that in 2014, he had spent 20 years in jail for murder over the 1994 drowning of his fiancée Anna-Jane Cheney in a bath at the couple's Magill home in Adelaide's north-eastern suburbs. He was able to convince the court there had been a miscarriage of justice in his case due to "fresh and compelling evidence" that cast doubt on the testimony given by discredited former chief forensic pathologist, Dr Colin Manock. The Court of Criminal Appeal ruled the pathologist - among other things - had misled the trial court with a drowning hypothesis that amounted to "unsustainable speculation". Mr Keogh's conviction was set aside and he was released on bail to await a retrial - which the public prosecutor later decided not to go ahead with. Van Beelen is trying to use the same "fresh and compelling" laws that Mr Keogh used. Do the two cases have anything else in common? Yes, a very important common factor. Dr Manock himself. Dr Manock also gave evidence at Mr Van Beelen's trial - and like with the Keogh case - significant questions have been raised about it. Mr Van Beelen's lawyers told previous court hearings that in other cases Dr Manock was involved in, he had been found to have provided unreliable evidence and in the Keogh case he had "deliberately hid" or failed to disclose crucial evidence. They argued in court that Dr Manock was not qualified to give evidence, was incompetent, untrustworthy and had used inconsistent science. The "fresh and compelling evidence" Mr Van Beelen's lawyers are relying on are three articles raising doubts about the scientific methods used by Dr Manock to determine Ms Leach's time of death."

STORY: "Van Beelen murder appeal bid sees High Court test 'fresh and compelling' evidence laws," by reporter Matt Coleman, published by ABC News on June 20, 2017.

SUB-HEADING: "A South Australian man will go to court this week in yet another bid to quash his conviction for murdering a teenage girl in the early 1970s."

KEY POINTS:  "Van Beelen has had several appeals rejected; He is the second person to test new laws; The first use of the laws also involved a murder case; Questionable pathology evidence is again the key issue. But the Frits Van Beelen case is more than just a renewed attempt by a man to clear his name after 45 years. The latest move will see Australia's highest court more clearly define the boundaries of laws designed to ensure that those with "fresh and compelling" evidence of their innocence don't rot behind bars.  

GIST: What was Frits Van Beelen convicted of? Van Beelen was convicted of murdering 15-year-old Deborah Leach at Taperoo Beach in Adelaide's north-west in July 1971. Ms Leach's partially-clothed body was found buried in seaweed more than 12 hours after she was last seen running towards the beach. From its earliest stages, this case has been anything but straightforward. According to the High Court's summary, Van Beelen was first convicted and sentenced to death in October 1972. He appealed and got a retrial, was convicted again and then sentenced to death for a second time in July 1973. Van Beelen appealed yet again but that was dismissed later in 1973. He then applied to appeal to the High Court and to the Privy Council in London but it was refused. The case summary states "his conviction was again affirmed in September 1974 on the hearing of a petition for mercy". Van Beelen served 17 years in prison. How does he have yet another chance to clear his name? The Van Beelen case is in court again because of legislation passed by the South Australian Parliament in 2013 and first used - successfully - by another man, Henry Keogh, in December 2014. When he introduced the laws, Attorney-General John Rau noted that a convicted person normally had one right of appeal. Once that appeal process was exhausted, if new evidence against the soundness of a conviction emerged, the defendant had only one option available - "to petition the Governor for mercy". Mr Rau's changes to the law allowed people to appeal in court again, if they had what the court deemed "fresh and compelling" evidence. When Mr Keogh did that in 2014, he had spent 20 years in jail for murder over the 1994 drowning of his fiancée Anna-Jane Cheney in a bath at the couple's Magill home in Adelaide's north-eastern suburbs. He was able to convince the court there had been a miscarriage of justice in his case due to "fresh and compelling evidence" that cast doubt on the testimony given by discredited former chief forensic pathologist, Dr Colin Manock. The Court of Criminal Appeal ruled the pathologist - among other things - had misled the trial court with a drowning hypothesis that amounted to "unsustainable speculation". Mr Keogh's conviction was set aside and he was released on bail to await a retrial - which the public prosecutor later decided not to go ahead with. Van Beelen is trying to use the same "fresh and compelling" laws that Mr Keogh used. Do the two cases have anything else in common? Yes, a very important common factor. Dr Manock himself. Dr Manock also gave evidence at Mr Van Beelen's trial - and like with the Keogh case - significant questions have been raised about it. Mr Van Beelen's lawyers told previous court hearings that in other cases Dr Manock was involved in, he had been found to have provided unreliable evidence and in the Keogh case he had "deliberately hid" or failed to disclose crucial evidence. They argued in court that Dr Manock was not qualified to give evidence, was incompetent, untrustworthy and had used inconsistent science. The "fresh and compelling evidence" Mr Van Beelen's lawyers are relying on are three articles raising doubts about the scientific methods used by Dr Manock to determine Ms Leach's time of death. Why is the High Court involved? The High Court is getting involved due to disagreement between South Australian judges. When Van Beelen launched his appeal under the "fresh and compelling" laws in July 2016, he did so in the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal. Two of the three justices hearing the matter dismissed it. They ruled that the evidence questioning Dr Manock's original time-of-death determination did not amount to "compelling" evidence. Chief Justice Chris Kourakis, however, said he would have allowed the appeal and would have ordered a retrial. With two judges against - and one in favour - the appeal was dismissed, but Van Beelen's lawyers took the case to the High Court. They are this week, effectively, asking the High Court to over-rule the two judges who dismissed the 2016 appeal. They are arguing, among other things, that the South Australian court failed to understand the compelling nature of the material that cast doubt on Dr Manock's original time-of-death evidence. They also say the South Australian court was wrong to conclude that Dr Manock's evidence was questioned at trial in the 1970s and therefore later questioning was precluded. The High Court hearing is scheduled for June 21."

The entire story can be found at:

 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-21/van-beelen-high-court-bid-test-evidence-laws/8632088

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

Fran and Dan Keller: Texas; 'Satanic day care' case: Monumental Development; ( long overdue, much welcomed (HL): Court documents to be filed in Austin today declaring them innocent, The American Statesman reports. (Reporters Tony Plohetski and Chuck Lindell)..."Convicted in a joint trial in 1992, the Kellers were sentenced to 48 years in prison after three young children accused them of sexual abuse during bizarre satanic rituals in the day care they had operated for two years from their three-bedroom home in Oak Hill. In tales that grew more fantastic as the investigation progressed, the children recalled watching the Kellers dismember babies, torture pets, unearth and desecrate corpses, videotape orgies and serve blood-laced Kool-Aid. At least four law enforcement agencies conducted wide-ranging and vigorous investigations, yet no proof of satanic activity was discovered. But it was the early 1990s when a cottage industry of therapists, authors and investigators peddled now-discredited claims of a national network of secretive cults that targeted day care children for sex and other ritualistic horrors – often under the protection of top politicians and law officers. When defense lawyers argued that the children’s tales were too far-fetched to be believed, prosecutors countered with a psychologist, billed as an expert in satanic ritual abuse, who testified that some sex abusers used bizarre rituals to intimidate and control their victims."..." Dr. Michael Mouw, an emergency room physician who examined the 3-year-old girl in 1991 on the night she first accused Dan Keller of abuse, was a key witness at the Kellers’ trial, testifying that he found two tears and a fissure in the girl’s hymen. Mouw recanted, acknowledging that what he had identified as tears were instead normal variations in pediatric hymens – information he learned years later at a medical seminar."

STORY: "BREAKING: A declaration of innocence in Austin ‘satanic day care’ case," by Tony Plohetski and Chuck Lindell, published by The American-Statesman on June 20, 2017.

HIGHLITES: "Dan and Fran Keller will be eligible to apply for $80,000 in compensation for people wrongfully convicted DA says she doesn’t think ‘reasonable juror’ would convict. Couple was released on bond in 2013 as case began to fall apart.

GIST:  "The end has arrived for one of Travis County’s most controversial court sagas. Nearly two years after the state’s highest criminal court overturned the child sexual abuse convictions for day care owners Dan and Fran Keller, Travis County District Attorney Margaret Moore will file court documents Tuesday declaring them “actually innocent” under the law and dropping pending charges against them. The decision will resolve all outstanding criminal issues for the Kellers, who were convicted in 1992 and served more than 21 years in prison in a case that generated national headlines amid allegations that they performed satanic rituals on the children. The couple, now elderly and described by their lawyer as destitute, has been free on bond since 2013 and will each be able to apply for $80,000 for every year mistakenly spent in prison. “I believe under the law that I am charged with this responsibility — and it is my personal decision,” Moore told the American-Statesman and KVUE-TV. In a prepared statement to be released Tuesday, Moore said she is filing a motion to dismiss the charges because, “no credible evidence exists that inculpates the defendants” and “I believe that the defendants are actually innocent of the crime for each was sentenced.” ......... Convicted in a joint trial in 1992, the Kellers were sentenced to 48 years in prison after three young children accused them of sexual abuse during bizarre satanic rituals in the day care they had operated for two years from their three-bedroom home in Oak Hill. In tales that grew more fantastic as the investigation progressed, the children recalled watching the Kellers dismember babies, torture pets, unearth and desecrate corpses, videotape orgies and serve blood-laced Kool-Aid. At least four law enforcement agencies conducted wide-ranging and vigorous investigations, yet no proof of satanic activity was discovered. But it was the early 1990s when a cottage industry of therapists, authors and investigators peddled now-discredited claims of a national network of secretive cults that targeted day care children for sex and other ritualistic horrors – often under the protection of top politicians and law officers. When defense lawyers argued that the children’s tales were too far-fetched to be believed, prosecutors countered with a psychologist, billed as an expert in satanic ritual abuse, who testified that some sex abusers used bizarre rituals to intimidate and control their victims. The Kellers, tried for sexually assaulting a 3-year-old girl in their care, were found guilty. The case against the couple began falling apart in 2013, when the only physical evidence of sexual assault was acknowledged as a mistake made by a young doctor with little experience examining young children for abuse. Dr. Michael Mouw, an emergency room physician who examined the 3-year-old girl in 1991 on the night she first accused Dan Keller of abuse, was a key witness at the Kellers’ trial, testifying that he found two tears and a fissure in the girl’s hymen. Mouw recanted, acknowledging that what he had identified as tears were instead normal variations in pediatric hymens – information he learned years later at a medical seminar. Faced with Mouw’s change of heart, Travis County prosecutors made two important concessions: They agreed to free the Kellers from prison on a signature bond, and they agreed to ask the courts to throw out their convictions because the doctor’s mistake denied them a fair trial in 1992. Freedom came in late 2013. Dan Keller was 72, had difficulty hearing and walked with a cane but insisted that he was not bitter, saying: “I forgive everybody.” Fran Keller, then 63, recalled years of prison assaults and bullying from inmates who targeted those convicted of child sex crimes. Still, she said, she did not blame the children who alleged that they had been abused. “The children didn’t do anything. Children can be swayed by adults, but they didn’t do anything,” she said. “I’m just glad to be out and be able to start a life over.” Their fresh start included asking the state’s highest criminal court to void the convictions and to declare them innocent. “I want the Keller name back on good standing with everyone,” Fran Keller said at the time. “I don’t want this hanging over our heads.” Defense lawyer Keith Hampton, who worked on the Keller case without pay, had spent three years amassing volumes of information attacking every aspect of their convictions. In court documents, Hampton argued that the Kellers were the victims of a “satanic panic” that swept the nation in the early 1990s — fed in Austin by the combined efforts of inept therapists, gullible police and an investigation that spiraled out of control, eventually producing a suspect list of 26 ritual abusers, including an Austin police captain and many of the Kellers’ neighbors. Hampton also got creative. The Kellers were found free of sex-offender tendencies after examinations by mental health professionals. They passed two polygraphs each. Leading psychology and criminology professors explained how improper interview techniques and subtle encouragement by therapists produced believable-but-false memories in the children who accused the Kellers of abuse. Though the Court of Criminal Appeals tossed out the Kellers’ convictions as improperly influenced by false testimony from the doctor, the nine judges declined to declare them innocent. The biggest hurdle turned out to be Travis County prosecutors, who continued to argue in court that Hampton’s piecemeal attack on the evidence lacked one important requirement: concrete proof of innocence, something like an ironclad alibi or DNA evidence. The Kellers, unable to prove a negative and thus unable to clear their name, moved into a small house near New Braunfels and tried to eke out a living without meaningful jobs."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/local/breaking-declaration-innocence-austin-satanic-day-care-case/IANdbTQPLLQPKZOXHIy3dN/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;