Brooklyn Man Released From Prison After DNA Proves Innocence

No thanks to the NYPD

A Brooklyn man who was wrongly convicted of rape more than two decades ago is finally free. A Brooklyn judge ordered Scott Fappiano released from prison Friday, after DNA proved he was not the man to commit the brutal crime in 1983. Despite having spent over 20 years in prison, Fappiano was in surprisingly good spirits. "At this point right now, I'm not angry at anyone right now," Fappiano told the press upon his release.

Fappiano, now 45 years old, had been mistakenly identified as the man who broke into the home of an NYPD officer, tying him up, and repeatedly raping his wife. The wife's mistaken identification from a police lineup led to Fappiano's conviction. In 1985, Fappiano was sentenced to between 21 and 50 years in prison.

"There was times when I gave up that I wasn't going to be exonerated," said Fappiano. "I never game up hope that I was going to come home. I always knew I was going to come home." Fappiano's mother wasn't as quick to forgive. "I feel my son was kidnapped from me 21 years ago and was put away and I never saw him. It's terrible what they did to an innocent person," said Rose Fappiano.

The Innocence Project, a non-profit legal group that worked on Fappiano's case, blamed the NYPD for the miscarriage of justice and pushed prosecutors to reopen the case. An Innocence Project lawyer says his DNA was tested by a private company, proving his innocence. "It is no small miracle that Scott Fappiano is here today," said Fappiano's attorney, Nina Morrison. "Had Scott's fate depended on the evidence, storage, collection and inventory procedures of the NYPD, he would still be in prison today."

The Innocence Project says it searched for two years for DNA evidence in the case. It turned up in a Texas-based DNA lab. A pair of sweatpants the victim wore helped clear Fappiano's name. "I didn't do it and I wanted to prove I didn't do it," said Fappiano. "But from day one, all of my evidence was missing. A lot of my evidence was missing. And eventually something, a miracle happened."

Fappiano's family has been behind him throughout the ordeal and on the day he walked out of court a free man, his family was there to greet him. "We never had a doubt. We always knew it. And today's the day," said Fappiano's cousin Barbara DeCicco. While Fappiano says he's not sure what he'll do for a living, he says he does need to catch up on technology like surfing the internet and using cell phones.

Report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

The Case Against Probate Courts

Perhaps it's fitting an 86-year-old man may be the one to shove our outdated probate court system into the 21st century. Who better than Daniel Gross - the Long Island man held against his will in a Waterbury nursing home until he was released in July after 10 months - to challenge a 300-year-old system dominated by political insiders. Citing violations of his constitutional rights, the Americans With Disabilities Act and other federal laws and regulations, lawyers for Gross recently filed suit in U.S. District Court, demanding change. The lawsuit seeks intervention in the 123-court probate system, including appointment of a federal monitor to oversee reform. Gross is also looking for $10 million in damages.

The Gross case is similar to school desegregation lawsuits: It asks the courts to act where politicians have failed. Gross lost his freedom when a Waterbury probate court deemed him unfit, plunging him into an underworld where individual rights are ignored but the lawyers' bills get paid. Hollywood could not have come up with a better tale. An old man gets sick while visiting his daughter. Within weeks he ends up in a nursing home, his assets and liberty controlled by the local probate court.

Superior Court Judge Joseph T. Gormley called it "a terrible miscarriage of justice" when he ordered Gross freed from Grove Manor Nursing Home. Gov. Rell, and Probate Court Administrator James J. Lawlor - both named defendants - declined to comment.

This case is a gift from heaven for probate reformers, who have struggled against a court system intertwined with local politics, where judges don't need legal training. If not for a couple of lawyers working for free, Gross would still be in Grove Manor, his estate being steadily depleted by the Waterbury Probate Court. "It's about taking somebody's liberty away without giving them a chance to defend themselves," said John Peters, Gross' lawyer. "You've heard of taxation without representation. Now we've got incarceration without lawyers and a trial." At best, the courts offer an informal, folksy route to deal with wills and estates. At worst, the vulnerable are held against their will by rogue courts.

"The lawsuit is more of a political speech than a lawsuit," countered Brookfield Probate Judge Joseph P. Secola. Gross' lawsuit is "totally irrelevant,`` said Secola, who leads an association of probate judges. "It's not a systemic problem at all. There's just no evidence of that. We are trying to deal with some of the criticisms."

Some criticize the fact that there's no official record of probate proceedings. Judges engage in "ex parte" communications about cases outside of court proceedings. Some judges keep their private law practices, working with the same lawyers who appear before them. In Gross' case, the court restricted access of family members. Probate judges do not have authority to issue restraining orders.

The probate courts shouldn't "be torn down," said Quinnipiac University law professor Royal Stark, who is assisting Gross. "I would like to see them slavishly adhere to the highest standards of protection for the people who appear before them. You have to change the culture." The legislature and governor can't be bothered with making this change, so it's up to Dan Gross - a man whose probate nightmare nearly cost him everything.

Report here


(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

SCAPEGOATS IN LIBYA

As five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor await a verdict in Tripoli on charges that they spread HIV to 426 Libyan children, hundreds of prominent scientists are rallying in their defense, calling for a new and fairer trial. The nurses and doctor were foreign experts working at Al Fateh Children's Hospital in Benghazi, Libya, in 1998, when an outbreak of HIV was detected at the hospital. For years, the Libyan authorities, including the country's leader, Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi, blamed the foreigners for the outbreak, suggesting that they had intentionally injected Libya's children with the virus.

But a 2003 independent scientific report on the outbreak, by two of Europe's most prominent AIDS experts who spent many weeks in Libya reviewing the evidence, concluded that poor sanitary practices at the hospital were to blame. Despite that report, which was commissioned by the Libyan government, the six have been in prison in Libya since their arrest in 1999, and they were sentenced to death in 2004. A new trial was ordered after international protests. In August, when the second trial started, prosecutors again requested the death penalty. The expert report was not presented at the new trial.

The two experts, Dr. Luc Montagnier, co-discoverer of the virus that causes AIDS, and Dr. Vittorio Colizzi of Italy, said they had not been called to testify. "We're concerned that the nurses and the doctor are being used as scapegoats for the problem of HIV in Libya," said Dr. Ian Gilmore, the president of the Royal College of Physicians, who signed one of the letters.

Last week, on the Web site of the journal Nature, 114 Nobel laureates signed an open letter to Qaddafi. By not allowing "independent scientific evidence" to be presented at the trial, the letter said, "a miscarriage of justice will take place without proper consideration of scientific evidence." Dr. Richard Roberts, who shared the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, said he delivered the letter on Tuesday to Ambassador Attia Mubarak, the leader of the Libyan mission to the United Nations.

Last month, the leaders of Britain's most eminent scientific institutions, including the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal Society, began a similar letter campaign. In The Times of London, the scientists wrote: "We ask the medical and scientific authorities of the United Nations, Arab countries, United States and European Union (Bulgaria will join the EU in three months) to exert their utmost influence on President Qaddafi to prevent what might amount to judicial murder."

American and European politicians have frequently raised concerns about the medics' fate, but have also gone on to develop closer relations with Libya.

Verdicts due in December: The second trial of the nurses and doctor concluded Sunday, with the judge announcing that the verdicts would be handed down on Dec. 19, Matthew Brunwasser of the International Herald Tribune reported from Sofia.

The Bulgarian deputy foreign minister, Feim Chaushev, made an unannounced visit to Tripoli on Thursday to meet his counterpart, Abdulati Obeidi. Chaushev told Bulgarian journalists in Tripoli after the meeting that the Libyans had assured him of their "political will" for the quick resolution of the case, according to the Bulgarian Telegraphic Agency. He also said that the two sides could move toward creating a mechanism for eventually returning the medics to Bulgaria, through their extradition agreement, for example, which might allow the nurses to serve any sentences in Bulgaria. After the final hearing on Saturday, Bulgarian officials did not comment. A Foreign Ministry spokesman, Dimitar Tsanchev, said only: "We expect the court to issue a just ruling."

Report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

Wales: Last chance to overturn the very dubious conviction of Michael Stone

Convicted on the evidence of a lying jailhouse snitch

Michael Stone has launched a final bid to clear his name after being convicted of battering Lin Russell and her daughter Megan to death in a country lane. The 45-year-old - who bludgeoned the pair with a hammer in Kent in 1996 - has made one last attempt for freedom following a failed re-trial and appeal into the murders.

His last plea comes just days after his case was sent for review following a miscarriage of justice investigation after the resignation of Home Office pathologist Michael Heath. Mr Heath resigned in September after he was criticised by a Home Office disciplinary panel. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has now started to re-examine nine cases, including Stone's.

However, the CCRC says Stone's appeal bid is separate to the investigation. The CCRC will now decide if Stone's case should go back to the Court of Appeal. A spokesman said: "We cannot comment on the detail of cases but can confirm that an application was received in May. Initial preparatory work has begun but it's likely to be some time before the case is allocated for active review. "As an independent public body, our job is to consider whether or not there is any new evidence or legal argument which might cast doubt on the safety of the conviction."

Stone's lawyer Franklin Sinclair said his client would fight to the bitter end to secure "justice" for himself and the Russell family. Stone disputes the grounds for his conviction including a cell confession he is said to have made to an inmate while at Canterbury Prison.

Mr Sinclair said: "This is Mr Stone's final bid for freedom. He has exhausted all of the appeal avenues open to him.
"It is now up to the CCRC to decide whether they refer his case for appeal."

Report here


Background:

Lin, Megan and Josie Russell were attacked as they walked along a secluded path next to a cornfield on their way home on July 9th 1996. It was a bright summer evening and the fields and vegetation were in full bloom. Although the path could and was used by cars it is not wide enough to allow overtaking, if two cars were to meet then one car must reverse into a small clearing to allow the other to pass.

At Stone's first trial in 1998 at Maidstone crown court the Prosecuting Barrister for the Crown suggested that he had sat in his car watching the Russell''s cross a series of fields before walking down the path. He had intended to rob them in order to get money to feed his heroin habit.
The Jury was taken to the scene of the crime. The trial took place in October 1998, when the scenery and the environment are entirely different from the month when the crimes occurred. In October you can see a good distance. A visitor in July wanting to see if it is possible to sit and watch people coming from some distance away would soon see that it is not possible. The trees are too tall, and the vegetation is too dense. It is an unlikely place for anyone out on the rob' to sit, and that is putting it mildly.

No person desperate for money to feed a serious drug habit, and Michael Stone had one, would be sitting in a car on a path alongside a field in Chillenden waiting for someone to come along. It simply defies commonsense.

Stone was arrested following a reconstruction of events on July 9th 1997 on the popular BBC Crimewatch series. His psychiatrist rang up to say his profile matched that of the killer or killers. From the start he protested his innocence, he still does. His defence was a strange one, he couldn't remember what he was doing on that day, or in fact what he was doing on many days during the summer of 1996.

He had lived in a children's home as a young boy in nearby Canterbury. As such it was alleged that he knew the area around Chillenden well. Michael Stone denied this. If he had known the area well I think that makes it even more unlikely he would have gone there. He would have known that unless he was incredibly lucky few, if any people, would be wandering down a deserted lane. He could have waited hours for anyone to walk down the lane. This would not have helped him to secure some cash to feed his heroin addiction.

The Russell's had been tied up with towels and bootlaces and attacked with a hammer, the motive cited by the police as being robbery. Stone, said the three Appeal judges, was a heroin addict who kept bootlaces. Half of Britain must keep a spare set of bootlaces. It was said that Stone used bootlaces as a tourniquet when he injected himself. The police didn't bring any to the first two trials; well none shown to belong to Michael Stone, and neither were they able to provide any witnesses to show that Stone did use such a method to inject himself.

Stone it was said had the habit of carrying tools in his car. Many people do, it doesn't make them murderers.

There was no forensic evidence to link Stone with the crimes, no D.N.A samples left behind and no witnesses to what had taken place. Josie, then nine, had been left for dead and mercifully recovered. In time she was able to recount some of her experiences to the police but has never been able to give an accurate description of her attacker. At an identity parade she did not pick out Michael Stone. Her grief must be intense; she appears to be a remarkable young woman who now aged 17 is rightfully trying to get on with her life. After Stone's appeal failed in January 2005 her father Shaun said, "Josie and I have made an effort to put our memories of this terrible affair behind us." No one can blame them for doing so.

The Appeal Court Judges also cited statements from a number of witnesses that Stone often changed his car and that in the summer of 1996 he had beige coloured car. Stone disputes this. A witness had said she had seen a beige coloured car emerge from the path at Chillenden on the evening of the murders; she had followed it. She claimed that a man with a blond French cropped hair was driving. Stone is bald so even if had had a beige car it wasn't his she saw.

Meanwhile it is known that Kent Police had stopped Michael Stone just two days before the murders and asked him to produce his driving documents to show that he was the owner of a white Toyota Tercil he was driving. He did this within 24 hours.

Sherry Bhatt, a friend of Michael Stone had given a statement that she had spoken with him the afternoon of July 10th 1996 the day after the attack on the Russell's. She said that she had asked him about blood on his t-shirt. She claimed that he'd said he'd had a fight and yet there were no indications of any injuries. She clearly didn't think this as being too important at the time, as it was only Michael Stone had been arrested a year later that she approached the police. Michael Stone denies that he had blood on his t-shirt. The t-shirt, naturally, has never been found so it will never be possible to say if there was blood on it and if so whose blood it was.

So at this point the case against Stone amounts to unproven claims that he changed his car a few times, keeping tools in the boot, possessing some boot laces, having lived as a child in a home ten miles from Chillenden and an unproven tale from someone about him having some blood on an old t-shirt.

However Maidstone Crown Court in 1998 heard evidence from three prisoners that Michael Stone had confessed, at separate times, to them that he'd carried out the murders. This was damming proof that Stone had done it; he'd killed Lin and Megan Russell and left Josie fighting for life.

Within days of his conviction however the statement of one of the prisoners Barry Thompson was discredited, when he admitted lying after obtaining a fee of 5,000 pounds from 'The Sun'' newspaper for his story with promises of another 10,000 if Stone was convicted. A second witness, Mark Jennings, was known to be unreliable and was not used by the Prosecution at the second trial in Nottingham.

Stone's conviction was quashed and retrial was ordered. In 2001 at Nottingham crown court he was found guilty after the Jury, with a majority verdict of 10 to 2, decided to accept that the remaining witness of the three, Damien Daly, was telling the truth when he gave evidence that Stone had confessed to him that he had attacked the Russell's.

Daley, who has a long string of convictions for robbery and burglary, was on remand in Canterbury Prison whilst awaiting trial. He was being housed in the segregation wing. According to his statement this was because of an allegation of violence towards another inmate. ' On Tuesday September 23rd 1997 he claims to have verbally defended Michael Stone when the latter was placed in the next-door cell after other prisoners abused him for the murders of Lin and Megan Russell and the attempted murder of Josie Russell.

According to Daley, his defence led to Stone then lying down in his cell and using the water pipes to state, ""You're my friend." Stone apparently also knew Daley's surname as according to Daley's statement I heard Stone call me by my surname' although they clearly didn't know each other beforehand as Daley claims he wasn't certain on September 23rd whether his neighbour was Michael Stow or Stone. Daley then claims that Stone told him all about the murders, that what he heard upset him so much that he was forced to move away from the wall, but that when he saw the Daily Mirror front page article of that day, with its details of events in the case, he went back to the pipes to listen.

At the second trial in Nottingham Daley had said that because the pipes were hot he had been forced to wrap a towel round them. The prison records showed that the heating was not turned on till October.

Daley claims that he told Stone [or Stow] he'd tell the prison officers but Stone said that they wouldn't believe him. Detective Constable P Phippin of Kent Police took Daley's statement on September 26th 1997. Daley claimed he needed to speak to his uncle, as he didn't want to be seen as a grass' by speaking to the police. His uncle apparently said that for such a serious offence he should speak to the police. Daley's statement, at just over 3 pages long takes approximately 10 minutes to read. According to the records it took nearly two hours to compile as it commenced at 17.15 and concluded at 19.12 hours. There must have an awful lot of silences during this time.

At Maidstone crown court Daley had told the jury that he had never taken heroin; in the second trial he said he had used it only occasionally.
Edward Fitzgerald QC for Michael Stone revealed during the appeal in January 2005 that Daley was now admitting to have used heroin heavily since 1996. As such he had perjured himself to two juries. Fitzgerald argued that this made all of his evidence "inherently unreliable."

Fitzgerald further argued that the Judge at the trial in Nottingham had an obligation to give the jury a warning "to be cautious" about "an oral confession" from "a person of dishonest character." If they had done so it is difficult to believe that the numbers being willing to convict Stone would not have fallen. Fitzgerald claimed that the need to give the jury a warning was a point of law "which has arisen in this case.' After the appeal was refused Fitzgerald chose to argue that the appeal judges should allow the House of Lords to decide whether what he was arguing was correct. They declined to allow him to do so, thus probably cutting off the possibility of Michael Stone's appeal case against his convictions being taken to the House of Lords.

As such probably the only legal avenue currently available, unless new evidence can be unearthed, is for Michael Stone to take his case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Meanwhile as Barbara Stone said on Friday January 21st "my brother is innocent" and "no matter how long it takes we shall prove that."

Meanwhile Stone languishes in prison for having killed Lin and Megan Russell and attempting to murder Josie Russell.

In Stone's case there is: -
* No evidence linking him to the awful crimes
* No D.N.A linking him to the scene of the crime.
* No witnesses to the crime.
* No body has picked him out of an I.D parade
* No-one has been found who saw him in the Canterbury area on the day of the crime

Alongside which stands: -
* Unproven claims that he swapped his car a few times
* An unproven claim that he had blood on an old t-shirt the day after the murders took place

Meanwhile he has always protested his innocence.

And whilst
* Yes, he did live at one time at a children's home nearby.
* He did keep tools in the boot of his car.
* He may even have owned some bootlaces.

These don't prove someone murdered two people and left another for dead. And neither does the say-so of a convicted criminal who Barbara Stone correctly said outside the Court of Appeal on Wednesday January 19th has "lied his way through two trials." Michael Stone's convictions for the murder of Lin and Megan Russell, as well as the attempted murder on Josie Russell literally takes the piss out of common sense'

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

BRITISH KANGAROO COURTS FINALLY OPENED UP

A couple whose three children were taken from them and put up for adoption in what they claim was a “catastrophic and draconian” miscarriage of justice have succeeded in having their fight to keep their fourth child heard in open court. In an unprecedented ruling yesterday that lifts the curtain of secrecy from family court proceedings, a judge gave Nicola Webster, 26, and her partner, Mark Webster, 33, from Cromer, Norfolk, the right to tell their story publicly.

The couple, whose case has received widespread newspaper coverage under Mrs Webster’s maiden name, Hardingham, will today appear in the High Court, where the future of their five-month-old son, Brandon, will be decided. Mr Justice Munby, a senior Family Division judge, said that he was relaxing the “very drastic reporting restrictions” imposed in June to allow the facts to be subjected to scrutiny. He said that an issue of “high principle” was involved, that of ensuring justice was administered openly.

In a case where a miscarriage of justice had been claimed, he said, “it is more than usually important that the truth — the full truth — should out. If, as the parents allege, they have lost three children and stand at risk of losing a fourth due to deficiencies in the system, then there is a pressing need for the true facts to be exposed. “If, on the other hand, the parents are wrong, and the system has performed conscientiously, competently and correctly, then it is equally highly desirable that this should be known and publicised.”

The decision, which marks the first time that private care proceedings have been open to public scrutiny, comes after moves at government level to expose private family courts to the media. The Government and the judiciary have come under mounting pressure for more transparency amid concerns that courts are removing children from their parents on often flimsy medical evidence and claims that unaccountability in the family courts leads to miscarriages of justice.

The judge, who has given evidence to a House of Commons select committee on the issue, continued orders banning the naming of the Websters’ three older children, who were the subject of care proceedings in May and November 2004. All three have been adopted.

All the care proceedings, by Norfolk County Council, are based on a claim that one of the older children had been physically abused by their parents. “This is an allegation that they have always denied,” the judge said. “They assert that the children were wrongly taken from them on the basis of flawed and incomplete medical and other evidence.”

The “very considerable media attention” in the Websters’ case began when they went to Ireland to have Brandon, afraid that he, too, would be taken from them. When they returned home the family were placed in a residential unit for a detailed assessment. Because of the publicity about the case, a deputy High Court judge imposed substantial reporting restrictions in June, including banning the reporting of facts already published. Moves to lift the restrictions were taken by the Websters, the BBC and Associated Newspapers. Brandon’s guardian opposed any further reporting or broadcasting of the proceedings.

Mr Justice Munby said, however, that the press and other media had a public watchdog role in cases where a miscarriage of justice was claimed. He said that it had also been argued that the local authority might wish to speak out to correct what it said were misleading accounts of the case. “The fact that the parents may not be the martyrs they claim to be — something which I am in absolutely no position to assess and on which I express no views at all — the fact that it may turn out there there was no miscarriage of justice, is not of itself any reason for denying the parents their voice.”

Sarah Harman, the solicitor representing the Websters, said: “What we are dealing with is the State intervening in a family and removing three children from them. It is one of the most draconian and catastrophic things that can happen.”

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

Australia: Only 27 months for brutal home invasion

John Leonard Knott's "senseless, horrific and violent" crime sparked such outrage that 100,000 people signed a petition demanding tougher laws for home invasions. Knott yesterday faced a maximum sentence of life in jail for his hammer-wielding, seven-hour assault on Mt Osmond couple Grant and Jill Hall. But he grinned and smiled as he was sentenced to a 27-month non-parole period by District Court Judge Marie Shaw, who said she was "entitled to be merciful" to Knott because he had rehabilitated himself.

The sentence has shocked Knott's victims and led to calls for an immediate inquiry. "We're exceptionally disappointed and absolutely devastated," Mr Hall said outside court. "I can't forgive him, certainly not when I saw the grin on his face." Mrs Hall said: "I saw no remorse, I saw no expression except delight when he was sentenced".

Last night, the State Government and Opposition demanded an urgent report - and possible appeal - from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. And, in his first public statement, the state's newly appointed Victims' Rights Commissioner, Michael O'Connell, asked for an explanation. "I am anxious to find out - given how horrific these offences were and the effect it's had on the victims - how the judge has been able to justify her penalty," he said. Knott, 58, broke into the Halls' Mt Osmond home in November, 1998 and, over seven hours, tied them up, robbed them and bashed them with a hammer. Both suffered fractured skulls and Mrs Hall's arm was broken in two places.

His attack sparked widespread community protest, led by pensioner Ivy Skowronski. She collected 100,000 signatures calling for tougher home invasion laws - legislation brought in by Premier Mike Rann upon his election in 2002. Speaking from India last night, Mr Rann said he was "extremely disappointed" at the sentence. "Although the sentence is based on the law as it was before Ivy changed it, in my opinion it is too low," he said. "Owing to the work of Ivy and changes to the law, sentences for home invasion in the future should more closely reflect the current law and public expectations." He said he was surprised Knott had "received such a lenient sentence" with "less than half" served in jail. "I am concerned the sentence may send the wrong message to violent criminals," he said.

Attorney-General Michael Atkinson ordered the Office of the DPP to conduct an immediate inquiry. "He has asked for an oral report tonight from the DPP as to whether there are grounds to appeal the sentence as being manifestly inadequate," a spokesman said. Having given Mr Atkinson a preliminary briefing, the DPP will now draft a formal report.

Knott was not caught by police until DNA evidence linked him to the crime in 2002. He was arrested in Loxton. In sentencing, Judge Shaw yesterday said she would have imposed an 11-year jail term, had she dealt with Knott in 1998. Instead, she jailed him for six years and three months. "Without warning, you suddenly struck Mr and Mrs Hall to their heads and upper body with a hammer whilst they were lying on the floor helpless," she said. "I can only conclude that each of Mr and Mrs Hall must have drawn upon enormous inner strength and courage in order to appear coherent and to survive this horrific ordeal."

She said Knott had been "drowning" himself in alcohol and had no memory of the crime. "During this period, you committed these senseless, horrific and violent offences," she said. Knott had been jailed for subsequent offences, then gave up drinking and become "a good father and member of the community". Judge Shaw said the two-year, three-month non-parole period was to "assist his rehabilitation". "I'm entitled to be merciful toward you in the fixing of the non-parole period," she said.

Outside court, Mrs Skowronski's daughter-in-law, Sandy, said the campaigner "would have been appalled". "I think it's a good thing she's not here, though she'll be turning in her grave," she said. Opposition Leader Iain Evans said the sentence was inadequate "on the face of it", and an appeal should be lodged urgently. Independent MLC Nick Xenophon called on the State Government to support his victims' advocate legislation "without delay". "What sort of a message does this send to victims and perpetrators alike?" he said.

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

BRITAIN: YOUR POLICE WILL PROTECT YOU

A police officer has been sacked and five others severely disciplined after they repeatedly ignored calls for help from a horse rider, who was later murdered by her jealous former boyfriend. Tania Moore, 26, was shot dead by Mark Dyche after a sustained hate campaign in which she regularly told officers her life was in danger.

Tania Moore contacted police six times before she was killed. Yesterday the Independent Police Complaints Commission condemned Derbyshire police's response to Miss Moore's fears and said that officers had ignored "all the warning signs". In a highly critical report, it highlighted 150 failings and said officers had conducted "no meaningful investigation" into allegations by Miss Moore that Dyche, an obsessive gun fanatic, was out to kill her. Their response to her, it concluded, was "abysmal".

Most damningly, it said that had the officers done their jobs properly Miss Moore might still be alive today. Dyche, 36, was jailed for life last year after shooting Miss Moore dead at point blank range and then ramming her car off a road in an attempt to make it look like an accident.

The pair had met at a Young Farmers' ball and were soon engaged. But in February 2003 Miss Moore, fed-up over Dyche's jealous and threatening behaviour, ended the relationship.

For a year he waged a hate campaign against her, which included repeated threats to kill her. In June 2003 he even paid three men armed with baseball bats £2,000 to rob and beat her at her family's farmhouse home in Alkmonton, near Ashbourne, Derbys.

Nottingham Crown Court heard that Dyche, who has a history of terrorising women, "wanted her hurting, wanted her legs breaking, wanted her eyes gouging out, wanted to be in control". He offered criminal associates £50,000 to kill her but, when no one came forward, did it himself, lying in wait on a country road in March 2004 and blasting her in the face with a shotgun.

A few days before she was murdered, Miss Moore presented officers with a bundle of threatening text messages from Dyche - yet the police did nothing. She became so fed-up that she told her mother a fortnight before she was killed: "When I'm dead something will be done."

Dyche, from Stoke-on-Trent, Staffs was jailed for life with a minimum recommendation of 30 years. The IPCC said it was taking the rare step of releasing its findings in detail because of the sheer incompetence of the officers' investigation.

A two-week-long hearing into the six officers – a detective inspector, a detective sergeant, two detective constables, and two Pcs – ended with one female detective constable, based in Ashbourne, being sacked, the detective inspector being demoted and the others being reprimanded. All admitted misconduct.

Armerdeep Somal, IPCC commissioner, said: "It has to be accepted there is a possibility that, had it not been for the officers' acts and omissions, [Miss Moore's] death may have been avoided." The IPCC disclosed that Miss Moore contacted police six times in the 13 months before the murder. She reported abuse, criminal damage and threatening phone calls, and twice complained about the robbery.

Police errors included failure to take key statements from Miss Moore, her family and other witnesses; failure to take essential forensic samples and failure properly to investigate allegations concerning Dyche. Miss Somal said: "Tania was a young woman living in fear."Our findings indicate the police response was abysmal. No one individual officer took control. . . and no meaningful investigation ever took place. All the warning signs were there. But the investigation was signed off as undetected when in reality simple basic lines of inquiry were never pursued." She said the six officers should have easily identified Miss Moore as a "high-risk case" and Dyche as a suspect.

Miss Moore's mother, Stella, said last night that all the officers should have been sacked. "I hold the police responsible for failing to protect Tania and ultimately her death," she said. "In my view none of the officers involved should be allowed to remain in the force."

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

Britain: Another arrogant and ignorant forensic "scientist"

Nine murder convictions, including the case of Michael Stone, are being examined by miscarriage of justice investigators after the resignation of a Home Office pathologist. Michael Heath resigned in September after he was criticised by a Home Office disciplinary panel. The Criminal Cases Review Commission has now started to re-examine cases about which there was concern.

Dr Heath was the pathologist who carried out the postmortem examinations on Lin Russell and her six-year-old daughter, Megan, who were bludgeoned to death with a hammer in Chillenden, Kent, in 1996. Stone was convicted of the murders. The pathologist has also been involved in other big cases, including Stuart Lubbock, who was found dead in Michael Barrymore’s pool.

The commission said yesterday that four cases, including the Stone conviction, had been referred to officials by defence lawyers after a number of trials involving the pathologist had been challenged. The commission has examined another 54 cases involving Dr Heath and decided that there was potential concern about five. If it believes that there are doubts about the convictions, the cases will be sent to the Court of Appeal.

David Jessel, the commissioner who looked at the convictions, said that in many cases a pathologist was “marginal” to the conviction. But in cases where issues such as the time of death or the nature of the fatal injury were contentious, his evidence could be decisive. Mr Jessel said: “I think I have identified some cases where that sort of issue is at the heart of the application and where, if there is a doubt about the pathologist, that sort of case should be looked at again.”

Dr Heath was a Home Office pathologist for more than 14 years before he resigned. A spokesman for Lord Goldsmith, QC, the Attorney-General, said he had concluded that a review of all other cases in which Dr Heath was involved was not required. “The Attorney-General believes that the normal appeal procedures and, where appropriate, the involvement of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, should be sufficient,” he said.

In August a Home Office advisory board found that Dr Heath’s performance had fallen short of the standards required in the cases of two women in which he refused to back down on his view that they had been murdered. Steven Puaca was jailed in 2002 for killing Jacqueline Tindsley, 55, but his conviction was quashed last year. Mr Puaca was convicted of murder on the basis of Dr Heath’s evidence. Three other pathologists believe that Miss Tindsley died from an epileptic seizure.

Kenneth Fraser was cleared of murdering his girlfriend, Mary Anne Moore, 56. Dr Heath concluded that she had been hit over the head. Four other pathologists said that she had died in a fall downstairs.

Report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

Wrongly convicted Dallas man let out after 25 years

A man convicted of rape 25 years ago was formally cleared Tuesday when a judge ruled that DNA testing proved he did not commit the crime. After state District Judge Lana McDaniel's ruling, supporters of 57-year-old Larry Fuller broke out in applause. A prosecutor also apologized to Fuller. "Thank you," Fuller responded. "Apology accepted."

Fuller was sentenced to 50 years after jurors convicted him of aggravated rape in 1981, finding that he broke into a 37-year-old woman's apartment and raped her, using a butcher knife to cut the victim's thumb, neck and back as she struggled. The victim looked at two photo lineups, both of which included Fuller. She picked him in the second one, even though Fuller was bearded in the picture and she said her attacker had no facial hair.

At the time Fuller was a 32-year-old Vietnam veteran who had received the Air Medal for taking care of his crew. He was pursuing a career in art and had worked as a driver and warehouse employee. Although Fuller had no convictions for sexual assault, he had pleaded guilty to robbing a convenience store in 1975 and been sentenced to three years in prison. Fuller served 18 years on the rape conviction. He was released in 1999 but sent back last year for a parole violation.

All the while, Fuller professed his innocence in the rape case and tried to prove it through DNA. This year, the Dallas County District Attorney's office agreed to allow the additional testing. [Big of them!]

More than 20 men have been exonerated in Texas by DNA testing, according to the Innocence Project, a New York-based legal aid group which uses DNA to free wrongly convicted people. Co-director Barry Scheck said he wants Texas to examine why so many convictions have been overturned by DNA evidence. Nationwide, 183 people have been cleared through DNA evidence after their convictions, according to the Innocence Project. In most cases, testimony from mistaken eyewitness identification led to the wrongful conviction, the group said.

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

SLAP ON THE WRIST FOR GRIEVOUS HARM

Australia: Laws that "help" criminals deny justice

A serial drink-driver, again over the limit when he caused a crash that seriously injured a young woman, has walked from court with a $1500 fine because the law does not allow his previous offences to be considered in sentencing. In the District Court yesterday, Judge Gordon Barrett was forced to treat Samuel David Roediger - twice convicted of drink-driving offences in the past - as a first offender because his last conviction was more than five years ago. The case has sparked calls for a review of the laws and the State Government has agreed to look at the issue.

Near Tumby Bay on January 15 last year, Roediger's car crossed over to the wrong side of the road and collided head-on with a vehicle carrying journalists Leisha Petrys and Matthew Clemow, who were returning from the Black Tuesday Eyre Peninsula bushfires. Ms Petrys was seriously injured in the smash. Roediger, 31, was found guilty by a jury of driving under the influence and dangerous driving, but was acquitted of causing bodily injury by dangerous driving. He received a $1500 fine and a 2 1/2 year licence disqualification because his last drink-driving conviction was recorded in 1995. A section of the Road Traffic Act, combined with demerit points legislation, means only offences committed within a five-year "prescribed period" count toward a driver's penalty.

The penalty has infuriated former Sunday Mail journalist Ms Petrys, who spent 1 1/2 hours fully conscious inside the wreck. "It shouldn't matter if you've been caught five years ago or 10 years ago. The fact you've been caught again shows that you haven't learned your lesson," she told The Advertiser. "The law needs to be examined with regard to past misdemeanours. This is a small price for (Roediger) to pay for what I had to go through . . . if he's caught driving without a licence, I will be furious."

In sentencing yesterday, Judge Gordon Barrett said Roediger had been drinking that afternoon. "A blood analysis reading of .128 per cent was recorded when your blood was taken at 11.15pm, some three hours after the accident," he said. "A back calculation depends on when you had your last drink. I am uncertain about that, but the reading is likely to have been somewhere between .08 and .10 percent." That level matched his intoxication at the time of his offences in December 1994 and May 1995. "You have not learnt the lessons of those two court appearances," Judge Barrett said. "Because they are not within five years of the current matter, I have to regard, for the purposes of sentence, the range of penalty applicable to a first offence of driving under the influence of alcohol."

Under Section 47 of the Road Traffic Act, an offender's history can be taken into account, provided it falls within the prescribed period. That period is set at five years so that a driver does not accumulate so many demerits that they are permanently banned from the road.

Judge Barrett said Ms Petrys' injuries "were quite substantial and the effects are long-term". "But I am prevented, by the jury's verdict, from sentencing you on the basis that those injuries were caused by your dangerous driving," he said.

Opposition legal affairs spokeswoman Isobel Redmond said any change to the legislation needed careful consideration. "It's worth reviewing when it leads to an insufficient result, where someone has not learned their lesson," she said. A spokeswoman for Attorney-General Michael Atkinson said the minister would "look into it".

Report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

CHILD ABUSE: OFFICIAL APOLOGY BUT NO ACTION!

In Queensland, Australia

The Child Safety Department has apologised to a man for ignoring claims his children were being sexually abused by their mother. Child Safety Minister Desley Boyle said yesterday an independent review of the case had found some evidence of poor practice and gender bias by some child safety officers employed by the former Families Department. The review was ordered in February by former minister Mike Reynolds after concerns about the case were raised by The Courier-Mail.

"This was an extremely complex case, but the review found that one factor was that an officer, through conflicting information, demonstrated bias and that bias then influenced management of the case," Ms Boyle said. "The Child Safety Department director-general, Robin Sullivan, has written to the parent concerned to apologise and I fully support the move. "Since the review the department has taken steps to address the findings and recommendations of the report. "The department is taking all actions available to protect these children and ensure their ongoing safety and wellbeing."

Ms Boyle, who said the workers involved were not employed by the new department, said she could not reveal the full details of the case, to protect the identity of the children, and because the Family Court was also involved. However, the father said three of the children were still with the woman despite the department determining they were at risk of sexual abuse. "I haven't seen them since 2001," he said. "I don't know where they are."

He said two child safety officers had been involved. Departmental documents obtained by The Courier-Mail showed one of the agency's offices recorded it had "concerns pertaining to the future risk of sexual harm of the children" as early as August 2004. But instead of removing the children, that office decided to "attempt to manage the risk". Six months later, child safety officers at another office determined at least one of the children had been sexually abused by their mother.

According to the father, that child now resided with him, but only because the child had refused to return to the mother after a contact visit. Ms Boyle said while the review had criticised the department's performance in the case, child safety officers, who had to make many extremely difficult decisions, generally did a great job. [It sure does not sound like it!]

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

SYSTEMATIC ROT UNCOVERED IN CANADA

Frank Ostrowski, a yellow envelope of newspaper clippings and his cane resting nearby, jabs his arthritis-twisted fingers in the air as he recounts the perceived slights against him. The police misinterpreted his statements, he insists. His lawyer screwed him over. A key witness double-crossed him, framing him for a drug-related hit he maintains he did not order. "Did I get a fair trial? The answer is no," the 56-year-old convicted killer says in an interview at the minimum-security Rockwood Institution north of Winnipeg.

In Ostrowski's 20 years in prison, the portly, thick-haired inmate has replayed the facts of his case in his head like a worn record whose every groove still obsesses him. But unlike some other lifers, it looks as though Ostrowski may have reason to be obsessed with his innocence. At an ongoing public inquiry into another dubious Manitoba murder conviction, that of James Driskell, evidence has emerged that Ostrowski may indeed have been railroaded.

Memos presented to the Driskell inquiry suggest the chief witness against Ostrowski at the "Rat Trial" of 1987 -- a cocaine mule whose testimony formed the hook on which the Crown hung its case -- received a deal for taking the stand, something he denied under cross-examination. In other words, an inquiry into one possible miscarriage of justice may have uncovered another. "I think it's fair to say on the basis of what we already know that Mr. Ostrowski is the victim of a miscarriage of justice. I'll take it that far," says James Lockyer, a well-known advocate for the wrongfully convicted and counsel to both Driskell and Ostrowski.

He introduced the Ostrowski memos to push the Driskell inquiry to consider a bigger issue: Namely, did police, a Winnipeg prosecutor and his superiors at Manitoba Justice make a habit of concocting secret deals with unsavoury witnesses? And if that is the case, are there others languishing in Canada's penitentiaries who deserve to have their cases re-examined?

Closing arguments in the Driskell inquiry begin Monday and, in his final submission, Mr. Lockyer is expected to repeat a request that the inquiry's commissioner order a review of cases led by the prosecutor in the Driskell case, George Dangerfield. Mr. Dangerfield already has one official wrongful conviction on his resume -- he was the Crown in two of Thomas Sophonow's three trials before DNA tests proved Mr. Sophonow did not kill 16-year-old Barbara Stoppel -- and he prosecuted four other disputed Manitoba murder cases, including Mr. Driskell's and Ostrowski's.

The Driskell and Ostrowski cases are not directly related. But there are similarities. Driskell was convicted of first-degree murder in the 1990 death of his friend Perry Dean Harder. The case was built largely on hair evidence that later proved faulty and on the testimony of a witness named Reath (Ray) Zanidean who, like the key witness in the Ostrowski case, received an undisclosed deal for taking the stand. If the Driskell inquiry's commissioner recommends a review of Mr. Dangerfield's cases, Ostrowski could finally see his case reopened.

More here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

MOTHER BLAMED FOR MEDICAL BUNGLING

A young mother was today cleared of the murder of her seriously ill son after being accused of poisoning him with an overdose of table salt. Marianne Williams, 24, wiped away tears as she heard that she had been found not guilty of the murder and manslaughter of 15-month-old Joshua Taylor. Standing outside Winchester Crown Court, she said: "I'm just overwhelmed. It has been a long time coming. "I keep having floods of relief going through me. I can't concentrate or even think about what has happened."

Ms Williams denied poisoning Joshua with a fatal dose of sodium three days before his death on February 27, 2004. Her son was born prematurely in November 2002 and suffered from a range of serious medical problems, including kidney failure.
During the trial the prosecution alleged that Ms Williams, then 21 and on antidepressants at the time, had killed her son because she felt that she could not cope with caring for him. The jury was told that Ms Williams had known of the consequences of her son having too much sodium in his system after he had been taken to hospital suffering from high salt levels in February that year.

The defence said that Joshua had died as a result of a combination of his medical condition and the drugs that he was taking for his care.

Ms Williams, from Wiltshire, was in a long-term relationship with Joshua's father, Paul Taylor, when the child died. She had become pregnant with twins in 2002, but the pregnancy was difficult and one of the twins died in the womb. Joshua was born 12 weeks prematurely by Caesarean section and weighed only 2lb 10oz. He spent much of his life in hospital suffering from a number of medical problems, including very small kidneys. He had to be fed through a tube and was given daily doses of sodium chloride to counterbalance his failing kidneys, which expelled too much sodium. After his death, tests revealed that his body contained 20 times the amount of sodium prescribed to help his kidney problems.

During the trial it was revealed that doctors, led by Dr Rodney Gilbert, gave Joshua drugs to treat him for dehydration, which contained salt. Dr Gilbert admitted failing to do glucose and urine tests and using an equation for adults to calculate what drugs use to reduce the boy's sodium levels. He said that he now understood the equation was not designed for children.

Ms Williams's legal representative Jacqui Cameron said in a statement on her behalf: "Today's verdict means Marianne can go home to her family and begin to rebuild her life.

Detective Inspector Matt Johnson, of Wiltshire Police, said outside court: "The investigation carried out by Wiltshire Police into the sudden death of Joshua Taylor was complex and required sensitivity, thoroughness and, of necessity, detailed liaison with not only medical experts but a number of other agencies including social services. "The decision to bring charges was only taken after lengthy consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service and a meticulous review of all the evidence that was available. "I acknowledge the verdict reached by the jury and would add only that I am satisfied that every possible piece of evidence that could be found was properly presented to the jury in this case."

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

WHAT A DISGRACE! NO PENALTY FOR AN ARROGANT IGNORAMUS WHO HURT MANY FAMILIES

Sir Roy Meadow, the paediatrician struck off by the General Medical Council for giving misleading evidence that helped to convict Sally Clark of murdering her two children, was reinstated by the Court of Appeal yesterday. By a majority it backed a High Court ruling that he was not guilty of serious professional misconduct, clearing Sir Roy’s name. But the Appeal Court also ruled that the GMC was right in claiming the right to discipline expert witnesses, so both sides could claim a victory.

Sir Roy, using data from another expert, incorrectly claimed at Mrs Clark’s trial that the odds against two cot deaths in the same family were 73 million-to-one. His evidence formed part of the prosecution case that led to her conviction. But by discrediting it her lawyers were able to obtain an acquittal on appeal. Sir Roy, 73, and now retired, was then struck off by the GMC, but he appealed to the High Court to reverse the decision and and won his case. The court ruled that all expert witnesses should be immune from disciplinary action and that Sir Roy was not guilty of serious professional misconduct and that his striking off should be quashed. The Appeal Court yesterday found for the GMC on the first point, while affirming the lower court’s judgment on the striking off.

Sir Roy said: “I am glad that the Court of Appeal has agreed with the previous High Court judgment that my evidence in the trial of Mrs Clark was not an example of serious professional misconduct, and that the GMC was wrong in its judgment of me.”

Finlay Scott, Chief Executive of the GMC, said: “This appeal was about protecting the public interest. The public must be confident that doctors and other professionals who give evidence in court proceedings can, if necessary, be held to account by their regulator. “We did not accept that the GMC should be prevented from using its statutory powers when we judge it to be necessary, and the Court of Appeal has confirmed that we were correct.” Lawyers for the GMC had argued at a hearing at the Court of Appeal in July that the High Court decision rendered the disciplinary body “toothless” against professionals acting as expert witnesses.

The panel of appeal judges, headed by Sir Anthony Clarke, the Master of the Rolls, were told by Nicola Davies, QC, representing Sir Roy, that as an expert witness he was covered by immunity from any form of action against him over what he said in court. Miss Davies said the GMC’s Fitness to Practise Panel had found that the evidence given by Sir Roy represented his honestly held opinion and there was no question of any failure to use his best endeavours when he gave evidence at the Sally Clark trial. But the panel nevertheless ruled that his conduct was “fundamentally incompatible with what is expected by the public from a registered medical practitioner”.

Sir Roy, a distinguished paediatrician and expert in sudden infant death syndrome, gave evidence in the trials of Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and Donna Anthony, all of whom were jailed for murdering their children but later cleared by the Court of Appeal. In their reserved ruling the appeal judges accepted arguments made by the GMC and the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, who intervened in the case because of the important public policy issue, that there was no such thing as immunity for expert witnesses.

By a majority, the judges dismissed the GMC appeal over serious professional misconduct with Sir Anthony dissenting. Lord Justice Auld said Sir Roy was undoubtedly guilty of some professional misconduct, but said: “I could not contemplate erasure as an appropriate penalty for Professor Meadow’s uncharacteristic honest errors in this difficult case.” Lord Justice Thorpe said: “Professor Meadow’s evidence, flawed though it was, fell far short of serious professional misconduct.”

Christine Tomkins, deputy chief executive of the Medical Defence Union, said: “We are pleased that the Court of Appeal has sided with the High Court in finding Professor Meadow not guilty of serious professional misconduct. She said the MDU, which supported Sir Roy’s court battle, was considering whether to appeal to the House of Lords on the issue of immunity.

The family of Sally Clark said last night: “The Court of Appeal has decided that experts who give flawed evidence should not be immune from disciplinary proceedings by their professional bodies. “Professor Meadow has not been totally vindicated as he is apparently claiming. All three judges found him guilty of professional misconduct. “One positive outcome of this decision is that the large number of parents who have complaints against Professor Meadow pending with the GMC will now be able to be heard.”

Patricia Hamilton, President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said that it welcomed the recommendation for changes to the rules governing the GMC to minimise the risk of witnesses being vexed by “unmeritorious complaints”. She said: “The college will be working with the GMC on this so that paediatricians are not deterred from undertaking responsibilities in safeguarding children.” A spokesman for the Society of Expert Witnesses said:“Unless the justice system deals with the failure to handle conflicting scientific opinion, today’s judgment can only add to the growing exodus of experts prepared to assist tribunals.”

More here


(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

ANOTHER VICTIM OF ROY MEADOW

A woman accused of trying to murder her baby son will discover tomorrow whether she has won a 12-year legal fight for justice. Regarded as a test case in Scots law, the landmark legal action challenges the controversial theory of Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP), which she believes has resulted in thousands of parents being wrongly accused of child abuse. "My son was only six months old. I'll never forget the day they took him away," said "Judith". "I wrapped him in a blanket, gave him a kiss and handed him over to the social worker. He was three years old by the time we got him back."

She was accused of attempted murder, her two children were taken into care and she launched what was to become a long court battle. Her nightmare began in September 1993, when her son stopped breathing and was rushed to Glasgow's Royal Hospital for Sick Children. Over the next few months, he suffered from vomiting and interrupted breathing. She said he was a victim not of violence, but of problems relating to Cisapride, a drug that has since been withdrawn in the UK.

After her children were placed with foster carers, a family court ruled that "on the balance of probabilities" she was responsible for the attacks. However, no criminal charges were brought and after two years both her son and daughter were returned home. Judith took legal action against the Scottish Children's Reporters Administration (SCRA), the body responsible for placing the children in care. Lawyers for the 42-year-old claim that fresh evidence, not available at the original hearing, will prove that she is innocent. After more than 100 days of evidence and an estimated 1 million pounds of public money, a sheriff will rule tomorrow whether or not Judith is the victim of a miscarriage of justice. A spokeswoman for SCRA refused to comment.

The mother-of-four was linked with the now infamous condition, MSBP - a theory which suggests some parents deliberately harm their children to draw attention to themselves. She says she was labelled with MSBP following the intervention of a number of doctors, including the controversial paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow. He was involved in the prosecution of Sally Clark, who was jailed for murdering her two sons. He said the chances of two children dying of cot death were one in 73 million. She was cleared on appeal. Scotland's leading child-abuse expert, Professor John Stephenson, who is also a proponent of MSBP, is central to Judith's case and gave evidence in the original hearing more than a decade ago. He was called back to give evidence in this latest legal challenge at Glasgow Sheriff Court. He declined to comment on the case yesterday.

Massimo Franchi, the woman's solicitor, said MSBP had left a damaging legacy. "If my client wins, every other case of MSBP could be called into question. There are 30 years of accusations to come out."

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF FINDING OUT?

One of Linda Lavarch's last acts as attorney-general was to reject a long-standing request to allow the re-testing and analysis of the DNA samples that convicted a man to life imprisonment for the frenzied stabbing murder of "Cat Lady" Kathleen Marshall. The lawyer acting for Andrew Fitzherbert, Laura-Leigh Cameron-Dow, said she would this week ask acting Attorney-General Rod Welford to review the decision because Mrs Lavarch had not properly addressed the detail of the request.

Fitzherbert, who maintained he had never met Marshall, let alone killed her, was the first person in Australia to be convicted solely on DNA evidence. No motive or witnesses were produced in court.

The request to allow Fitzherbert's supporters to pay for a WA laboratory to retest the shoes, rags, bags and other material found at the crime scene at Marshall's Windsor home and veterinary clinic was first made when Mr Welford was attorney-general 2½ years ago.

Mrs Lavarch resigned as attorney-general on October 18, citing depression. In her letter dated October 17, Mrs Lavarch said Fitzherbert's supporters had failed to raise "any justifiable doubt about the correctness of the sampling or testing of the DNA material".

However, Ms Cameron-Dow said Mrs Lavarch's letter missed the point of the request for retesting. "We haven't claimed problems with the testing, what we've claimed is an issue with the analysis. We're querying the statistics based on the data produced, which is a whole different ball game." Ms Cameron-Dow, of Slater & Gordon, said that since lodging the request in February 2004, she had not even been able to ascertain whether the material Fitzherbert seeks to retest still exists.

Marshall was stabbed more than 50 times in the head, face, neck, chest, arms and abdomen sometime between February 25 and March 2, 1998. Forensic scientist Kenneth Cox told Fitzherbert's jury that the chance of the blood coming from anyone other than the palm reader was 14,000,000,000,000,000 or 1.4 multiplied by 10 to the power of 16. However, Ms Cameron-Dow says the DNA interpretations are disputed by Professor Barry Boettcher, who was influential in uncovering problems with evidence in the Azaria Chamberlain murder case. She added there had been improvements in the analysis of DNA data since. "DNA is not the Holy Grail, it's still a matter of interpretation," Ms Cameron-Dow said.

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

Probation is a joke in Britain

One in five of the most high risk and dangerous offenders under supervision in the community broke the terms of their freedom or committed a further serious violent offence, according to figures published yesterday. Overall, the figures show that more than 60 serious offences — defined as murder, attempted murder, rape, arson, manslaugher, kidnap and armed robbery — were carried out by offenders under the supervision of the probation service and other agencies. Eleven of those crimes were carried out by offenders who had been among the 1,278 assessed as the “critical few” and who were judged as having a high risk of harming the public. But the true figure of further serious offending by those subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (Mappa) is higher, as the Home Office statistics do not include those at the lowest level.

Peter Voisey, 35, convicted on Friday of abducting and raping a six-year-old girl on Tyneside was on the sex offenders register and under a low level of monitoring. Among the 13,783 men and women being monitored in the two highest categories, 61 were charged with a serious further offence in 2005-06, according to the annual Mappa reports published by 42 probation services in England and Wales.

Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, said last night: “The vast majority of serious further offences are actually committed by offenders in the lowest tier. “About 250 people in total are convicted of a serious further offence each year, although that is not included in the statistics.” The figures show that one in five of the 1,278 very high risk offenders broke the terms of a release licence, breached a court order or committed a further serious offence while under supervision. The number of offenders on level two supervision who committed a further serious offence rose by 6.3 per cent from 47 to 50, while those on the highest level of monitoring fell by 65 per cent from 32 to 11. The number on level two supervision who breached the conditions of their release rose by 21 per cent to 1,300, while the number at the highest level of monitoring who broke their licence fell by just over 1 per cent, from 222 to 219.

The overall number of people on the sex offenders register rose by 3 per cent to reach 29,973, and the number of violent and sex offenders under supervision increased to 47,653, a rise of 7 per cent on the previous 12 months. Of these, 1,278 are classified as the “critical few” who are classed as presenting a particularly severe risk to the public.

David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: “The Government’s primary duty is the protection of its citizens. These figures betray a serious failure by the Government to carry out that duty.” Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesman, said: “Historically unprecedented levels of reoffending for all crimes are fast becoming the hallmark of this Government.”

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

Lying British rape-accuser named at last

But when is she going to be prosecuted?

A woman with a long history of crying rape who sent an innocent man to jail was named in Parliament amid calls for a change in the law. Shannon Taylor was unmasked by a peer who told the House of Lords her lies had put father-of-two Warren Blackwell behind bars for more than three years. Lord Campbell-Savours used Parliamentary privilege to expose her identity and lambast the 'shabby' police investigation that saw Mr Blackwell imprisoned. Legal experts praised his decision to speak out to prevent other men falling victim to fake sex attack allegations.

Mr Blackwell, 36, whose loyal wife Tanya never doubted his innocence, was dramatically cleared at the Appeal Court last month after Miss Taylor's background as a serial fantasist was exposed by a Criminal Cases Review Commission investigation. But although his name was blackened, anonymity laws meant his accuser's was automatically protected, and she became known only as Miss A. Even the appeal judges wanted to name her - but were powerless to do so - to warn other blameless members of the public. The Daily Mail led calls for her identity to be revealed before she put another innocent man through torment.

Yesterday, Lord Campbell-Savours - said to be motivated by 'outrage' at the case - stood up and publicly did so. He asked fellow peers: "Is not the inevitable consequence of the workings of the law, as currently framed, that we will carry on imprisoning innocent people like Warren Blackwell, who was falsely accused by a serial and repeated liar, Shannon Taylor, with a history of false accusations and multiple identities? "As a result of her accusations, he spent three and a half years in prison following a shabby and inadequate police investigation, and was only exonerated when the Criminal Cases Review Commission inquiry cleared him and exposed her history." The Labour peer added: "Shouldn't mature accusers who perjure themselves in rape trials be named and prosecuted for perjury?"

Miss Taylor's own daughter backed the decision to disclose her name, saying: "She is a danger and the public needs to be warned. She needs prosecuting for what she did. She is every man's worst nightmare."

Mr Blackwell's ordeal began when his accuser, now 38, claimed she had been seized with a knife outside a village club early on New Year's Day 1999, taken to an alley and indecently assaulted. She later picked him out of an identity parade and a jury found him guilty, even though there was no forensic evidence against him and he had no previous convictions. Eventually, the case was investigated by the Criminal Cases Review Commission which found that the woman had made up at least seven other fake allegations of sexual and physical assault, including against her own father. She frequently changed her name and police forces did not realise they were dealing with the same woman. Her own mother has described her as "a persistent liar, very manipulative and a bully" who frequently claimed to have been beaten, sexually attacked and raped - all of which were untrue. She has a history of mental illness and self-harm.

The original investigation by Northamptonshire Police was exposed as shoddy, with Mr Blackwell's lawyers claiming that normal safeguards and procedures were completely ignored. He plans to sue.

Yesterday, a friend of 63-year-old Lord Campbell-Savours explained why he decided to speak out. He said: "He named her because he was outraged. He doesn't think it's got anything to do with the issue of rape, he thinks it's an issue of perjury. "This woman made up the story and told lies and he can't see why a person who has perjured themselves should be protected, irrespective of the type of offence. "Sometimes people have to stick their heads above the parapet in cases where the law is clearly an ass and needs to be reformed. "He thinks the law around anonymity, particularly where false accusations have been made, needs to be changed."

Welcoming the development, Mr Blackwell, from Woodford Halse, Northamptonshire, said: "It's absolutely fantastic. I didn't think anybody would have the guts to name her. "This woman needs to be stopped. The fact is, she remains free to carry on crying rape and up till now has been enjoying the full protection of the law. It's absolutely crazy that she could not be named and shamed, because innocent men need to be warned to avoid her like the plague. "Now I hope she will go on to be prosecuted." But she is unlikely to face charges for perjury or perverting justice.

Northamptonshire Police yesterday claimed there was "insufficient evidence", while Crown Prosecution sources have cited her mental illness as a barrier. But Mr Blackwell's barrister Anne Johnson said: "There is a clear public interest in her being prosecuted for perjury or the very least wasting police time. "It's fantastic that somebody of authority has finally come out and named this woman. The issue needs to be aired otherwise nothing will be done."

At Mr Blackwell's appeal last month, Mr Justice Tugendhat admitted that similar tragic cases could follow because of the lies of the 'Miss A', adding that Parliament had not seemed to have considered this possibility when framing the law. Last night the judge said he did not wish to comment on yesterday's twist. In the 1970s, the Daily Mail campaigned for women in sex cases to be granted automatic anonymity, to protect genuine victims of genuine crimes. Although Miss Taylor has now been publicly named, there is nothing to stop her changing her identity yet again. Callers to her most recent address were told by her boyfriend that she no longer lived there.

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

Innocent citizens wrongfully convicted

After winning the Democratic nomination for governor, candidate Jim Davis apologized to two Florida citizens who had served prison time for crimes they did not commit. Davis apologized for not supporting a compensation bill when he was serving in the Legislature. His apology touched on but one of the issues that should be on the public agenda in light of the exonerations of innocent citizens who have been wrongfully convicted.

Those citizens number more than a few. A recent American Bar Association report showed that since 1973, there has been one exoneration for every three executions in Florida. It is time for political leaders to respond with action to the danger of wrongful convictions. We should think closely and carefully about how best to manage our system's imperfections and guard against future wrongful convictions. We can do this by asking four questions:

How can we best identify those who have a bona fide claim to innocence and allow them to demonstrate their innocence? Currently, prisoners petition for the right to have DNA testing performed on evidence that may exonerate them (or, for that matter, incriminate them further). This requires litigation and is, at bottom, a wasteful exercise.
In Virginia, Gov. Mark Warner learned of problems with wrongful convictions and ordered testing of available case-related biological evidence. Five innocent citizens who were unjustly incarcerated were identified; their combined sentences totaled 91 years in prison. This led former FBI Director William Sessions to make the following common-sense observation: "All across the United States . . . they should cough up those evidence lockers, clean them out, test them. So it costs $1,000. So what? If in fact DNA at any time can establish that the person charged is not the correct person, we should pay attention to it."

How should a program to support the claims to innocence be organized and funded? Today, the burden of communicating, screening and analyzing the claims of prisoners to actual innocence is carried almost entirely by the small staff of the Florida Innocence Initiative, a nonprofit corporation that solicits pro bono lawyers to handle the cases once they are screened. Funding comes from foundations and other private donations, without public support - even though the state has a moral obligation to ensure that we are not imprisoning innocent people. Although this work is of substantial benefit to the state - eliminating a number of claims through careful screening, facilitating the pro bono work of volunteer attorneys, and ultimately freeing the state from the costs of imprisoning citizens who should not be in prison - there has been no state support for the Florida Innocence Initiative.

How should those who are exonerated be compensated? Virtually everyone would agree that the state owes compensation to a citizen who has been wrongfully deprived of his liberty. Since Florida is committed to the payment of full and fair compensation for the taking of property, there is no principled argument for denial of full compensation when the state takes away an innocent citizen's liberty.

The most important issue is the fourth: How can we learn from these exonerations in order to improve the truth-finding function of our justice system? Barry Scheck, one of the leading authorities on wrongful conviction, poses an important question: Just as society requires a careful investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board whenever there is a train wreck or plane crash, isn't it logical that we should investigate each of the cases where we know that the justice system got it wrong?

We should investigate wrongful convictions for the same reasons that we investigate transportation accidents: We don't want to see them happen again. When we look at the failures to arrive at the truth, we have the opportunity to examine all the steps along the way and to enact legal reforms, establish educational programs or institute disciplinary action as may be indicated.

The North Carolina Actual Innocence Commission is an excellent model. Established by the chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court in 2002, it is tasked with “[making] recommendations which reduce or eliminate the possibility of the wrongful conviction of an innocent person.” Like North Carolina, Florida could easily set up an inexpensive commission made up of a cross section of citizens, including law enforcement officials, which could obtain competent assistance with a relatively small expenditure. Perhaps candidates for public office, particularly for governor and attorney general and regardless of partisan loyalties, will be stirred to remedy the danger of wrongful convictions that we've neglected for so long. After all, by neglecting our mistakes, we are sentencing ourselves to repeat them.

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

BRITAIN: COVERUP OF OFFICIAL CHILD ABUSE

This week Tim and Gina Williams, a Welsh couple, were reunited with their three children. Social workers had whisked them into care two years ago in the wholly erroneous belief that Mr Williams was a paedophile. He had made the fatal mistake of calling social services about an 11-year-old boy he had found half-naked with his daughter. But the tables quickly turned. A doctor claimed to have found evidence of sexual abuse, social workers jumped to conclusions, and the Williamses were prevented from seeing their children except for an hour and a half twice a week. They said that their children never understood what was happening. They thought their parents did not want them. Imagine it, and weep.

The Williamses were saved because an American doctor testified that there was not a shred of evidence of abuse. In a searing judgment, Judge Crispin Masterman has ruled that the children should never have been removed. He criticised social workers for failing to follow the most basic procedures. Yet the doctor and the social workers remain anonymous.

Newport City Council, named as the local authority, has promised a review. This is unusual. In many such cases, even local councillors do not know when their own staff perpetrate miscarriages of justice. In March Mr Justice McFarlane publicly castigated social workers who had removed a nine-year-old girl from her parents for 14 months on the absolutely false pretext that her mother might be suffering from Munchausen's syndrome by proxy (MSbP). The judge found that every one of the 13 assertions made by the social services team leader was "misleading or incomplete or wrong".

But guess what? We will never know who the team leader is. The Tory MP and ex-council leader Sir Paul Beresford, who has called for those involved to be named, has been unable even to find out which local authority was involved. I have a good idea which one it is. But I am willing to bet that even the leader of that council does not know. I am also willing to bet that none of the people involved has even been disciplined.

This is a racket. All other public servants are held accountable for their mistakes. John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP, puts it this way: "In a criminal case, where someone can be given a life sentence, police officers are quoted by name as they give evidence. There is no justification for professionals being anonymous when a parent is given an effective life sentence [by losing their child]."

If we do not know their identities, we also cannot tell whether the same people have given misleading evidence in other cases. If the McFarlane case social workers thought they saw MSbP in a woman whose only crime was to have taken her daughter to hospital for stomach pain (I kid you not), how many other times were they visited by similarly delusional visions?

Did Gordon Oliver, the social worker recently jailed for sexually assaulting children over a period of 20 years, ever give evidence in court? What about Martin Thei, the Essex County Council worker who killed himself five years ago after being arrested by police for downloading child porn? One campaign group claims that Thei made many reports that resulted in children being taken into care and/or adopted. The council says that is unlikely but it is not absolutely sure. I have talked to one family in whose case Thei's report was crucial. This has never been reviewed.

The number of calls I receive from parents, some who have lost their children for ever and some who have got them back after dreadful battles, makes me increasingly concerned that social workers and experts are manufacturing evidence; that they are concentrated in certain parts of the country; and that they cover up for each other, because they are convinced that they are right. We are living in a hell of good intentions. We can only root out the bad apples if we can see how they infect the picture.

Anonymity clouds every attempt at justice. Two years ago, after Angela Cannings was cleared of killing her babies, Margaret Hodge, then Children's Minister, announced a review of certain cases where children had been taken into care. But her "review" consisted of asking the same old people in the same old local authorities to question their own original judgments. Only one case was subsequently overturned. That tells us nothing, because Hodge failed utterly to grasp the opportunity to monitor specific councils and witnesses and to see whether there were patterns to their behaviour.

Today, once again, we are in danger of missing an opportunity. For the Government's otherwise excellent consultation on opening up the family courts barely touches on this issue. It concentrates on the anonymity of children and families, and says virtually nothing about the anonymity of professionals. Making more judgments public, as the Government proposes, would clearly be a great step forward. But if we simply get anonymised judgments, such as that of McFarlane, we are not much farther forward in holding fraudsters to account.

Judges currently decide whether to make their judgments public, and whether to name professionals. Very few do, despite guidance from the Court of Appeal (in the McFarlane case, the court even kept secret the identity of the defence counsel). I have no desire to perpetrate witch-hunts: each witness could be given an identity code, if that was felt absolutely necessary to protect their identities, but that would at least enable those of us who want to see justice done track their record.

The debate about child protection and anonymity is always couched in terms of the interests of the child. Those who work in this field have come to believe that a child's privacy is somehow synonymous with their own. But if some people do not understand what real evidence is, should they not be accountable? The oldest law of bureaucracies is "first protect ourselves". How many more cases do there have to be before someone finally kicks down their hiding place?

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)