Tien Ly; Ontario: (On trial for allegedly stabbing and decapitating his mother); Toronto Star Reporter Jacques Gallant tells the curious story of the psychiatric assessment that literally had the juror's heads turning. As Gallant putts it: "It’s the reveal that had the jury at a Toronto murder trial turning their heads in unison. A defence lawyer for a man who admits to stabbing and decapitating his mother disclosed in court on Monday that a psychiatrist hired by the Crown was essentially assessing Dallas Ly from a courtroom bench while watching Ly’s testimony last week, unbeknownst to the jury."

PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "The reveal came as lawyer Marcio Sciarra was questioning the psychiatrist hired by the defence, Dr. Mitesh Patel, who interviewed Ly on several occasions and found that he has post-traumatic stress disorder due to abuse by his mother, as well as a major depressive disorder"……"In building up to the big moment on Monday, Sciarra asked Patel if observing Ly testify in court would be an “adequate substitute for an evaluation.” Patel emphasized that it would not be, as a psychiatrist would be unable to ask Ly any questions and build a rapport with him. He also said the adversarial nature of a criminal trial is very different than a psychiatric evaluation. “For me to rely on lawyers cross-examining an individual and asking them questions — to come to an opinion about someone’s mental health based on that, I think that would be almost a dereliction,” Patel testified. “That would be very concerning to me. I would not do that. I can’t speak to how courts would view that.”

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

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "And then Sciarra turned around at the podium and pointed toward the courtroom’s public gallery, as every juror’s head followed his finger: “You see this lady right here in the front row wearing all black? Do you know that lady?” Sciarra said, as he pointed toward the woman. “I know that lady as Dr. Alina Iosif,” Patel replied. Sciarra indicated that Iosif was hired by the Crown to provide an opinion on Ly. After reviewing Patel’s reports and watching Ly’s testimony in court last week, she concurred that he was the “subject of severe child abuse” but that the issue of whether Ly suffered from PTSD prior to his mother’s killing “remains unclear to me,” according to excerpts of her report read by Sciarra."

——————————————————————

PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "Patel said that in his practice, the combination of reviewing another doctor’s reports and watching an individual testify in court “would not be consistent with the ability to provide an informed forensic opinion pertaining to the mental health of a client.” He said there are “very clear parameters under which we need to practice,” and providing an opinion on someone “should ethically require” certain things including being able to engage in dialogue with them. “If I can’t engage them in dialogue and actually assess them, I would not want to proffer an opinion,” Patel said, “and if any opinion was provided, it would be extremely limited.”

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

STORY: "‘Do you know that lady?’ Crown psychiatrist assessed accused Toronto murderer from courtroom gallery, defence reveals," by Courts and Justice Reporter Jacques Gallant, published by The Toronto Star, on May 13, 2024. (Jacques Gallant is a Toronto-based reporter for the Star covering legal affairs and courts, after previously covering federal politics. He has been part of reporting teams nominated for a National Newspaper Award and the Michener Award for public service journalism.)

SUB-HEADING: “To come to an opinion about someone’s mental health based on that, I think that would be almost a dereliction,” the defence’s own psychiatrist said. 

PHOTO CAPTION: "Tien Ly, 46, was killed by her son Dallas Ly in March 2022."

GIST: "It’s the reveal that had the jury at a Toronto murder trial turning their heads in unison.

A defence lawyer for a man who admits to stabbing and decapitating his mother disclosed in court on Monday that a psychiatrist hired by the Crown was essentially assessing Dallas Ly from a courtroom bench while watching Ly’s testimony last week, unbeknownst to the jury. 

The reveal came as lawyer Marcio Sciarra was questioning the psychiatrist hired by the defence, Dr. Mitesh Patel, who interviewed Ly on several occasions and found that he has post-traumatic stress disorder due to abuse by his mother, as well as a major depressive disorder.

Ly himself told the jury last week that his mother, Tien Ly, severely abused him throughout his childhood and that he didn’t intend to kill the 46-year-old nail salon owner during a confrontation in their home in March 2022. Sciarra has told jurors they will have to determine if what happened was actually murder.

In building up to the big moment on Monday, Sciarra asked Patel if observing Ly testify in court would be an “adequate substitute for an evaluation.” Patel emphasized that it would not be, as a psychiatrist would be unable to ask Ly any questions and build a rapport with him. He also said the adversarial nature of a criminal trial is very different than a psychiatric evaluation.

“For me to rely on lawyers cross-examining an individual and asking them questions — to come to an opinion about someone’s mental health based on that, I think that would be almost a dereliction,” Patel testified. “That would be very concerning to me. I would not do that. I can’t speak to how courts would view that.”

And then Sciarra turned around at the podium and pointed toward the courtroom’s public gallery, as every juror’s head followed his finger:

“You see this lady right here in the front row wearing all black? Do you know that lady?” Sciarra said, as he pointed toward the woman.

“I know that lady as Dr. Alina Iosif,” Patel replied.

Sciarra indicated that Iosif was hired by the Crown to provide an opinion on Ly. After reviewing Patel’s reports and watching Ly’s testimony in court last week, she concurred that he was the “subject of severe child abuse” but that the issue of whether Ly suffered from PTSD prior to his mother’s killing “remains unclear to me,” according to excerpts of her report read by Sciarra.

Patel said that in his practice, the combination of reviewing another doctor’s reports and watching an individual testify in court “would not be consistent with the ability to provide an informed forensic opinion pertaining to the mental health of a client.”

He said there are “very clear parameters under which we need to practice,” and providing an opinion on someone “should ethically require” certain things including being able to engage in dialogue with them.

“If I can’t engage them in dialogue and actually assess them, I would not want to proffer an opinion,” Patel said, “and if any opinion was provided, it would be extremely limited.”

In cross-examination, Crown attorney Jay Spare countered that Iosif wasn’t actually providing a diagnosis of Ly in her report but was rather critiquing Patel’s.

He also pointed out that Ly told Patel several things in his interviews that were different than what Ly said in court. Ly told Patel he imagined his mother would punch him when he told her he was moving out; he testified that his mother did punch him. He told Patel he feared his mother’s reaction to him leaving; in court he said he thought she would be happy. 

Patel testified that those differences don’t change his “overall impressions” of Ly, nor do they impact his diagnosis. 

The trial continues.

The entire story  can be read at:

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/do-you-know-that-lady-crown-psychiatrist-assessed-accused-toronto-murderer-from-courtroom-gallery-defence/article_95285232-114d-11ef-806e-eb58aa965afe.html

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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.

SEE BREAKDOWN OF  SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG,  AT THE LINK BELOW:  HL:

https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985

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

FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."

Lawyer Radha Natarajan:

Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;

—————————————————————————————————

FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!

Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;

————————————————————————————

YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:

David Hammond, one of Broadwater's attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, "Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it's the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.

https://deadline.com/2021/11/alice-sebold-lucky-rape-conviction-overturned-anthony-broadwater-12348801

———————————————————————————

Nurse Lucy Letby: U.K. Major Development: New York Times. Unattributed: Bulletin: Outrageous. The rest of the world can learn why the former nurse may have suffered a terrible miscarriage of justice from author Rachel Aviv's recently published convincing story on the trial.- but not the British people, thanks to a publication ban. Something is terribly wrong in this picture. HL)…."The New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word article on Monday about one of Britain’s biggest recent criminal trials, that of the neonatal nurse Lucy Letby, who was convicted last year of the murder of seven babies. The article, by the staff writer Rachel Aviv, poses substantial questions about the evidence relied on in court. And it raises the possibility that Ms. Letby, vilified in the media after her conviction, may be the victim of a grave miscarriage of justice. But, to the consternation of many readers in Britain, the article can’t be opened on a regular browser there, and most news outlets available in Britain aren’t describing what is in it. The New Yorker deliberately blocked the article from readers in Britain because of strict reporting restrictions that apply to live court cases in England. A publication that flouts those rules risks being held “in contempt of court,” which can be punished with a fine or prison sentence.."

BACKGROUND: From previous post of this Blog. "Nurse Lucy Letby: UK:  New Yorker Staff Writer Rachel Aviv asks the question of the day: "A British Nurse Was Found Guilty of Killing Seven Babies. Did She Do It?"  in a story sub-headed, "Colleagues reportedly called Lucy Letby an “angel of death,” and the Prime Minister condemned her. But, in the rush to judgment, serious questions about the evidence were ignored" -  a story which bears an illustration headed: "The case against Letby gathered force on the basis of a single diagram shared by the police, which circulated widely in the media."…"The case against her gathered force on the basis of a single diagram shared by the police, which circulated widely in the media. On the vertical axis were twenty-four “suspicious events,” which included the deaths of the seven newborns and seventeen other instances of babies suddenly deteriorating. On the horizontal axis were the names of thirty-eight nurses who had worked on the unit during that time, with X’s next to each suspicious event that occurred when they were on shift. Letby was the only nurse with an uninterrupted line of X’s below her name. She was the “one common denominator,” the “constant malevolent presence when things took a turn for the worse,” one of the prosecutors, Nick Johnson, told the jury in his opening statement. “If you look at the table overall the picture is, we suggest, self-evidently obvious. It’s a process of elimination.”  But the chart didn’t account for any other factors influencing the mortality rate on the unit. Letby had become the country’s most reviled woman—“the unexpected face of evil,” as the British magazine Prospect put it—largely because of that unbroken line. It gave an impression of mathematical clarity and coherence, distracting from another possibility: that there had never been any crimes at all."

https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/8259077557681884359

—————————————————

QUOTE OF THE DAY:  "Speaking in Parliament on Tuesday, David Davis, a Conservative Party lawmaker and former cabinet minister, questioned whether the restricting of reporting might, in this instance, undermine the principle of open justice, which allows the public to scrutinize and understand the workings of the law. “The article was blocked from publication on the U.K. internet, I understand because of a court order,” Mr. Davis said. “I am sure that court order was well intended, but it seems to me that it is in defiance of open justice.”

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

STORY: "Why a New Yorker Story on a Notorious Murder Case Is Blocked in Britain, published by The New York Times (without attribution), on May 16, 2024.

SUB-HEADING: "The article challenges the evidence used to convict Lucy Letby, a neonatal nurse, of multiple murders last year, and has led to a debate about England’s restrictions on trial reporting.:

GIST: "The New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word article on Monday about one of Britain’s biggest recent criminal trials, that of the neonatal nurse Lucy Letby, who was convicted last year of the murder of seven babies.

The article, by the staff writer Rachel Aviv, poses substantial questions about the evidence relied on in court. And it raises the possibility that Ms. Letby, vilified in the media after her conviction, may be the victim of a grave miscarriage of justice.

But, to the consternation of many readers in Britain, the article can’t be opened on a regular browser there, and most news outlets available in Britain aren’t describing what is in it.

The New Yorker deliberately blocked the article from readers in Britain because of strict reporting restrictions that apply to live court cases in England. A publication that flouts those rules risks being held “in contempt of court,” which can be punished with a fine or prison sentence.

Neither The New Yorker nor its parent company, Condé Nast, responded to requests for comment on Thursday. Earlier in the week, a spokesperson for the magazine told Press Gazette, the British trade publication, “To comply with a court order restricting press coverage of Lucy Letby’s ongoing trial, The New Yorker has limited access to Rachel Aviv’s article for readers

Under English law, restrictions apply to the reporting of live court proceedings, to prevent a jury’s being influenced by anything outside the court hearing. After Ms. Letby’s sentencing in August last year, those restrictions were lifted. But they were reimposed in September, when the public prosecutor for England and Wales announced that it would seek a retrial on one charge of attempted murder on which the jury had not been able to reach a verdict. “There should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings,” the prosecutor stated. The retrial is set to begin in June.

Ms. Letby has requested permission to appeal her convictions. After a three-day hearing last month, a panel of judges at the Court of Appeal said it would deliver a decision on that request at a later date.

In Britain, those trying to read the New Yorker article on internet browsers are greeted by an error message: “Oops. Our apologies. This is, almost certainly, not the page you were looking for.” But the block is not comprehensive: The article can be read in the printed edition, which is available in stores in Britain, and on The New Yorker’s mobile app.

The questions about its availability in Britain have prompted a debate around England’s reporting restrictions, their effectiveness and their role in the justice system.

Speaking in Parliament on Tuesday, David Davis, a Conservative Party lawmaker and former cabinet minister, questioned whether the restricting of reporting might, in this instance, undermine the principle of open justice, which allows the public to scrutinize and understand the workings of the law.

“The article was blocked from publication on the U.K. internet, I understand because of a court order,” Mr. Davis said. “I am sure that court order was well intended, but it seems to me that it is in defiance of open justice.”

He was able to raise the issue because he has legal protection for comments made in the House of Commons under what is known as parliamentary privilege. Media organizations have a more limited form of protection, known as qualified privilege, to accurately report what is said in Parliament.

In his response to the question from Mr. Davis, Alex Chalk, the justice secretary, said: “Court orders must be obeyed, and a person can apply to the court for them to be removed. That will need to take place in the normal course of events.”

Mr. Chalk added: “On the Lucy Letby case, I simply make the point that juries’ verdicts must be respected. If there are grounds for an appeal, that should take place in the normal way.”

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/world/europe/new-yorker-story-murder-letby-britain.html

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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.

SEE BREAKDOWN OF  SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG,  AT THE LINK BELOW:  HL:

https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985

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

FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."

Lawyer Radha Natarajan:

Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;

—————————————————————————————————

FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, BACKGROUND: From previous post of this Blog. "Nurse Lucy Letby: UK:  New Yorker Staff Writer Rachel Aviv asks the question of the day: "A British Nurse Was Found Guilty of Killing Seven Babies. Did She Do It?"  in a story sub-headed, "Colleagues reportedly called Lucy Letby an “angel of death,” and the Prime Minister condemned her. But, in the rush to judgment, serious questions about the evidence were ignored" -  a story which bears an illustration headed: "The case against Letby gathered force on the basis of a single diagram shared by the police, which circulated widely in the media."…"The case against her gathered force on the basis of a single diagram shared by the police, which circulated widely in the media. On the vertical axis were twenty-four “suspicious events,” which included the deaths of the seven newborns and seventeen other instances of babies suddenly deteriorating. On the horizontal axis were the names of thirty-eight nurses who had worked on the unit during that time, with X’s next to each suspicious event that occurred when they were on shift. Letby was the only nurse with an uninterrupted line of X’s below her name. She was the “one common denominator,” the “constant malevolent presence when things took a turn for the worse,” one of the prosecutors, Nick Johnson, told the jury in his opening statement. “If you look at the table overall the picture is, we suggest, self-evidently obvious. It’s a process of elimination.”  But the chart didn’t account for any other factors influencing the mortality rate on the unit. Letby had become the country’s most reviled woman—“the unexpected face of evil,” as the British magazine Prospect put it—largely because of that unbroken line. It gave an impression of mathematical clarity and coherence, distracting from another possibility: that there had never been any crimes at all."

https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/8259077557681884359

—————————————————

QUOTE OF THE DAY:  "Speaking in Parliament on Tuesday, David Davis, a Conservative Party lawmaker and former cabinet minister, questioned whether the restricting of reporting might, in this instance, undermine the principle of open justice, which allows the public to scrutinize and understand the workings of the law. “The article was blocked from publication on the U.K. internet, I understand because of a court order,” Mr. Davis said. “I am sure that court order was well intended, but it seems to me that it is in defiance of open justice.”

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

STORY: "Why a New Yorker Story on a Notorious Murder Case Is Blocked in Britain, published by The New York Times (without attribution), on May 16, 2024.

SUB-HEADING: "The article challenges the evidence used to convict Lucy Letby, a neonatal nurse, of multiple murders last year, and has led to a debate about England’s restrictions on trial reporting.:

GIST: "The New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word article on Monday about one of Britain’s biggest recent criminal trials, that of the neonatal nurse Lucy Letby, who was convicted last year of the murder of seven babies.

The article, by the staff writer Rachel Aviv, poses substantial questions about the evidence relied on in court. And it raises the possibility that Ms. Letby, vilified in the media after her conviction, may be the victim of a grave miscarriage of justice.

But, to the consternation of many readers in Britain, the article can’t be opened on a regular browser there, and most news outlets available in Britain aren’t describing what is in it.

The New Yorker deliberately blocked the article from readers in Britain because of strict reporting restrictions that apply to live court cases in England. A publication that flouts those rules risks being held “in contempt of court,” which can be punished with a fine or prison sentence.

Neither The New Yorker nor its parent company, Condé Nast, responded to requests for comment on Thursday. Earlier in the week, a spokesperson for the magazine told Press Gazette, the British trade publication, “To comply with a court order restricting press coverage of Lucy Letby’s ongoing trial, The New Yorker has limited access to Rachel Aviv’s article for readers

Under English law, restrictions apply to the reporting of live court proceedings, to prevent a jury’s being influenced by anything outside the court hearing. After Ms. Letby’s sentencing in August last year, those restrictions were lifted. But they were reimposed in September, when the public prosecutor for England and Wales announced that it would seek a retrial on one charge of attempted murder on which the jury had not been able to reach a verdict. “There should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings,” the prosecutor stated. The retrial is set to begin in June.

Ms. Letby has requested permission to appeal her convictions. After a three-day hearing last month, a panel of judges at the Court of Appeal said it would deliver a decision on that request at a later date.

In Britain, those trying to read the New Yorker article on internet browsers are greeted by an error message: “Oops. Our apologies. This is, almost certainly, not the page you were looking for.” But the block is not comprehensive: The article can be read in the printed edition, which is available in stores in Britain, and on The New Yorker’s mobile app.

The questions about its availability in Britain have prompted a debate around England’s reporting restrictions, their effectiveness and their role in the justice system.

Speaking in Parliament on Tuesday, David Davis, a Conservative Party lawmaker and former cabinet minister, questioned whether the restricting of reporting might, in this instance, undermine the principle of open justice, which allows the public to scrutinize and understand the workings of the law.

“The article was blocked from publication on the U.K. internet, I understand because of a court order,” Mr. Davis said. “I am sure that court order was well intended, but it seems to me that it is in defiance of open justice.”

He was able to raise the issue because he has legal protection for comments made in the House of Commons under what is known as parliamentary privilege. Media organizations have a more limited form of protection, known as qualified privilege, to accurately report what is said in Parliament.

In his response to the question from Mr. Davis, Alex Chalk, the justice secretary, said: “Court orders must be obeyed, and a person can apply to the court for them to be removed. That will need to take place in the normal course of events.”

Mr. Chalk added: “On the Lucy Letby case, I simply make the point that juries’ verdicts must be respected. If there are grounds for an appeal, that should take place in the normal way.”

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/world/europe/new-yorker-story-murder-letby-britain.html

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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.

SEE BREAKDOWN OF  SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG,  AT THE LINK BELOW:  HL:

https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985

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

FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."

Lawyer Radha Natarajan:

Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;

—————————————————————————————————

FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!

Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;

————————————————————————————

YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:

David Hammond, one of Broadwater's attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, "Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it's the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.

https://deadline.com/2021/11/alice-sebold-lucky-rape-conviction-overturned-anthony-broadwater-12348801

——————————————————————————— untouchable." So true!

Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;

————————————————————————————

YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:

David Hammond, one of Broadwater's attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, "Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it's the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.

https://deadline.com/2021/11/alice-sebold-lucky-rape-conviction-overturned-anthony-broadwater-12348801

———————————————————————————