Category Archives: Forensic controls

From the LATimes.com:

Police suspected that William Richards had killed his wife, Pamela, the night her body was found.

There was no sign of an intruder, and police said the crime scene appeared staged. But Richards denied killing Pamela, and authorities had trouble obtaining a conviction.

After two juries hung, a third heard new evidence: A forensic odontologist testified that a “bite mark” on Pamela’s hand was consistent with Richards’ unusual dentition, a pattern the prosecution expert said was found in only about 2% of the population. That jury convicted, and a judge sentenced Richards to 25 years to life.

Ten years after the conviction, the prosecution odontologist recanted his testimony. Relying on new computer technology that made it possible to view the “bite mark” more clearly, the odontologist ruled out Richards as its source.

The California Supreme Court is now weighing his case, wrangling over what to do when forensic evidence is later discredited. A broad ruling could affect scores of criminal convictions. A narrow one would offer little hope to those convicted at least in part by so-called junk science.

“A lot of forensic science is not well validated to begin with, and that especially includes bite mark evidence,” said Hastings Law School professor David L. Faigman, an expert on scientific evidence. He said the court could rule for Richards but limit the kinds of cases that would be affected. If discredited science alone became grounds for a retrial, he said, “then you are potentially opening up the floodgates.”

The case against Richards, 63, was largely circumstantial. Richards said he discovered his wife’s body after returning home from work shortly before midnight Aug. 10, 1993. But the sandy, sagebrush-pocked land around their remote, high desert home in San Bernardino County contained no unknown tire tracks or footprints. Nothing had been stolen.

Although Pamela was found naked from the waist down, blood splatter on her Continue reading →

From thestar.com:

The Supreme Court of Canada has ordered the Ontario Court of Appeal to re-examine the case of a man convicted 41 years ago of killing his common-law partner.

Three pathologists have taken a fresh look at the manslaughter conviction of John (Jack) Salmon, concluding Maxine Ditchfield, 28, did not die from a blow to the head during brutal beatings, as the jury heard, but by a stroke.

The three pathologists say it’s likely the stroke was caused by a series of falls at her Woodstock home and in the kitchen of a nearby farmhouse after a night of heavy drinking.

Toronto lawyer James Lockyer applied to the Supreme Court to direct the appeal court consider the new evidence and decide whether Salmon’s conviction was a miscarriage of justice.

The Court ruled in his client’s favour Thursday, giving no reasons.

Salmon testified, at his 1971 trial in Woodstock, that he never assaulted the mother of three, as alleged, but noticed in the days before her death she slept a great deal and kept stumbling and falling.

A jury found him guilty nonetheless, and he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. His appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was dismissed in 1972. He was granted parole two years later.

Now a 72-year-old married grandfather living in Orillia, Salmon has always maintained his innocence and told the Star last year that he had loved Ditchfield. He could not be reached for comment Friday.

Lockyer called the case “a nice find.” Salmon originally approached the criminal lawyer in 2000 just for a pardon. “He said, ‘I didn’t do it, but they convicted me.’”

This prompted Lockyer to review his case. “I thought the pathology was really suspect.”

At trial, the prosecution relied on the opinion of Dr. Michael Dietritch, a now-deceased pathologist who gave the cause of death as “circulatory and respiratory failure secondary to brain damage caused by blunt trauma to the head.”

In addition, Ditchfield’s 8-year-old son Michael testified he twice saw Salmon hitting his mother, making her fall to the ground, something no one else reported. Lockyer argued his testimony is open to question.

In a document filed last July, the Crown agreed the new evidence, on its face, calls into question the validity of the medical evidence tendered at trial. The Crown joined Salmon in asking that the case be reviewed by the appeal court.

A date has not yet been set for the hearing.