Category: Uncategorized

The recent spate of overturned murder convictions in the U.S. (the Innocence Project has reported 18 this year alone) has apparently led some jurisdictions to reconsider their capital punishment policies. One, the state of New Jersey, lead by Governor Jon Corzine, has abolished the death penalty and commuted the death sentences of eight men to life in prison without chance of parole.

While this lessens the chance of executing innocent people, not everyone is pleased with the decision.

Jesse Timmendequas is a sex offender who murdered 7-year old Megan Kanka in 1994. Megan’s father, Richard, was quoted in the New York times as stating, “The only thing we can really hope for is somebody in jail will knock off these guys.”

Even with the new legislation, there’s no guarantee New Jersey won’t revert back to deleting those offenders it deems most dangerous. Families of other victims have said they’ll let their votes speak for them, implying that a change of politicians could lead to the death penalty being reinstated.

In the 1990s Doctor Charles Smith was a leading expert in forensic pediatric pathology, until many of his findings were called into question. In reviewing his cases, his colleagues have described some of his conclusions as “ridiculous.”

In a SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) case Smith suspected the parents of criminal activity, but offered no explanation for his suspicions. Another pathologist, an expert in SIDS, the police, and other investigators found no evidence of foul play.

In another case, Doctor Smith suspected a mother had a mental disorder and was responsible for her child’s death. Another pathologist conducted an autopsy and found a fungal infection that had grown in the child’s airway, obstructed his breathing, leading to his death.

A number of individuals were convicted, at least partially, on the basis of Smith’s testimony. Among them is William Mullins-Johnson who spent 12 years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit.

We don’t know why Smith reached some of the conclusions he did. He may have been under personal or job-related stress. He may have been overworked. In 2001 he even wrote to his superiors asking to be excused from performing postmortems. Whatever the reason for his job performance, rather than cast shame on Doctor Smith these incidents simply highlight that even “expert” testimony is not proof of guilt. Even so-called experts can–and do–make mistakes.

There were so many missing women, most of them drug addicts and prostitutes, in and around Vancouver, B.C. that the police formed a Missing Women Task Force. Eventually their investigation led to the arrest, trial, and conviction of a man who may be Canada’s worst serial killer, Robert Pickton.

Last week, Pickton was convicted of murder in the deaths of six of those women, and may still face trial for the murders of twenty others. But he was convicted only of second-degree murder, implying he didn’t intend to kill his victims. Now the former head of the Missing Women Task Force asserts that the jury likely would have delivered first-degree verdicts if they had been given all of the evidence.

Don Adam praises the jury for the work they did, but claims a year of their lives were wasted and wonders how they’ll feel when they learn the whole truth. At this time, Adam isn’t saying what that whole truth is, perhaps because another trial is pending. But he did say no compelling evidence was found that would have convicted anyone else, Pickton’s brother and two acquaintances, as the defense contended.

Adam hopes to stir public debate about what evidence should be provided a jury, and what should be withheld. Is it possible for a jury to reach a fair and just decision without having all the evidence?

Robert Pickton has been sentenced to the maximum term possible for his second-degree murder convictions in the deaths of six women: life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years.

The 58-year old still faces an additional 20 murder charges. However, considering the expense and length of his first trial on six charges (jury selection began December 12, 2006; sentence was read December 11, 2007) and the fact that he’ll almost certainly be spending the rest of his life behind bars in any case, even British Columbia’s Attorney-General Wally Oppal questions whether there will ever be a second trial.

If there was a second trial, and if the verdict on all charges was guilty, Pickton would have the distinction of being Canada’s most deadly serial killer.

Robert Pickton was today found guilty on six charges of second-degree murder in a courtroom in New Westminster, B.C. However, he was found not guilty on six charges of first-degree murder.

In a move that Pickton’s defense attorneys said denied their client of a fair trial, Judge James William revised his instructions to the jury part way through their deliberations, telling them he had made an error when he initially explained what it would take to convict Pickton, and saying they could find Pickton guilty even if they believed he was only indirectly linked to the murders. It’s likely this action will be used as the basis for any future appeals.

There was abundant evidence presented during the trial, including mutilated body parts, DNA matched to the victims and the accused, hours of video tape of police interviews with Pickton, testimony by an alleged eye-witness who claims she saw Pickton–covered in blood–butchering one of the victims hanging on a meat hook, and a possible confession from Pickton to an undercover officer.

However, the defense maintains the evidence isn’t conclusive. It’s reasonable that the accused’s DNA would be found on his own farm and in his own home. The eye-witness who testified about seeing Pickton committing one of the murders was a confessed drug addict. And Pickton, they say, is an individual of “limited intelligence” who’s apparent confession was obtained by police using sophisticated techniques of manipulation and lies.

The convictions carry an automatic life sentence, however the jury still has to determine whether Pickton will be eligible for parole after sometime between 10 and 25 years.

Outside the court, the families of the victims expressed disappointment at what they see as only a partial victory, the second-degree rather than first-degree convictions. One told reporters, “It’s not right.”