Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Motherisk: Tamara Broomfiefld; Criminal Lawyers Association joins growing chorus of critics urging Ontario to expand its review of cases involving hair testing at the Hospital for Sick Children. Experts who testified in criminal trials come under scrutiny over 5 years of analysis; Reporter Rachel Mendleson. The Toronto Star.


STORY: "Scope of Motherisk review should be widened, say criminal lawyer," by reporter Rachel Mendleson, published by the Toronto Star on April 1, 2015.

Mark Lundy; New Zealand; Jury returns with a guilty verdict. Dominion Post says, "Changes in the prosecution case are not necessarily a cause for concern. Even expert witnesses can change their mind – they are human and fallible – and that is a further reason why experts should not have the last word. Now the evidence has been tested again and the second jury came to the same conclusion. But the system has given Lundy his day in court, and when the case was found to be flawed he was given another day as well. And still he was found guilty." (I beg to disagree. It was the prosecutor who wa given another day in court. At this trial the prosecution substantially changed the approach it had taken at the first trial and adapted the expert evidence it had called accordingly. I suppose that if Lundy appeals and wins a new trial, the Crown might come up with yet another new approach, and keep bashing away at Lundy - keep him reeling and weaving - until it finally has a conviction and he falls; This is most unfair - not a fair trial at all. It's not enough to give someone a day in court. You also have to give them a fair prosecution. HL);


PUBLISHERS VIEW:  "The Dominion Post says Mark Lundy had a fair trial - had his day in court. I beg to disagree. It was  the  prosecutor who was given another day in court. At this trial the prosecution substantially changed the approach it had taken at the first trial and adapted the expert evidence it had called accordingly.  I suppose that if Lundy appeals and wins a new trial, the Crown might  come up with yet another  entirely new  approach, and keep bashing away at Lundy - keep him reeling and weaving defensively- until it finally has a conviction and he falls; This is most unfair - not a fair trial at all. It's not enough to give someone a day in court. You also have to give them a fair prosecution. HL);

EDITORIAL: "Mark Lundy has had a fair trial." published by the Dominion Post on April 1, 2015.

GIST: "This has been a difficult and troubling case. There were very clear problems with Mark Lundy's first trial, especially on forensic matters, and the second trial was justified. And yet even after another trial which revolved around the same crucial and contested issues, Lundy has again been found guilty.
Nobody can plausibly claim that Lundy has not received justice.  Both trials were textbook cases of the difficulties juries face in dealing with expert evidence. Experts disagreed about what kind of matter was on his polo shirt, and who or even what it belonged to. This lay at the heart of the case. The shirt was the one piece of evidence that supposedly linked Lundy with the crime. The prosecution painted it as the silent witness that showed his guilt. The defence said the matter might not be human brain tissue but perhaps from an animal. The contamination might have been accidental. So the jury was faced with warring experts and no obvious "smoking gun"  The issue over timing and the much-discussed road trip were similarly disputed. On the issue of the time of death, the prosecution had significantly changed its ground. It no longer relied on a night-time trip from Petone to Palmerston North and back in a time that seemed at the limits of plausibility. Most people in court had driven the route and so most people had an opinion. The arguments continued in the second trial, this time revolving around the allegedly missing kilometres travelled by Lundy's car. Here again, the disagreements were fierce and they were as far from academic as could be. This was about life and death and Lundy's liberty and reputation.........The jurors clearly decided they could make a finding despite the complexity of the evidence and despite vehement disagreements among experts........that  although there were  weaknesses in the original case against him, and a retrial was necessary to test the evidence again.........Some will say the Lundy case exposed holes in the system. Certainly there were weaknesses in the original case against him, and a retrial was necessary to test the evidence again. Changes in the prosecution case are not necessarily a cause for concern. Even expert witnesses can change their mind – they are human and fallible – and that is a further reason why experts should not have the last word. Now the evidence has been tested again and the second jury came to the same conclusion. This won't be the end of the informal argument about Lundy. But the system has given Lundy his day in court, and when the case was found to be flawed he was given another day as well.  And still he was found guilty.
And still he was found guilty. 


The entire editorial can be found at:


And still he was found guilty. 
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/67585810/Editorial-Mark-Lundy-has-had-a-fair-trial

Letitia Smallwood; Pennsylvania: Arson "science" case: Convicted in 1973, her lawyers contend that the 1972 investigator, a now-deceased Pennsylvania State Police trooper, had no scientific basis for concluding that the apartment fire was caused by arson. Decision reserved. Pennlive.


STORY: Judge weighs arguments in Carlisle woman's appeal of 1973 arson-murder conviction" published by Penn live on March 28, 2015.

GIST: "A Cumberland County judge is weighing whether to grant a new trial to a Carlisle woman who was convicted of arson-murder in 1973. At the conclusion of a Friday hearing held in the Cumberland County Courthouse, Judge Edward Guido requested that attorneys for Letitia Smallwood and the district attorney's office file briefs in the next two weeks, summarizing aspects of their respective arguments, before he would reach a decision. Smallwood, 62, currently locked up in Muncy State Prison, was convicted for lighting a fire at an apartment building on North Pitt Street in Carlisle in 1972 that killed two people. The Pennsylvania Innocence Project, a non-profit that fights wrongful convictions, argues that the investigation into the fire was fundamentally flawed and that Smallwood, then 20, had nothing to do with the blaze.........Letitia Smallwood's attorneys argued throughout Friday's hearing that the 1972 investigator, a now-deceased Pennsylvania State Police trooper, had no scientific basis for concluding that the apartment fire was caused by arson. Jason Sutula, a fire investigation expert, said that the trooper appeared to rely entirely on the testimony of two witnesses to reach his conclusion rather than physical evidence - a practice considered unsound by modern investigation standards.  Additionally, Sutula said, it appeared that that there were inconsistencies in what the witnesses initially said about the fire to police and what they said during Smallwood's trial. The trooper also appeared to reach his conclusion early into the investigation before effectively ruling out other possible causes of the fire - like a tossed cigarette or an electrical fault.  "Once you have that preconceived notion you have arrived at your conclusion," Sutula said. Sutula said that based on the documentation of the investigation he had reviewed, he ultimately believed there was only one point of origin of the fire, somewhere on the building's second floor, and not two as Sweet concluded. He said there was no proof, from what he could see, to accurately determine the cause of the blaze. "It's my opinion that Trooper Sweet's conclusion that the fire was incendiary was premature and incorrect," he said. Charles Volkert, senior assistant District Attorney for Cumberland County, argued that Sutula was "playing Monday morning quarterback" to a 43-year-old investigation and that there may have been elements of the investigation that weren't included in the materials that Sutula has seen. Volkert added that while Smallwood's attorneys had tried to portray her appeal as a case similar to recent high-profile appeals of old arsons, which resulted in rulings that determined the investigation was flawed, this case was different. Volkert said those other appeals hinged on some new scientific evidence whereas Smallwood's attorneys were arguing purely about investigation methodology. "Here we are applying new methodology," he said. "This is an academic exercise.""

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/03/judge_weighs_arguments_in_carl.html

 PS: For latest coverage of the Mark Lundy retrial  go to: 
 http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/mark-lundy-murder-retrial 


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 

Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
 
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.

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.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
 
I look forward to hearing from readers at:

hlevy15@gmail.com.
 
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Purvi Patel: Indiana; Young woman with no criminal record jailed for 20 years on "on charges stemming from a pregnancy that ended in a tragedy." She was convicted on the evidence of a pathologist who used a discredited "lung float" test to show Patel’s fetus was born alive to determine if the fetus was viable. (The conviction and vicious sentence - with the pers onal consequences as well as the implications for the criminalization of women - make this case cry out for appeal. HL);


PUBLISHER'S VIEW: (EDITORIAL);

The conviction and vicious sentence  - with the personal consequences as well as the implications for the criminalization of women  - make this case cry out for appeal.

Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.

STORY: "Update: "Granger mom of baby found in dumpster sentenced to 20 years, by reporter Mark Peterson, published on March 30, 2015.

GIST: "Since her dead newborn baby was found in a Mishawaka dumpster in July of 2013, Purvi Patel has been out on bond. Today, she was taken into custody and ordered to start serving a 20 year executed sentence on child neglect and feticide charges. In this case, prison was an option, but not a requirement. While the defense argued for home detention or community corrections, prosecutors warned that would diminish the seriousness of the crime and the age of the victim........ Patel had no criminal history and she lives with, and cares for her parents and infirm grandparents in Granger. Still, the State of Indiana imposes regulations on abortions and it was argued that Patel ignored them for all the wrong reasons.........“When that attempted abortion instead resulted in a live birth, Patel “treated the child, literally, as a piece of trash,” said St. Joseph Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Hurley, who said Patel had “abused her position of trust.” No one is condoning what happened. No one’s condoning the actions, the dumpster and that,” said Rev. Marie Siroky who attended today’s hearing. “But I think the other part you heard from the judge and from the prosecutor, what they said, they felt she ‘was thinking,’ no one knows what anybody is thinking.” Rev. Siroky thinks the Patel case sends a dangerous message at a time when the availability of abortion pills has increased on the internet, and the number of abortion clinics in Indiana keeps dwindling. “And we may be very close to getting only two abortion clinics in the state, or in two cities, Indianapolis and Bloomington. Long waiting periods, this is a set up for this to happen.” Sue Ellen Braunlin is with the Indiana Religious Coalition for Reproductive Justice who has been closely watching the Patel case. She claims it marks just the second time in Indiana history that a law written to protect pregnant women from third party violence, has been used to prosecute women trying to abort. “The expanded application of the feticide laws, it will go on to criminalize women who have problems with their pregnancy or who intend to end their pregnancy on their own.”"

The entire story can be found at: 

http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Purvi-Patel-sentencing-set-for-Monday-297949321.html

See Slate story: "Purvi Patel, a 33-year-old woman from Indiana, was convicted Tuesday night on charges stemming from a pregnancy that ended in tragedy. Patel was accused by prosecutors of illegally inducing an abortion by taking pills ordered online from Hong Kong, thus committing what’s referred to in Indiana state law as “feticide,” then failing to properly care for her baby during the first moments of its life, essentially allowing it to die. Police got involved in the case after Patel arrived at a hospital bleeding from her vagina; she initially denied having given birth, but later told doctors she had delivered a stillborn fetus at home, then placed the body in a dumpster.  The two charges against Patel—feticide and felony child neglect—appeared to contradict each another: If Patel killed the fetus with pills while it was still in the womb, that would suggest there was nothing she could do to save it once it was born. Nevertheless, a jury found Patel guilty of both crimes, meaning she could be facing up to 70 years in prison.
The apparent paradox at the heart of the charges against Patel is one of the reasons her case received widespread attention Wednesday. When I asked the St. Joseph County, Indiana, prosecutor, Ken Cotter, to explain it, he pointed out that according to Indiana law, a person can be guilty of feticide even if the fetus in question survives, as long as a deliberate attempt was made to “terminate” the pregnancy “with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus.” (The statute includes an exemption for legal abortions.) The prosecution contended that Patel intended to kill the fetus by taking the pills (feticide) and when she failed, allowed the living fetus to die (felony child neglect). There’s another reason Patel’s case deserves scrutiny. It has to do with how the prosecution went about establishing the fetus’s condition upon birth. At the center of its presentation was a method that involved removing the fetus’s lungs and placing them in a container of liquid in order to see if they would float. The theory behind the method, which was developed during the 17th century but has been questioned by modern medical experts, holds that if a lung does float, it means the baby drew at least one breath of air before expiring, and that if it sinks, the fetus was already dead by the time it left the womb. “It’s an absolutely discredited test”. The procedure, known as the “lung float test” or the “the hydrostatic test,” was carried out in this case by forensic pathologist Joseph Prahlow, a past president of the National Association of Medical Examiners. Prahlow, who declined to comment for this article, testified in court that the lung of the Patel fetus did indeed float, suggesting it was born alive and that its mother could have taken steps to keep it that way. Prahlow supplemented the evidence from the float test with other findings, testifying that the lungs looked full of air when he removed the fetus’s chest plate during the autopsy, that the air sacs in the lung tissue looked expanded when he looked at them under a microscope, and that the weight of the lungs—approximately 21 grams—was consistent with a live birth. Prahlow also testified that, according to his analysis, blood had started flowing to the lungs, which would have only happened after the baby had taken a breath. All those pieces of evidence surely played a part in convincing the jury in this case that Patel’s baby was born alive. But the lung float test stands out for its simplicity—a lung that floats means born alive, a lung that sinks means stillborn—and for how decisively it appears to answer one of the most complex questions that forensic pathologists face. It’s far from clear, however, that the test can be trusted. “It’s an absolutely discredited test,” said Gregory Davis, a professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at the University of Kentucky. “It boggles my mind that in the 21st century … this test is still being relied upon to determine whether a baby is born alive or dead.” Davis is not the only forensic pathologist who believes the float test is unreliable. The most recent edition of Knight’s Forensic Pathology, a widely used textbook, says “there are too many recorded instances when control tests have shown that stillborn lungs may float and the lungs from undoubtedly live-born infants have sunk, to allow it to be used in testimony in a criminal trial.” The authors of another textbook, Essentials of Forensic Medicine, called the test “pointless” in 1984. Davis, who is also the assistant state medical examiner for the commonwealth of Kentucky, said there are at least three reasons why a float test could yield inaccurate results, indicating the presence of air in the lungs even though the fetus never took a breath. The first is easiest to understand: If any attempt at resuscitation was made, either through mouth-to-mouth or chest compressions, that can introduce air into a lung, thus causing it to float even if the fetus was stillborn. The second has to do with decomposition: If the fetus has decomposed even a little bit, the lungs can fill with gas bubbles that would also result in the lung floating. Finally, Davis said, a fetus’s lungs can fill with air just by going through the vaginal canal, because pressure on the chest creates a “bellows effect.” Despite these inherent flaws in the test, its use persists."
  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/02/purvi_patel_feticide_why_did_the_pathologist_use_the_discredited_lung_float.html

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 
 
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.

I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.

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.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
 
I look forward to hearing from readers at:

hlevy15@gmail.com.
 
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; 







Amanda Knox: "48 Hours" reporter Doug Longhini describes his journey reporting on Amanda Knox through the years - and his increasing cynicism as he learned more and more about the prosecution's case. (Really neat read. HL);


STORY: "Amanda Knox through the years: A "48 Hours" reporter's journey,"  by reporter Doug Longhini, published by CBS News on March 30, 2015.

GIST:  "In the wake of Amanda Knox's acquittal last Friday of the murder of her former roommate Meredith Kercher in November 2007 in Perugia, Italy, critiques of Italy's justice system are inevitable. Had the system initially erred because it relied on a false confession, a dodgy witnesses, or flawed forensics? Probably yes to all those failings, but when 48 Hours sent me to Perugia to cover the story, I learned something pretty basic was being ignored - common sense.........Now a bit skeptical, on February 8, 2008, we met Knox lead prosecutor Giuliano Mignini at the Kefe Bar in Perugia for a drink -- apertivo -- and, hopefully, insight. Mignini told us there was no cause for our confusion. He assured us that he had a key witness who could prove the three people in custody (Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Rudy Guede) had killed Meredith Kercher in the late hours of November 1, 2007 and then fled the scene together.The witness, Mignini explained, was an elderly woman who lived near the house Knox shared with Kercher. The witness described a terrifying scream in the night she'd heard coming from the house. Then she claimed to have heard - not seen - three people running away from the crime scene. Mignini said he was completely convinced that the witness's account of hearing exactly three people running was the proof he needed to show that Knox, Sollecito and Guede were the killers. But we asked ourselves, how could anyone "hear" exactly three people running? Sure, you can hear multiple footsteps, but to say exactly three, made no sense. So we next turned to forensic science and on Valentine's Day 2008, we went to the sprawling headquarters of Italy's Scientific Police in Rome. Some of the hallways are lined with photos of mafia dons, drug kingpins, and infamous killers. And to our surprise, there, among the framed images on this walk of shame, was a photo of Amanda Knox. Even though Knox would not be formally indicted for murder for another eight months, Italian police had, at least figuratively, nailed her trophy to the wall. Eduardo Giobbi, part of the top echelon of the Scientific Police, told us his agency - one steeped in fingerprints, DNA, and forensic methods - had not used scientific evidence to lead them to Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith Kercher. Instead, Giobbi bragged, he and his fellow investigators had noted Knox's often quirky behavior and found a killer hiding behind her antics. Forensic science in the Knox case, it seemed, be damned, at least in the critical initial days."

The entire story can be found at: 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amanda-knox-through-the-years-a-48-hours-reporters-journey/

PS: For latest coverage of the Mark Lundy retrial  go to:  http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/mark-lundy-murder-retrial 

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 
 
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.

I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.

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.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
 
I look forward to hearing from readers at:

hlevy15@gmail.com.
 
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; 


Monday, March 30, 2015

Mark Lundy retrial: Major development: New Zealand Herald reports that after a superb charge by the judge, the jury is now out. (Judge says "great care" is needed before accepting the evidence of "Witness 'X' - the inmate who claimed he heard Lundy's confession.)


Justice Simon France turned to the jury in the murder trial of Mark Lundy at the High Court in Wellington yesterday afternoon at 10 to one and said: "It's over to you." A moment later, he said again: "It's over to you." Then he thanked them, warmly, sincerely. "So that's it," he said, concluding seven weeks of legal argument. "It's a big thing being asked of you ... It's over to you......... France spent most of his summary on the one subject that took up most time in the trial: the stains on Lundy's shirt. "If you accept that it is human brain, then the Crown's case is considerably strengthened ... Mrs Lundy's brain tissue is obviously a very significant thing." The defence say the stain could be food splatter. His financial position was stable, and he wasn't in desperate need of an insurance pay-out. France to the jury: "Some of you may not know that small businesses owing money to people isn't unusual. And it's important to remember the recent change in their insurance policy wasn't at his instigation.  As for witness X, the inmate who claimed he heard Lundy's confession, the judge rather sighed, "I don't know how he appealed to you. Maybe you thought he was an engaging sort of chap. I'm not saying you can't accept his evidence, but great care is needed.".........
Dirty Lundry, or clean Lundry? It's over to the jury. "One can't believe impossible things," says Alice in Through the Looking-Glass. Lundy's defence claims three impossible things prevent the jury from believing Lundy did it. "If you accept he did not have enough petrol to make the trip," said Justice France of the defence's first impossibility, "you must acquit". The alternative is to deliver a verdict of guilty, twice, for the murders of Christine and Amber Lundy. There are two charges, as Justice France reminded the jury. "Realistically," he said, "your answers will be the same for both". They may be given today."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11425530

See News 3 report on the jurors returning for their second day of deliberations:
http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/mark-lundy-murder-retrial-day-36-2015033110

See the Wikipedia account: "Christine Marie Lundy, 38, and her 7-year-old daughter Amber Grace Lundy were murdered in Palmerston North, New Zealand, on 29 or 30 August 2000. Mark Edward Lundy (then age 43), Christine's husband and Amber's father, was arrested and charged with the murders in February 2001.[1] In 2002 he was convicted of the murders after a six-week trial and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. Lundy maintained he was innocent and took his case to the Court of Appeal; the appeal was rejected and the court increased his non-parole period to 20 years.[2] In June 2013 Lundy appealed to the Privy Council in Britain.[3] In its decision, announced four months later, the Council focussed on three main points: the reliability of evidence surrounding the time of death, the accuracy of the testing of brain tissue given the state of the samples and an alternative explanation for the alleged tampering of the family computer.[4] The Council ruled the convictions "unsafe" and ordered a re-trial.[5] Lundy served nearly thirteen years in prison and is now free on bail.[6] The retrial, which is still in progress, was held in early 2015."

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lundy_murders

Teina Pora: New Zealand; Momentous decision: British Privy Council recommends that he should not face a new trial - and the focus now moves to compensation for his wrongful conviction and more than 20 years behind bars as a convicted rapist;


"The 39-year-old's convictions for the 1992 rape and murder of South Auckland woman Susan Burdett were quashed a month ago. Now the Privy Council in London has recommended he doesn't face a retrial. ........Mr Pora's lawyer, Jonathan Krebs, says his client appreciates that this marks the end of his connection with the justice system over "this horrible crime".  Mr Pora was twice convicted for the rape and murder of Susan Burdett. But his defence team argued to the Privy Council that a confession he made to police was false. The Privy Council threw out the convictions and sought submissions from the Crown and defence as to whether he should be re-tried. The Crown says when it considered Mr Pora had already spent more than 20 years in prison and was on parole at the time his appeal to the Privy Council was granted, it decided it wasn't in the public's interest to push for a retrial. Now an innocent man, he's eyeing compensation for those two decades spent behind bars.
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/free-last-teina-pora-not-face-retrial-6273153

PS: For latest coverage of the Mark Lundy retrial  go to:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/mark-lundy-murder-retrial  

See Wikipedia account:

"Teina Anthony Pora (born 9 June 1975)[2] is a New Zealander who spent over 21 years in prison for the rape and murder of Susan Burdett, before his conviction was quashed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 2015.[3] Pora was aged 17 at the time of his arrest in 1993, and was imprisoned in Auckland Prison from 1994 until he was released on parole in 2014.[4]
Susan Burdett was raped and murdered in her home in Papatoetoe in March 1992. Pora was interviewed at the time, but Police did not think he was involved. It was not until he was arrested a year later on a separate matter that Pora mentioned to Police that he knew who committed the murder - after Police discussed both a monetary reward and indemnity from prosecution. In a series of interviews over four days, Pora then gave various accounts of what happened and of his involvement.[3] Based on these 'confessions', in 1994 he was subsequently charged and convicted of Burdett's rape and murder. Four years later police discovered that the semen found in Burdett's body came from another man, Malcolm Rewa. In 1999, Rewa was tried and also convicted of the rape - but not the murder - of Susan Burdett. Following this development, Pora took his case to the Court of Appeal which quashed his convictions.[5] However, Pora was retried in 2000, found guilty a second time, and returned to prison.[6] After spending 21 years in prison, Teina Pora was released on parole in April 2014.[7] Despite his release, he continued to maintain his innocence and appealed to the Privy Council. In March 2015, the Council quashed his convictions because new medical evidence indicated he had been born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder which could explain his false confessions. On 30 March 2015, the Privy Council went a step further and recommended he should not be retried. The decision has been welcomed by both the Crown and defence."
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teina_Pora