Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Jeff Havard Case Discussion

Postby Sarah » Mon May 14, 2012 3:22 pm

Paige Sullivan, Jeff Havard's sister, asked for help on the Facebook Injustice Anywhere.

Could some of you please look this case over and give your view of the case?
Thanks. Some links to start posted below.


Radley Balko
http://reason.com/archives/2007/10/08/csi-mississippi
http://reason.com/blog/2008/03/02/missi ... court-cons
http://reason.com/blog/2008/05/30/missi ... court-deni

SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
http://courts.ms.gov/images/OPINIONS/CO32002.PDF

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/hel ... avard.html

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

Mississippi Justice:
http://www.mississippi-justice.com/HAVARD-2.html

Letter from Jeffrey
http://www.mississippi-justice.com/Jeffrey_Havard.html

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

Mississippi Supreme Court Denies Jeffrey Havard
http://www.theagitator.com/2008/05/30/m ... ey-havard/

the charles smith blog
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2012/ ... loser.html

Muddy Mississippi Justice
http://muddymississippijustice.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Thu May 17, 2012 8:46 pm

http://claimyourinnocence.wordpress.com ... ey-havard/


Read his case (his own words) :http://www.mississippi-justice.com/Jeffrey_Havard.html

source :http://www.clarionledger.com

The state Supreme Court has unanimously denied an appeal from death row inmate Jeffrey Havard, moving him one step closer to execution.

Justices last week rejected the 33-year-old inmate’s appeal, writing, “There is no merit to Havard’s claim that newly discovered evidence exists that supports his innocence. This issue is procedurally barred by time.”

On Feb. 21, 2002, 6-month-old Chloe Britt died, and prosecutors say Havard sexually abused and killed her. Havard was convicted of capital murder. He admits accidentally dropping her but denies sexually abusing and killing her.
Chloe’s mother, Rebecca Britt, who is convinced of Havard’s guilt, expressed gratitude Monday. “There wasn’t any doubt in my mind that was going to happen,” she said.

One of Havard’s attorneys on appeal, Graham Carner of Jackson, said they may seek a rehearing. “We’re considering doing it,” he said.

Havard’s case is also before U.S. District Judge Keith Starrett, where Havard is challenging his conviction on constitutional grounds.

The case before Starrett was stayed, pending the final decision by the state Supreme Court.

In looking through the records of the case, Havard’s attorneys on appeal noticed a reference to a videotaped statement by Rebecca Britt.

After repeated requests, they finally obtained the tape and believed her initial statement to authorities differed in tone and substance from the testimony she gave at trial.

In her initial statement, she told authorities Havard “loved Chloe,” that Havard changed her diapers and gave her bottles, and didn’t seem surprised Havard gave her daughter a bath.

But during the trial, she testified Havard never changed Chloe’s diapers and never bathed the child.

Havard’s attorneys allege his trial counsel was ineffective because they failed to use the statement to challenge Rebecca’s credibility.

Justices disagreed, saying Havard failed to explain how the statement would support his defense. “There is no reasonable likelihood that Britt’s testimony, if false, affected the judgment of the jury,” they wrote. “Havard cannot demonstrate how he was prejudiced.”

When Chloe was brought to the emergency room at Natchez Community Hospital, she was blue, and her eyes were fixed and dilated, according to medical reports. A nurse noticed her anus was dilated to the size of a quarter, and law enforcement was contacted.

At trial, pathologist Dr. Steven Hayne, who performed the autopsy, testified the death was a homicide, consistent with shaken baby syndrome, and that an anal contusion was “consistent with penetration of the rectum with an object.”

But Hayne has since acknowledged to Havard’s attorneys the contusion was found in an area easily injured and a rectal thermometer like the one used in the emergency room to check Chloe’s temperature could cause such a contusion but that he did not think it was likely.

Hayne also said he could not exclude that possibility.

Hayne found no anal tearing and said dilated anal sphincters also may be seen on people without significant brain function and that the contusion was not sufficient to determine a sexual assault occurred. A rape kit conducted at the time found no evidence of semen.

At The Clarion-Ledger’s request, world-renowned pathologist Dr. Michael Baden examined Hayne’s autopsy report and photographs and concluded there was no evidence of sexual abuse – or even of a homicide.

The injuries described at autopsy were consistent with “the baby being accidentally dropped and striking her head on the toilet tank as the father described,” Baden said.

The anal abrasion described in the autopsy can be the result of common causes, such as constipation, diarrhea, toilet paper or even rubbing against a diaper, he said.

Justices agreed anal dilation alone does not suggest sexual abuse. “However, as the state points out, Chloe’s dilated anal sphincter was discovered while Chloe was in the emergency room and still alive.“

The high court concluded the defense argument was procedurally barred, and even if it weren’t, “the issue is without merit.”

Jennifer Luttman, 30, of Pisgah, Ala., who dated Havard in 2001, is convinced Havard is innocent. “This is not in his demeanor to do something like this,” she said.

She praised his attentiveness to her son, Ryan, then less than a year old, even getting on the floor and playing.

Since Havard’s conviction, she has decided to pursue a career as a paralegal, she said. “My main reason for studying law is to help him.

my own comment :

rigor mortis—can often cause the anus to dilate after death.

Hayne testified at Havard’s trial that bruises, scratches, and cranial bleeding indicated a case of shaken baby syndrome.

Rebecca Britt changes her version of statement.

if you read the trial, you realize that there are many contradictions
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Sun May 20, 2012 11:00 pm

Mississippi Death Row Inmate Jeffrey Havard Is A Victim Of Wrongful Conviction
by Bruce Fischer May 20, 2012

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Mississippi-Death-Row-Inmate-Jeffrey-Havard-Is-A-V/2946269
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:23 pm

Jeffrey Havard - Injustice Anywhere Case Overview

http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/JeffreyHavard.html


Articles:

Death row appeal rejected
http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/Jeffr ... ticle.html

Silence broken on death row decade later
http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/Jeffr ... icle2.html

Testimony in death row inmate's trial contradicted
http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/Jeffr ... icle3.html


IA article:
Mississippi Death Row Inmate Jeffrey Havard Is A Victim Of Wrongful Conviction
http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Mi ... -V/2946269
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:25 pm

Opportunity to help.

We are going to upgrade this case to a featured case.

1. We are going to create a Change.org petition

2. We are going to work on a press release.

If anyone would like to help let it be known.


Also, if anyone has a writing bug, a new article would be nice.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:52 pm

Dr. Steven Hayne

Local Jackson TV news does a story on the questionable practices Mississippi medical examiner Dr. Steven Hayne, first reported by Reason magazine's Radley Balko


[youtube]EFxcAnBs_30[/youtube]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFxcAnBs_30
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:01 pm

User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:47 pm

Free Jeffrey Havard

Facebook group

http://www.facebook.com/groups/237877432998032/
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby charlie_wilkes » Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:37 pm

This case is yet another abomination. A tiny bruise that the prosecution's own expert concedes might have been caused by a rectal thermometer... and for that this guy is on death row???

The whole thing is absurd. Even if one imagines that Jeffrey committed a sex act involving the infant (which I do not believe for one second and which is not supported by a shred of credible evidence), how would that explain the head injury?

What is the next step in the legal process at this point?
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:44 pm

Charlie,

Paige (his sister) said they are now trying in Federal court to get an appeal trial. I'm not clear on the next step exactly.

I'm glad you're interested. This case is a mess.

Paige also said that MS. has been recently increasing the rate of executions, which is very scary.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:01 pm

According to Paige it went to the Federal level, the Federal court sent it back to the state because they found a discrepancy in their decision. The Mississippi Supreme Court rejected it again and now it is one again at the federal level. We do not know what that discrepancy was at this point.

If no progress is made, The attorneys estimated that Jeffrey will be put to death sometime in 2015.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:03 pm

Sarah, the Facebook page will be very important. That was good thinking on your part (as usual). It will take some time to get Information organized from the family but I think we will be able to get all of the information we need to present a very credible argument.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby charlie_wilkes » Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:08 pm

It will be interesting to see the case files. From the court ruling, it appears even Hayne was uncertain about the sexual abuse. Rape of an infant would cause unmistakable trauma. So what exactly are they claiming Jeffrey did? And how are they connecting it to the head injury that caused death?
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Paige » Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:06 pm

Rebecca and Chloe(baby) were living with Rebecca's brother's(Billy Britt) while they were cooking Crystal Meth in the home. Jeffrey,found out about Rebecca's and the Chloe's living conditions and moved them into his home with him,giving the baby her own nursery. Jeffrey,loved this child as if she were his own. He has a picture of Chloe in his cell that he looks at everyday.
Paige
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:48 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:07 pm

Hello Paige! I am happy to see that you are now able to post.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Paige » Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:11 pm

Hi Bruce! Me too. I was going to get on here yesterday,but the library was closed. How do i reply on different post? I wouls like to reply with answers to the posts
Paige
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:48 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Paige » Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:26 pm

This all started when Jeffrey and Rebecca,rushed the baby to the hospital. The grandmother of said child,worked at the hospital where jeffrey drove her to. She worked on the baby that night in the ER. X-Rays were taken that night,but have not been found to this day. (How Convienant)? Jeffrey,was arrested nearly 30mins later upon arrival. He was taken to the police station and held in a cell,freezing and starving him half to death for days. Jeffrey,was Never given that 1 call that everyone is allowed when arrested. We the family,didnt know where,Jeffrey was for days. We called hospitals and the jail is where we found him,charged with Capital Murder. Jeffrey,asked for a lie detector test and a DNA test. Lie Detector was denied,but the DNA test was given. The test results came back, NO DNA. At the hearing,The DA and officers knew there was NO DNA and tried to stick Jeffrey with more charges,saying that he was trying to escape out of the jail cell window. I assume they did this so he would not get a bond. ! was never given to him. they dropped that charge. Tried to make a plea deal with Jeffrey Life without parole if he admitted to doing this. Jeffrey refused saying he would never admit to something he did not do and turned the plea down. We are will be doing our very best to get things together and post these things hopefully soon. Please keep in mind that the X-Rays from that night are missing and up until nearly 2 years ago, the video taped statement from the mother was missing as well.
Paige
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:48 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:33 pm

Paige, click on the "quote" tab on the upper right corner of the message you would like to reply to.

I looks like you are already doing that. You can type your response in the post box under the text that you are responding to.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:49 pm

I finally corrected the problems with my Pacer account. I am currently downloading all of the available documents on the case. Pacer does not offer trial transcripts so we will need those for the first trial and the appeal.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby charlie_wilkes » Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:51 pm

Paige, were the x-rays available at the time of the trial? Did the police and prosecutors have them at some point, or did they disappear at the very beginning of the investigation?
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Lynda » Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:36 pm

Steven Hayne says in the autopsy report that full body radiographs were preformed. Upon development of the radiographs no acute fractures are identified. THE RADIOGRAPHS ARE RETAINED AT THE RANKIN CO. MORGUE.

Radiograph
The actual picture or film produced by an x-ray study.
Lynda
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:21 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Paige » Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:47 pm

charlie_wilkes wrote:Paige, were the x-rays available at the time of the trial? Did the police and prosecutors have them at some point, or did they disappear at the very beginning of the investigation?
Paige
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:48 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Paige » Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:54 pm

i dont know how i reposted Mr.Charles question? They were never available. They were lost from the very beginning of investigation. However,there are some slides which Dr. James Lauridson,looked at from Steven Hayne work.
Paige
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:48 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby erasmus44 » Sun Jul 08, 2012 9:22 pm

A couple of questions but first a short point. The importance of expert testimony in cases like this is enormous. Shaken Baby Syndrome has produced numerous cases with "dueling experts" and is subject to very different interpretations. As I understand it the prosecution introduced evidence that the autopsy showed that the damage to the brain was the result of violent shaking and that physical evidence showed that there was sexual molestation. Is this generally true? Who were the prosecution witnesses?
Where there any other prosecution expert witnesses?
Did the defense present any expert testimony at the trial? Was defense counsel assisted by an expert in cross examining the prosecution witnesses? Did defense counsel request authorization for funds to hire any experts? Who ruled on this request and what was the ruling? Did the defendant or anyone on his behalf request that his counsel make such a request?
What expert testimony has been submitted in post conviction proceedings? What other expert studies have been done?

If a timely request was made for authorization to hire an expert and it was denied, the trial was a travesty and a waste of time. In a case like this, expert testimony is critical. Different experts approach an issue like this in different ways. Experts can definitely "shade" their testimony to favor their clients. And a party without an expert has little or no chance of success. If I were in this situation, I would request that the court permit me to dismiss my lawyer and let me represent myself and use the money I would have spent on the lawyer on an expert witness.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:24 pm

erasmus44 wrote:A couple of questions but first a short point. The importance of expert testimony in cases like this is enormous. Shaken Baby Syndrome has produced numerous cases with "dueling experts" and is subject to very different interpretations. As I understand it the prosecution introduced evidence that the autopsy showed that the damage to the brain was the result of violent shaking and that physical evidence showed that there was sexual molestation. Is this generally true? Who were the prosecution witnesses?
Where there any other prosecution expert witnesses?
Did the defense present any expert testimony at the trial? Was defense counsel assisted by an expert in cross examining the prosecution witnesses? Did defense counsel request authorization for funds to hire any experts? Who ruled on this request and what was the ruling? Did the defendant or anyone on his behalf request that his counsel make such a request?
What expert testimony has been submitted in post conviction proceedings? What other expert studies have been done?

If a timely request was made for authorization to hire an expert and it was denied, the trial was a travesty and a waste of time. In a case like this, expert testimony is critical. Different experts approach an issue like this in different ways. Experts can definitely "shade" their testimony to favor their clients. And a party without an expert has little or no chance of success. If I were in this situation, I would request that the court permit me to dismiss my lawyer and let me represent myself and use the money I would have spent on the lawyer on an expert witness.


erasmus44,

The trial lasted less that 2 days. The jury deliberated for 36 minutes. Jeffrey Havard had no legitimate defense. The prosecution's expert was Steven Hayne and he has since recanted his testimony. Havard had no money for an attorney or an expert. His attorney was court appointed. He requested an independent expert and his request was denied.

We are still waiting for the trial transcripts and should have them shortly. No definitive cause of death was ever proven in court. Two experts other than Hayne looked at the case after the trial and both concluded the evidence suggested an accident. Hayne now states that an accident was possible cause. You can read more about this case and Steven Hayne here: http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/JeffreyHavard.html
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby erasmus44 » Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:46 pm

What shocked me about this case was looking at a few pictures of the defendant. I always knew that African Americans were regularly railroaded for crimes they didn't commit in Mississippi, but now it appears White Folks can get that treatment too. I guess this is Mississippi's approach to "equal protection of the law."
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:23 pm

Jeffrey's sister Paige will be interviewed on a radio show tomorrow July 18th at 6:00 p.m. EST. I hope some of you can find time to call into the show!

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

Tic Toc Tic Toc, Life or Death. The Jeffrey Havard Case
by The Other Side of Justice in Legal

In 1999 comedians Eddie Murphy and Martin Lawrence starred in the hit comedy movie titled Life. It was a movie based on two men who were set up to be the fall guys to a murder by a racist Sheriff, who in fact was the murderer himself. Ray(Eddie Murphy) and Claude(Martin Lawrence) were sentenced to LIFE without parole. The two spent 4 decades trying to clear their names. The prison featured in the movie was Parchman prison in Mississippi.

In 2003, Jeffrey Havard was convicted of 1st degree murder during the commision of sexual battery. The alleged victim was 6 month old Chole Britt, Jeffrey's live in girlfriend's daughter. Initially, Chole's mother Rebecca made statements that Jeffrey was an active part of Chole's life and he often changed her diapers, made bottles, etc. However, at trial, her story changed.

Evidence was not kept, no pictures supporting Jeffrey's statements were taken. Jeffrey's defense attorney never called one witness on his behalf and sat in the courtroom shaking his leg restlessly. The defense attorney was later arrestted for possesion of cocaine for personal use.

The "expert" Steven Hayne, who testified Chole was anally raped based on a 1 centimeter bruise inside her buttocks was not a certified or licensed examiner. The DNA the state said was Jeffrey's semen found on the sheets on the baby bed was later tested and proofed to be Gerber Banana baby food, just as Jeffrey had stated to police. Yet, Jeffrey Havard sits on deathrow as inmate L3955.

What made Rebecca change her story? How did Hayne become the "expert" of sexual abuse? Was this a tragic accident of Chole being dropped getting out of the bathtub and hitting her head as Jeffrey has said since day one? Tune in this Wednesday at 6 PM EST as we discuss the Jeffrey Havard case with some surprise guest.


http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-other- ... me_oneline
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby erasmus44 » Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:19 pm

The Jeffrey Havard Case Will Undermine Support for Capital Punishment
by Pmause44
July 17, 2012

Once again, I fouled up the link - here is another try -
http://www.groundreport.com/Business/The-Jeffrey-Havard-Case-Will-Undermine-Support-for/2947089
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:26 pm

erasmus44 wrote:Once again, I fouled up the link - here is another try - http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Th ... or/2947089


This is great Phil!

There is an error about the Dr. Hayne info. Could you contact Bruce so he can explain?

You also forgot tags! - Jeffrey Havard, Death penalty, wrongful conviction, mississippi, supreme court, mississippi death row, injustice anywhere

And a link to the IA section - http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/JeffreyHavard.html
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby erasmus44 » Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:43 pm

Sarah wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:Once again, I fouled up the link - here is another try - http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Th ... or/2947089


This is great Phil!

There is an error about the Dr. Hayne info. Could you contact Bruce so he can explain?

You also forgot tags! - Jeffrey Havard, Death penalty, wrongful conviction, mississippi, supreme court, mississippi death row, injustice anywhere

And a link to the IA section - http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/JeffreyHavard.html



I posted a comment to my own article which, I hope, clears things up. The case against him is even weaker than I thought.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:48 pm

I think you should edit the article Phil. I know you don't want to take it off line though.

You could add the tags and link at the same time.

I love the article. I completey agree with your assessment.


Bruce corrected his wrong information about Hayne in his article and case article also:

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Mi ... -V/2946269

http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/JeffreyHavard.html
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby erasmus44 » Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:23 pm

Sarah wrote:I think you should edit the article Phil. I know you don't want to take it off line though.

You could add the tags and link at the same time.

I love the article. I completey agree with your assessment.


Bruce corrected his wrong information about Hayne in his article and case article also:

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Mi ... -V/2946269

http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/JeffreyHavard.html



I made the edits and it is up again. Thanks for the heads up.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:28 pm

erasmus44 wrote:I made the edits and it is up again. Thanks for the heads up.


Great! Awesome article Phil.

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/The-Jeffrey-Havard-Case-Will-Undermine-Support-for/2947089
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:05 pm

Hi All !

Radio Talk Show featuring the Jeffrey Havard case on NOW - 6:00 P.M. EST

Please call in and show interest and support for Jeffrey's case !

Tic Toc Tic Toc, Life or Death. The Jeffrey Havard Case
by The Other Side of Justice
- in Legal


Airdate:Wed, July 18, 2012
6:00 P.M. EST


Call in to speak with the host
(646) 200-3329


http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-other-side-of-justice/2012/07/18/tic-toc-tic-toc-life-or-death-the-jeffrey-havard-case
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:54 pm

Jeffrey Havard is on the show speaking right now. I really hope you all listen to this.

Just click on the link above.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:03 pm

Notes from show.

1. Impossible baby was molested because anus would have actual tears and much more damage, not just a small bruise that a thermometer could have caused.

2. SBS does NOT show physical signs, the damage is all on the inside. The baby DID show physical signs which is consistent with Jeffrey dropping the baby on the toilet after the bath.

3. Small bruise could have happened in all kinds of innocent ways - cleaning, diaper rash, etc.

4. Mother changed story. Must get video of mom's statement before trial !
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:48 pm

Paige,

It was a fantastic interview. Jeffrey did absolutely outstanding. Your family did also, he is very lucky to have you fighting for him.

The appeals system is this country has GOT to change. It shouldn't be this hard to correct a wrongful conviction once it occurs.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Dougm » Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:03 pm

Sarah wrote:Jeffrey Havard is on the show speaking right now. I really hope you all listen to this.

Just click on the link above.


I heard most of it. Really good show, he sounds like such a good guy. I hope it helps.
When you berate someone and push them and confuse them and lie to them and convince them that they're wrong you're not finding the truth.

Amanda Knox
Dougm
Moderator
 
Posts: 3189
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Fri Jul 20, 2012 5:10 pm

United States District Judge Keith Starrett:
Grant Jeffrey Havard a New Trial to prove he was wrongfully convicted!


http://www.change.org/petitions/united- ... m=16114347
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:21 pm

Listen to Jeffrey Havard BlogTalkRadio interview:

Tic Toc Tic Toc, Life or Death. The Jeffrey Havard Case
by The Other Side of Justice
with Vincent Hill


http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-other-side-of-justice/2012/07/18/tic-toc-tic-toc-life-or-death-the-jeffrey-havard-case
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:05 am

New Petition Asks US District Judge To Grant Death Row Inmate Jeffrey Havard A New Trial
by Bruce Fischer August 14, 2012

http://www.groundreport.com/US/New-Peti ... th/2947567
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:32 am

The Wrongful Convictions Blog is an incredible resource discussing wrongful convictions worldwide. They posted a link to an article discussing Jeffrey's petition. Please thank them for their support.

http://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012 ... clicks-20/

Please thank The Charles Smith Blog for posting updates on the case as well.

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2012/ ... -baby.html
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby geebee2 » Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:28 am

I have to say I come to this case rather uncertain of Jeffrey's innocence.

I suggest it's very unusual for a baby to die after being dropped, so the initial circumstance doesn't look good for him.

The baby's mother seems to agree he did it. Perhaps the evidence of sexual assault is wrong, and other evidence is incorrect.

But overall this seems an unlikely case for IA to take up.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:17 pm

geebee2 wrote:I have to say I come to this case rather uncertain of Jeffrey's innocence.

I suggest it's very unusual for a baby to die after being dropped, so the initial circumstance doesn't look good for him.

The baby's mother seems to agree he did it. Perhaps the evidence of sexual assault is wrong, and other evidence is incorrect.

But overall this seems an unlikely case for IA to take up.


The experts that have reviewed this case believe the baby died from a fall. I have not seen a stronger case for innocence than Jeffrey's case. Jeffrey sits on death row because his innocence was proven too late. The appeals court ruled the case was barred by time.

We have created a website dedicated to Jeffrey's case. http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org.
Please check often for updates.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby geebee2 » Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:41 am

Bruce

In your summary, it says

"Two forensic pathologists examined the medical report after the trial, and both concluded that Chloe’s death was accidental."

I followed a link to the report of James Lauridson (Note: the HTML for this page is titled "Dr. Michael Baden" - which is confusing!), which concludes

"The conclusions that Chloe Britt suffered sexual abuse are not supported by objective evidence and are wrong"

He does not conclude that Chloe's death was accidental.

and then I see

"According to Baden, the injuries detailed in the autopsy were consistent with injuries caused by head trauma from Chloe being accidentally dropped, hitting her head on the toilet just as Jeffrey had described."

The medical evidence may well be consistent with accidental death, but that does not show Jeffrey Havard to be innocent.

I believe on the evidence I have seen that Jeffrey Havard is more probably guilty than innocent. One can argue about reasonable doubt.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby geebee2 » Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:23 am

I have been looking around for more information on shaken baby syndrome ( which is in my opinion what happened here ).

This page http://www.dontshakejake.org/did-you-know.html has quite a bit of information, including the surprising claim

"A baby can fall 3 stories and not get as seriously injured as a shaken baby."

One question : how can the defence plausibly account account for the bilateral retinal hemorrage?

It seems to me this is very typical of a shaken baby, and unlikely to be caused by a simple fall.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:33 am

geebee2 wrote:Bruce

In your summary, it says

"Two forensic pathologists examined the medical report after the trial, and both concluded that Chloe’s death was accidental."

I followed a link to the report of James Lauridson (Note: the HTML for this page is titled "Dr. Michael Baden" - which is confusing!), which concludes

"The conclusions that Chloe Britt suffered sexual abuse are not supported by objective evidence and are wrong"

He does not conclude that Chloe's death was accidental.

and then I see

"According to Baden, the injuries detailed in the autopsy were consistent with injuries caused by head trauma from Chloe being accidentally dropped, hitting her head on the toilet just as Jeffrey had described."

The medical evidence may well be consistent with accidental death, but that does not show Jeffrey Havard to be innocent.

I believe on the evidence I have seen that Jeffrey Havard is more probably guilty than innocent. One can argue about reasonable doubt.


Sorry for the error on Lauridson's page. I corrected that. Dr. James Lauridson will be speaking out on Jeffrey's behalf (pending approval from Jeffrey's attorneys). He definitely believes Chloe's death was an accident. Lauridson believes Jeffrey is innocent.

The court never gave a definitive cause of death. They argued that Jeffrey committed sexual assault so he must have committed the murder. We now have statements from all 3 experts that analyzed this case stating that there was no proof of sexual abuse.

Dr. Baden rules out SBS. He concluded the injuries were consistent with a fall.

What evidence do you see to suggest that Jeffrey shook the baby to death?
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:36 am

geebee2 wrote:I have been looking around for more information on shaken baby syndrome ( which is in my opinion what happened here ).

This page http://www.dontshakejake.org/did-you-know.html has quite a bit of information, including the surprising claim

"A baby can fall 3 stories and not get as seriously injured as a shaken baby."

One question : how can the defence plausibly account account for the bilateral retinal hemorrage?

It seems to me this is very typical of a shaken baby, and unlikely to be caused by a simple fall.


We are not talking about a simple fall. The baby's head struck a toilet. This is a very hard surface that could have easily caused the injuries.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby geebee2 » Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:13 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:
geebee2 wrote:I have been looking around for more information on shaken baby syndrome ( which is in my opinion what happened here ).

This page http://www.dontshakejake.org/did-you-know.html has quite a bit of information, including the surprising claim

"A baby can fall 3 stories and not get as seriously injured as a shaken baby."

One question : how can the defence plausibly account account for the bilateral retinal hemorrage?

It seems to me this is very typical of a shaken baby, and unlikely to be caused by a simple fall.


We are not talking about a simple fall. The baby's head struck a toilet. This is a very hard surface that could have easily caused the injuries.


From the web page ( http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/DrMichaelBaden.html )

"Baden stated: "There is no autopsy or scientific evidence to support a diagnosis that Chloe died of shaken baby syndrome."

I'm doubtful about that. Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_bab ... d_symptoms

it starts with "The characteristic injuries associated with SBS include retinal hemorrhages...."

so this is prima facie evidence of SBS in my opinion. I'm also skeptical whether the baby's head striking a toilet would be likely to produce this. Via Wiki, I found this : http://adc.bmj.com/content/84/3/263.full

which concludes

This case highlights the diagnostic challenge intracranial and retinal haemorrhage in infancy can present. Non-accidental injury is an important differential diagnosis, but is in part a diagnosis of exclusion, and other rare causes of retinal and intracranial haemorrhage must be ruled out.


It comes down to likelihood. I suggest that SBS is significantly more likely to be the cause than accidental dropping a baby. But I'm entirely open to argument on this, I often get things wrong.

I'd like to see the entirety of what Baden said.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby geebee2 » Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:50 am

Supposing this was a case of Shaken Baby Syndrome, then I would say that the charge and sentence is inappropriate.

The reason is that in SBS, there is generally no intention to kill or even cause harm, and therefore a charge of manslaughter ( or the equivalent in US justice ) would seem to be more appropriate. I would equate the offence very roughly with causing death by reckless driving ( which I wouldn't expect to carry a death penalty ).

I did some more reading, including this presentation : http://ccforum.com/content/11/S2/P416
which concludes

Diagnosing SBS is a very complex and delicate matter. The mere presence of the classic triad does not automatically or necessarily lead to a diagnosis of nonaccidental head injury or a conclusion of unlawful killing. Diagnosis of (intentional) SBS must be based on the combination of: medical elements, elements from police inquiry, and forensic and crime scene elements. Physicians, particularly those working at the medicolegal interface (such as emergency physicians), should realise that medical observations may play a pivotal role in the diagnosis of SBS. As important is the realisation that, despite alternative hypothesis in medical literature, the classical triad of symptoms (subdural haemorrhage, retinal bleeding, hypoxaemic encephalopathy) is still valid as diagnostic for SBS according to recent (UK) court ruling.


I have also been reading more in the wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_bab ... Leeuw07-15

Points I noticed are

The type of injuries caused by shaking injury are usually not caused by falls and impacts from normal play, which are mostly linear forces.


and

A recent study found the prevalence of retinal hemorrhages in abusive head trauma was 78%, but only 5.3% in nonabusive pediatric head trauma.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:26 pm

geebee2 wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:
geebee2 wrote:
I'd like to see the entirety of what Baden said.


Dr. Baden will not be speaking out publicly at the request of Jeffrey's attorneys because he will be testifying on appeal if the Federal court grants Jeffrey a new trial.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:33 pm

geebee2 wrote:Supposing this was a case of Shaken Baby Syndrome, then I would say that the charge and sentence is inappropriate.

The reason is that in SBS, there is generally no intention to kill or even cause harm, and therefore a charge of manslaughter ( or the equivalent in US justice ) would seem to be more appropriate. I would equate the offence very roughly with causing death by reckless driving ( which I wouldn't expect to carry a death penalty ).

I did some more reading, including this presentation : http://ccforum.com/content/11/S2/P416
which concludes

Diagnosing SBS is a very complex and delicate matter. The mere presence of the classic triad does not automatically or necessarily lead to a diagnosis of nonaccidental head injury or a conclusion of unlawful killing. Diagnosis of (intentional) SBS must be based on the combination of: medical elements, elements from police inquiry, and forensic and crime scene elements. Physicians, particularly those working at the medicolegal interface (such as emergency physicians), should realise that medical observations may play a pivotal role in the diagnosis of SBS. As important is the realisation that, despite alternative hypothesis in medical literature, the classical triad of symptoms (subdural haemorrhage, retinal bleeding, hypoxaemic encephalopathy) is still valid as diagnostic for SBS according to recent (UK) court ruling.


I have also been reading more in the wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_bab ... Leeuw07-15

Points I noticed are

The type of injuries caused by shaking injury are usually not caused by falls and impacts from normal play, which are mostly linear forces.


and

A recent study found the prevalence of retinal hemorrhages in abusive head trauma was 78%, but only 5.3% in nonabusive pediatric head trauma.


I agree that the sentence is inappropriate for a SBS case alone. If the ruling was SBS without the sexual assault charge, Jeffrey would have already served his time for that charge. He has been in prison for 10 years.

Jeffrey has no intention of admitting guilt to any crime but if the offer was put on the table on appeal to reduce the charge to manslaughter I would recommend that he take it because he is facing death. If the court looks at the totality of the evidence, Jefferey should be fully exonerated.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby LarryK » Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:38 am

I agree that death, or life in prison, should be off the table. But given Mississippi justice, if Jeffrey has the chance to plead guilty for time served, or up to the maximum for involuntary manslaughter if less than time served, I think he should take it. It's time for his release. (I'm not convinced that the fatal dropping of a baby, even accidental, should be let off scot-free anyway.)
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 856
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby MichaelB » Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:13 am

Dr Michael Baden was in the recent eposide of 48 hours. He was a defence expert for Adam Kaufman who was aquitted of murder and I think the jury got it right (based on what I saw).

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... riesArea.0
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:10 pm

MichaelB wrote:Dr Michael Baden was in the recent eposide of 48 hours. He was a defence expert for Adam Kaufman who was aquitted of murder and I think the jury got it right (based on what I saw).

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... riesArea.0


Thanks MichaelB. I'd like to see Dr Baden in video.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:11 pm

Jeffrey Havard Convicted of Horrific Crime — But Is He Really Guilty?
October 28th, 2012 | Author: Steve Graham

http://www.grahamlawyerblog.com/2012/10 ... ly-guilty/

Steve Graham has written a blog about this case. He use to blog on the Amanda Knox case.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:37 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
geebee2 wrote:I have to say I come to this case rather uncertain of Jeffrey's innocence.

I suggest it's very unusual for a baby to die after being dropped, so the initial circumstance doesn't look good for him.

The baby's mother seems to agree he did it. Perhaps the evidence of sexual assault is wrong, and other evidence is incorrect.

But overall this seems an unlikely case for IA to take up.


The experts that have reviewed this case believe the baby died from a fall. [highlight]I have not seen a stronger case for innocence than Jeffrey's case.[/highlight] Jeffrey sits on death row because his innocence was proven too late. The appeals court ruled the case was barred by time.

We have created a website dedicated to Jeffrey's case. http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org.
Please check often for updates.

Seriously Bruce? Stronger than Lobato, or Knox? I would say Nyki Kish is way ahead of this case, in which there is a certain amount of suspicious behaviour on Harvard's part. A complication is that dang death penalty, which distorts everything by raising the stakes on both sides in a way that distorts the argument and entrenches positions.

First impressions aren't good. I am reading up on this one.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:19 pm

I had a case once involving a head injury to a baby. It was not fatal but the baby sustained a skull fracture, a fact which did not become apparent for many hours. One of the symptoms, which presented early, was vomiting, which strikes one as odd but there it is. Harvard's story is the baby vomited then he gave it a bath then he dropped her.

Another possibility is that the baby's crying or screaming provoked him to inflict the head injury, which was followed by vomiting which he dealt with by giving the baby a bath. It's clear there is no evidence of sexual assault and the trial jury got this wrong, aided by inadequate defence counsel and faulty medical evidence, but Harvard's story of what happened does not seem convincing.

I have not read anything like everything but were all the injuries explained, including those to the thighs?

This is another case in which, like Scott Peterson, the death penalty distorts the analysis by raising the stakes too much.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:08 am

You can see vomiting among the list of symptoms of severe head injury here:

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Head-injur ... ptoms.aspx
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Nov 18, 2012 5:39 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:
geebee2 wrote:I have to say I come to this case rather uncertain of Jeffrey's innocence.

I suggest it's very unusual for a baby to die after being dropped, so the initial circumstance doesn't look good for him.

The baby's mother seems to agree he did it. Perhaps the evidence of sexual assault is wrong, and other evidence is incorrect.

But overall this seems an unlikely case for IA to take up.


The experts that have reviewed this case believe the baby died from a fall. [highlight]I have not seen a stronger case for innocence than Jeffrey's case.[/highlight] Jeffrey sits on death row because his innocence was proven too late. The appeals court ruled the case was barred by time.

We have created a website dedicated to Jeffrey's case. http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org.
Please check often for updates.

Seriously Bruce? Stronger than Lobato, or Knox? I would say Nyki Kish is way ahead of this case, in which there is a certain amount of suspicious behaviour on Harvard's part. A complication is that dang death penalty, which distorts everything by raising the stakes on both sides in a way that distorts the argument and entrenches positions.

First impressions aren't good. I am reading up on this one.


I could not be more serious. I didn't say it was a stronger case for innocence, I would put Knox and Lobato on the same level. Nyki's case leans strongly to not guilty but there is no definitive proof of innocence. Do I think Nyki is innocent? Yes.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Nov 18, 2012 5:51 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:I had a case once involving a head injury to a baby. It was not fatal but the baby sustained a skull fracture, a fact which did not become apparent for many hours. One of the symptoms, which presented early, was vomiting, which strikes one as odd but there it is. Harvard's story is the baby vomited then he gave it a bath then he dropped her.

Another possibility is that the baby's crying or screaming provoked him to inflict the head injury, which was followed by vomiting which he dealt with by giving the baby a bath. It's clear there is no evidence of sexual assault and the trial jury got this wrong, aided by inadequate defence counsel and faulty medical evidence, but Harvard's story of what happened does not seem convincing.

I have not read anything like everything but were all the injuries explained, including those to the thighs?

This is another case in which, like Scott Peterson, the death penalty distorts the analysis by raising the stakes too much.


The entire case revolves around the sexual assault. No assault, no case. They gave no cause of death. They assumed the death was caused by the violence of the sexual assault.

Chloe was sick. She was receiving medicine for her illness. Jeffrey was not an experienced parent. Most would have just wiped off the babies clothes if she spit up. Spitting up is very common. Jeffrey saw the spit up and decided to give Chloe a bath.

This was a very small bathroom. The toilet was right next to the tub. Chloe was a big baby. Jeffrey claims she slipped out of his hands leading her to hit her head on the toilet. Dr. Baden states the injuries are consistent with Jeffrey's description of the accident.

Are you suggesting that Chloe's injuries occurred before Jeffrey gave her a bath and got her dressed for bed?

The time frame was not "many hours," Chloe's health deteriorated quickly after Jeffrey put her to bed. When Rebecca returned home from the store Chloe was already not breathing.

Chloe's body went through rigorous trauma while the ER staff tried to revive her. It is often not a gentle process. Bruises on Chloe's legs could have come from that time. If there was no sexual assault (as you have already concluded) then there would be no basis for Jeffrey to have inflicted those bruises.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:48 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:I had a case once involving a head injury to a baby. It was not fatal but the baby sustained a skull fracture, a fact which did not become apparent for many hours. One of the symptoms, which presented early, was vomiting, which strikes one as odd but there it is. Harvard's story is the baby vomited then he gave it a bath then he dropped her.

Another possibility is that the baby's crying or screaming provoked him to inflict the head injury, which was followed by vomiting which he dealt with by giving the baby a bath. It's clear there is no evidence of sexual assault and the trial jury got this wrong, aided by inadequate defence counsel and faulty medical evidence, but Harvard's story of what happened does not seem convincing.

I have not read anything like everything but were all the injuries explained, including those to the thighs?

This is another case in which, like Scott Peterson, the death penalty distorts the analysis by raising the stakes too much.


The entire case revolves around the sexual assault. No assault, no case. They gave no cause of death. They assumed the death was caused by the violence of the sexual assault.

Chloe was sick. She was receiving medicine for her illness. Jeffrey was not an experienced parent. Most would have just wiped off the babies clothes if she spit up. Spitting up is very common. Jeffrey saw the spit up and decided to give Chloe a bath.

This was a very small bathroom. The toilet was right next to the tub. Chloe was a big baby. Jeffrey claims she slipped out of his hands leading her to hit her head on the toilet. Dr. Baden states the injuries are consistent with Jeffrey's description of the accident.

Are you suggesting that Chloe's injuries occurred before Jeffrey gave her a bath and got her dressed for bed?

The time frame was not "many hours," Chloe's health deteriorated quickly after Jeffrey put her to bed. When Rebecca returned home from the store Chloe was already not breathing.

Chloe's body went through rigorous trauma while the ER staff tried to revive her. It is often not a gentle process. Bruises on Chloe's legs could have come from that time. If there was no sexual assault (as you have already concluded) then there would be no basis for Jeffrey to have inflicted those bruises.

I am part way through the trial transcript. I have no problem at all with the idea he did not get a fair trial, nor even with the suggestion that the state did not have any kind of case which could be proved beyond reaonable doubt, at least not without an analysis of the injuries that was not skewed by the assumption there had been a sexual assault.

I do, however, consider the circumstances highly suspicious and I would take issue with the idea that there is a strong positive case for innocence (i.e. of some level of homicide, including manslaughter). Jeffrey had an abusive childhood, was a young male living with a partner with a child who was not his, who reacted deceptively to the accident he said occurred, gave the child a bath for the first time for insufficient reason, had she merely regurgitated a little food, sent the mother out a second time for no good reason, washed sheets, and failed to provide medical staff with information that might have been helpful (for all he knew).

I have not yet read up properly on the injuries to see whether they are consistent with a fall and will revert when I have done so but my working hypothesis is that he injured the child when the mother went out the first time, by punchng her or swinging her against a hard surface (as happened in my case) or both and then tried to clean up the evidence (no dispute about that) and that he had some further cleaning up to do which required that he send her out again.

It's very much like Ryan Widmer, in that we have an incident witnessed by no one except the accused. This gives rise to acute difficulties which were not resolved by the state going off on its sex abuse theory. What I don't see is the positive case for complete innocence.

ETA even on Havard's own case he may be guilty of manslaughter by omission. That is, having himself created a risk of serious harm, his failure to seek medical assistance at once may have contributed to the fatality. And sorry, I now notice you say Baden thought the injuries consistent with his account, which is important, but I assume Baden has not been cross examined in any proceedings yet.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:34 am

A positive case for innocence.

... of sexual battery causing death, maybe, but of homicide not sure.

Leaving this case to one side, what might a positive case for innocence look like? It's a pretty high bar I think. You can prove an alibi and you can prove someone else did it. Apart from those two I am struggling to think how else you might do it. Falsifying all the prosecution testimony is not enough. That just means no one can prove you are guilty. It doesn't prove you're innocent. There is no evidence I am the Lockerbie bomber but that doesn't prove I am not. In fact I am not sure how I would be able to prove that, or prove I did not commit any number of presently unsolved crimes.

I think this concept needs refining, especially as a gateway to receiving the focussed attention of Injustice Anywhere.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:03 am

Is there Dr Baden's medical report online somewhere? All I have found is a journalist's report among he resources here.

ETA I found the autopsy report and note it records under external examination paragraph A:

a 6cm contusion over the posterior aspect of the scalp
contusions on the forehead, on the furrow of the bridge of the nose, over the upper lip and some injury to the frenulum, which is inside the mouth.

Question 1: with which part of her head did the child strike the toilet such as to get injuries both to the front and the back of her head?

Question 2: How did she come by the two contusions at the back of her thighs, one of 2 cm and one of 4?

Question 3: is there evidence of a history of vomiting?

I ask the last one because I have no recollection of my own child vomiting as a baby, certainly not such as to require a bath but, in truth, I just cannot recall it. Maybe some children are more prone to being sick than others. Into which category did Chloe fit?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:10 am

Clive,

I will catch up on your posts tonight. Jeffrey didn't wash the sheets. He did what a typical young man would do, he threw them on the floor in front of the washer.

The injuries you are discussing are not as significant as you may think. Small contusions on Chloe most likely resulted from resuscitation efforts.

If Jeffrey harmed the child because she was crying as you have suggested then what significance does it have that the mother went out for a second time? Keep in mind that Rebecca checked on Chloe before she left that second time and everything was fine. Did Jeffrey anticipate the baby would cry again when she left and then he would harm the child? Does that add up?

Dr Baden's report is not available. The defense is being cautious because Baden is lined up to testify if an appeal is granted.

This is a case where a crime never occurred. Chloe's death was an accident. Worst case scenario it was a manslaughter case. Jeffrey is going to be put to death based on a conviction that was secured on the premise that he raped and killed a baby. There is no evidence to support those claims.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:44 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:Clive,

I will catch up on your posts tonight. Jeffrey didn't wash the sheets. He did what a typical young man would do, he threw them on the floor in front of the washer.

The injuries you are discussing are not as significant as you may think. Small contusions on Chloe most likely resulted from resuscitation efforts.

If Jeffrey harmed the child because she was crying as you have suggested then what significance does it have that the mother went out for a second time? Keep in mind that Rebecca checked on Chloe before she left that second time and everything was fine. Did Jeffrey anticipate the baby would cry again when she left and then he would harm the child? Does that add up?

Dr Baden's report is not available. The defense is being cautious because Baden is lined up to testify if an appeal is granted.

This is a case where a crime never occurred. Chloe's death was an accident. Worst case scenario it was a manslaughter case. [highlight]Jeffrey is going to be put to death based on a conviction that was secured on the premise that he raped and killed a baby. There is no evidence to support those claims[/highlight].

With the highlighted part, we have no disagreement. No evidence of sexual assault at all and the trial exhibits many deficiencies (i've read the dismissal of his appeal and the habeus corpus petition).

It's certainly odd that we don't really have a proper cause of death, other than possible SBS (I have read your discussion with geebee on that). I mean, she did die and must have died of something. If we assign all her injuries to attempts at resuscitation, then what did she die from? Once again, I raise the question in the context of your view that there is a strong positive case for innocence.

On the two trips the mother took, I hypothesise that, without premeditation (i.e.not planning to do anything when he sent her out), Jeffrey shook and/or struck the child in a fit of anger, that he tried to clean her up by giving her a bath (she may have vomited as a result of receiving a head injury and he may have wanted to erase the smell) and he had further things to do which caused him to send her out a second time while he did some more cleaning up.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:17 am

Sarah wrote:Listen to Jeffrey Havard BlogTalkRadio interview:

Tic Toc Tic Toc, Life or Death. The Jeffrey Havard Case
by The Other Side of Justice
with Vincent Hill


http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-other-side-of-justice/2012/07/18/tic-toc-tic-toc-life-or-death-the-jeffrey-havard-case

I listened to this and note that Jeffrey admits he may have been liable for manslaughter by negligence. That's a sensible (but nevertheless still very serious) admission so I am at least not alone in reaching that view. I remain skeptical of his overall account but reasonably satisfied there is no evidence of sexual abuse.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:33 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:Clive,

I will catch up on your posts tonight. Jeffrey didn't wash the sheets. He did what a typical young man would do, he threw them on the floor in front of the washer.

The injuries you are discussing are not as significant as you may think. Small contusions on Chloe most likely resulted from resuscitation efforts.

If Jeffrey harmed the child because she was crying as you have suggested then what significance does it have that the mother went out for a second time? Keep in mind that Rebecca checked on Chloe before she left that second time and everything was fine. Did Jeffrey anticipate the baby would cry again when she left and then he would harm the child? Does that add up?

Dr Baden's report is not available. The defense is being cautious because Baden is lined up to testify if an appeal is granted.

This is a case where a crime never occurred. Chloe's death was an accident. Worst case scenario it was a manslaughter case. [highlight]Jeffrey is going to be put to death based on a conviction that was secured on the premise that he raped and killed a baby. There is no evidence to support those claims[/highlight].

With the highlighted part, we have no disagreement. No evidence of sexual assault at all and the trial exhibits many deficiencies (i've read the dismissal of his appeal and the habeus corpus petition).

It's certainly odd that we don't really have a proper cause of death, other than possible SBS (I have read your discussion with geebee on that). I mean, she did die and must have died of something. If we assign all her injuries to attempts at resuscitation, then what did she die from? Once again, I raise the question in the context of your view that there is a strong positive case for innocence.

On the two trips the mother took, I hypothesise that, without premeditation (i.e.not planning to do anything when he sent her out), Jeffrey shook and/or struck the child in a fit of anger, that he tried to clean her up by giving her a bath (she may have vomited as a result of receiving a head injury and he may have wanted to erase the smell) and he had further things to do which caused him to send her out a second time while he did some more cleaning up.


Chloe died from a brain hemorrhage. I believe it was due to a fall. The prosecution gave no reason. They concluded it happened as a result of the sexual assault.

I only attribute the bruises to the resuscitation efforts both at home by Rebecca and at the hospital by ER staff. Rebecca shook Chloe before attempting CPR. I do not fault her for that at all. She was in a panic. Her child was not breathing. It is well known that resuscitation efforts are not gentle and babies bruise very easily.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby geebee2 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:10 pm

Another link related to the diagnosis of SBS

http://www.pediatriceducation.org/2010/ ... ad-injury/

Learning Point
Togioka states “[a]lthough the presence of RH [retinal hemorrhage] does not confirm the diagnosis of SBS. RHs are common in abused children and exceedingly rare in cases of accidental head injury.”

Injury type
RH presence is much more common in NAHI (53-80%) than in AHI (accidental head injury, 0-10%). The AHI that has RH associated with it is usually of significant force (e.g. motor vehicle accident). Short falls (< 4 feet) are extremely unlikely to cause RHs. In one study of 287 children, no children who had an accidental fall < 4 feet had RH, while 25% of those with a fall in the abused group had RHs.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:24 pm

geebee2 wrote:Another link related to the diagnosis of SBS

http://www.pediatriceducation.org/2010/ ... ad-injury/

Learning Point
Togioka states “[a]lthough the presence of RH [retinal hemorrhage] does not confirm the diagnosis of SBS. RHs are common in abused children and exceedingly rare in cases of accidental head injury.”

Injury type
RH presence is much more common in NAHI (53-80%) than in AHI (accidental head injury, 0-10%). The AHI that has RH associated with it is usually of significant force (e.g. motor vehicle accident). Short falls (< 4 feet) are extremely unlikely to cause RHs. In one study of 287 children, no children who had an accidental fall < 4 feet had RH, while 25% of those with a fall in the abused group had RHs.


The study does not take head injury into account. The study details the trauma from a fall. The pressure of the body hitting the ground causes a great deal of stress to internal organs. This is why injury is rare from falls shorter than 4 feet. Now add in an infant's head hitting a hard porcelain surface during the same fall and the equation changes greatly.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby geebee2 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:03 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
geebee2 wrote:Another link related to the diagnosis of SBS

http://www.pediatriceducation.org/2010/ ... ad-injury/

Learning Point
Togioka states “[a]lthough the presence of RH [retinal hemorrhage] does not confirm the diagnosis of SBS. RHs are common in abused children and exceedingly rare in cases of accidental head injury.”

Injury type
RH presence is much more common in NAHI (53-80%) than in AHI (accidental head injury, 0-10%). The AHI that has RH associated with it is usually of significant force (e.g. motor vehicle accident). Short falls (< 4 feet) are extremely unlikely to cause RHs. In one study of 287 children, no children who had an accidental fall < 4 feet had RH, while 25% of those with a fall in the abused group had RHs.


The study does not take head injury into account. The study details the trauma from a fall. The pressure of the body hitting the ground causes a great deal of stress to internal organs. This is why injury is rare from falls shorter than 4 feet. Now add in an infant's head hitting a hard porcelain surface during the same fall and the equation changes greatly.


Bruce

Everything I'm reading about this suggests it's very rare for infants to die from a short fall, and where this appears to be the case, it seems to be the case that in fact there was abuse. See the Chadwick study here:

http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/serv ... lls/fatal/

Babies are actually pretty tough, unless shaken.

And I don't think encountering a hard porcelain surface will make a difference. In a decent proportion of falls, especially with a baby, the head will encounter a hard surface. I still see SBS as by far the most probable cause of death, statistically, and I don't see any reason to come to another conclusion. There was no fracture of the skull, correct?

I do believe Jeffrey should be released, because this would be manslaughter.

To be fair, I also found this story which perhaps supports your viewpoint:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4702279.stm

and the revised CPS guidelines

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/non_ ... ury_cases/

One thing I noticed looking at these cases : they are (at least sometimes) treated (in the UK) as murder, where proved. I'm surprised at that, because for me the "Mens rea" for murder is not present. Of course in the UK we do not have capital punishment. Looking more carefully, I think the prosecution do have to prove this aspect, it can also be manslaughter.

Reading on, this section is especially relevant:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/non_ ... nce_falls/
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:43 pm

Geebee

The mens rea for murder in England and Wales is 'malice aforethought' which means an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. As we are legally presumed to intend the natural and probable results of our acts, a person who, say, swings a small baby's head at a wall or shakes it vigorously can be presumed to intend either death or serious harm even if they do not consciously want either (e.g. when acting in a burst of temper).
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby geebee2 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:58 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:Geebee

The mens rea for murder in England and Wales is 'malice aforethought' which means an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. As we are legally presumed to intend the natural and probable results of our acts, a person who, say, swings a small baby's head at a wall or shakes it vigorously can be presumed to intend either death or serious harm even if they do not consciously want either (e.g. when acting in a burst of temper).


Well, that's an extraordinary presumption, and quite wrong in my view!

I'm pretty sure that the intention of a "baby shaker" is (normally) purely to stop the baby crying.

I expect that in most cases the shaker has little idea how dangerous to the baby it is (unfortunately).
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:11 pm

geebee2 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Geebee

The mens rea for murder in England and Wales is 'malice aforethought' which means an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. As we are legally presumed to intend the natural and probable results of our acts, a person who, say, swings a small baby's head at a wall or shakes it vigorously can be presumed to intend either death or serious harm even if they do not consciously want either (e.g. when acting in a burst of temper).


Well, that's an extraordinary presumption, and quite wrong in my view!

I'm pretty sure that the intention of a "baby shaker" is (normally) purely to stop the baby crying.

I expect that in most cases the shaker has little idea how dangerous to the baby it is (unfortunately).

Well, wrong or not, it's the law and it has to be. If I throw a concrete post off a motorway bridge and it hits a car and kills the driver, the legal presumption as to what I intended will override my subjective state of just 'having a laugh'. I will try to look this up tomorrow and refresh my memory but some such doctrine as this is essential when you think about it.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby geebee2 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:21 pm

Clive

If you look at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/non_ ... cases/#a02

it says

The level of charging will have to be considered carefully in light of the comments in Allen [2005] EWCA Crim 1344 and the Harris and others [2005] EWCA Crim 1980 (see Annex A) judgments regarding whether the necessary intent can be inferred from the force that is believed to have been used. See also the judgment of the Court of Appeal in R v Burridge [2010] EWCA Crim 2847.

In appropriate cases where death has occurred, prosecutors may wish to consider charging under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act 2004 as well as murder or manslaughter. Guidance on the implications of this can be found in the CPS Legal Guidance on Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter.


so I think there is some nuance here. The necessary intent is not presumed, it has to be inferred from the force believed to have been used.

Subsequently I also read (sometimes skipping bits!) through the Burridge [2010] judgement referenced:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2010/2847.html

where after some consideration, a manslaughter verdict was reached, with a sentence of 10 years.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:11 pm

geebee2 wrote:Clive

If you look at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/non_ ... cases/#a02

it says

The level of charging will have to be considered carefully in light of the comments in Allen [2005] EWCA Crim 1344 and the Harris and others [2005] EWCA Crim 1980 (see Annex A) judgments regarding whether the necessary intent can be inferred from the force that is believed to have been used. See also the judgment of the Court of Appeal in R v Burridge [2010] EWCA Crim 2847.

In appropriate cases where death has occurred, prosecutors may wish to consider charging under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act 2004 as well as murder or manslaughter. Guidance on the implications of this can be found in the CPS Legal Guidance on Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter.


so I think there is some nuance here. The necessary intent is not presumed, it has to be inferred from the force believed to have been used.

Subsequently I also read (sometimes skipping bits!) through the Burridge [2010] judgement referenced:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2010/2847.html

where after some consideration, a manslaughter verdict was reached, with a sentence of 10 years.

Thanks. I will look at that. I need to refresh my memory about presumed intention, clearly.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:32 pm

I don't think any definitive conclusion can be reached unless and until there is a new trial in which Jeffrey is represented by competent counsel and has access to his own forensic experts on all contested medical and cause of death issues. No American should spend a day in jail, much less be executed, after the kind of trial he had. The reason we have the adversary process is to permit these kinds of issues to be sorted out after both sides have presented the best possible cases for their respective positions. The only conclusion that you can reach after the results of the first trial and appeal is that we have a very simple answer to the question, "What has 4 i's and can't see?"
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:39 am

erasmus44 wrote:I don't think any definitive conclusion can be reached unless and until there is a new trial in which Jeffrey is represented by competent counsel and has access to his own forensic experts on all contested medical and cause of death issues. No American should spend a day in jail, much less be executed, after the kind of trial he had. The reason we have the adversary process is to permit these kinds of issues to be sorted out after both sides have presented the best possible cases for their respective positions. The only conclusion that you can reach after the results of the first trial and appeal is that we have a very simple answer to the question, "What has 4 i's and can't see?"

Amen to all that. Can someone tell us the current state of play? Is he down to his habeus corpus appeal now, and if so, what stage has he reached?

If he succeeds in securing a retrial then would one expect him to cut a deal and accept a manslaughter rap?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Tue Nov 20, 2012 9:48 pm

The case is currently awaiting a decision from the federal court regarding being granted a new trial.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:20 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:The case is currently awaiting a decision from the federal court regarding being granted a new trial.

I need to look up Kaosium's article on US appeals. Is the federal court The Supreme Court or is it below that? And are we now strictly in habeus corpus territory? Also, Bruce, do you know when a decision is expected?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:23 pm

Despite Evidence From Discredited Medical Examiner, Mississippi's Jeffrey Havard Nears Execution

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/steven-hayne-jeffrey-havard_b_2213976.html
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby MichaelB » Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:27 am

Michael Baden was a defence expert in this weeks 48 hours if anyone is interested. It's only 30 seconds or so and he's not interviewed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50138269n
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Sarah » Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:43 am

Mississippi Doctor’s Autopsies at Center of Wrongful Conviction Filings
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... n-filings/

Questions Left for Mississippi Over Doctor’s Autopsies
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/us/qu ... anted=all&

The Real CSI
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:02 am

Jeffrey Havard has a new blog! His first blog entry is now online. Please post any questions or comments you have for Jeffrey in the comment section below each entry and we will forward your messages to Jeffrey so he can respond in future posts.

http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/jeffreyhavardblog.html
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Dougm » Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:44 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:Jeffrey Havard has a new blog! His first blog entry is now online. Please post any questions or comments you have for Jeffrey in the comment section below each entry and we will forward your messages to Jeffrey so he can respond in future posts.

http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org/jeffreyhavardblog.html


That's really great, Bruce!
When you berate someone and push them and confuse them and lie to them and convince them that they're wrong you're not finding the truth.

Amanda Knox
Dougm
Moderator
 
Posts: 3189
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:22 pm

Jeffrey Havard Faces Execution In Mississippi Despite Proof Of Faulty Evidence

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Jeffrey-Havard-Faces-Execution-In-Mississippi-Desp/2951218
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby roteoctober » Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:19 pm

Very well done article Bruce: a just balance of synthesis and detail.

Let's hope it can contribute to the cause by informing always more people.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:20 pm

roteoctober wrote:Very well done article Bruce: a just balance of synthesis and detail.

Let's hope it can contribute to the cause by informing always more people.


Thank you. I have also been adding information regularly to the website. I think it's starting to come along pretty well.

http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org

Jeffrey's case is beginning to get more media attention. If you Googled his name last year it returned negative results. Now there are several positive links right at the top. Hopefully the attention will continue to escalate.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby MichaelB » Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:59 am

Is there anywhere I can see the exhibit photos from trial?

I'm just working my way through all the transcripts. The judge gave the defence $1000 to investigate a capital case. :juggle:
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby MichaelB » Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:38 am

Exhibit 25 is a videotaped statement that was entered into trial. Is that available?

Exhibit 23 is the transcript.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:45 pm

MichaelB wrote:Exhibit 25 is a videotaped statement that was entered into trial. Is that available?

Exhibit 23 is the transcript.


We hope to have the full discovery available online soon. There are not many photographs in this case that were vital to the trial. We have video statements that we have converted for internet viewing that we will make available soon.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby MichaelB » Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:33 am

[BBvideo 425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cclhqM_gWU4[/BBvideo]
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:19 pm

Here is Dr. Michael Baden's full report on Jeffrey's case

http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/69-1_-_Ex_A_Baden_Declaration.pdf
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:28 am

"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby ljrobins » Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:11 pm

This is a very interesting case.
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard

Postby Bruce Fischer » Tue May 14, 2013 12:30 am

An Open Letter to Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Asking That He Review Jeffrey Havard Case

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/An-Open-Letter-to-Mississippi-Attorney-General-Jim/2953194
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Sarah » Wed May 29, 2013 10:37 am

Be sure to listen to Bruce Fischer and Lori Howard on The Other Side of Justice radio show today! 6 pm EST

"Join us this Wednesday as we welcome two of Jeffrey's supporters to the show Lori Howard and Bruce Fischer. They will be discussing many topics to include the controversy surrounding the medical examiner and what is next for Jeffrey."

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-other-side-of-justice/2013/05/29/one-down-one-to-go-jeffrey-havard-part-iii
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Wed May 29, 2013 10:53 pm

Sarah wrote:Be sure to listen to Bruce Fischer and Lori Howard on The Other Side of Justice radio show today! 6 pm EST

"Join us this Wednesday as we welcome two of Jeffrey's supporters to the show Lori Howard and Bruce Fischer. They will be discussing many topics to include the controversy surrounding the medical examiner and what is next for Jeffrey."

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-other-side-of-justice/2013/05/29/one-down-one-to-go-jeffrey-havard-part-iii


That was good. Bruce and Lori made a strong case for his innocence. For me though, the testimony of the nurses, doctors and coroner plus sending her off to the video store on the other side of town is to powerful to ignore.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:04 pm

MichaelB wrote:
Sarah wrote:Be sure to listen to Bruce Fischer and Lori Howard on The Other Side of Justice radio show today! 6 pm EST

"Join us this Wednesday as we welcome two of Jeffrey's supporters to the show Lori Howard and Bruce Fischer. They will be discussing many topics to include the controversy surrounding the medical examiner and what is next for Jeffrey."

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-other-side-of-justice/2013/05/29/one-down-one-to-go-jeffrey-havard-part-iii


That was good. Bruce and Lori made a strong case for his innocence. For me though, the testimony of the nurses, doctors and coroner plus sending her off to the video store on the other side of town is to powerful to ignore.


What testimony are you referring to from the coroner? I will get Hayne's most recent declaration for you that he prepared for the defense. I will try to post a link later tonight.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Jeffrey Havard Discussion

Postby MichaelB » Sat Jun 08, 2013 6:44 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:
MichaelB wrote:
Sarah wrote:Be sure to listen to Bruce Fischer and Lori Howard on The Other Side of Justice radio show today! 6 pm EST

"Join us this Wednesday as we welcome two of Jeffrey's supporters to the show Lori Howard and Bruce Fischer. They will be discussing many topics to include the controversy surrounding the medical examiner and what is next for Jeffrey."

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-other-side-of-justice/2013/05/29/one-down-one-to-go-jeffrey-havard-part-iii


That was good. Bruce and Lori made a strong case for his innocence. For me though, the testimony of the nurses, doctors and coroner plus sending her off to the video store on the other side of town is to powerful to ignore.


What testimony are you referring to from the coroner? I will get Hayne's most recent declaration for you that he prepared for the defense. I will try to post a link later tonight.


James Lee - PDF 3, starting page 123.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Next

Return to Jeff Havard Case

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest