"Lawyers for an Ivy man who claims he is innocent of a 1969 murder contend the Virginia attorney general office's opposition is based on argument, not evidence or expert opinion. Sherman Brown, 69, is serving life for the Oct. 1, 1969, murder of an Albemarle County boy. Brown was identified by the child’s mother, who was stabbed, beaten and apparently raped in the same attack that took her son’s life. Brown’s lawyers, including The Innocence Project, filed a petition for a writ of actual innocence with the Virginia Supreme Court last year citing DNA testing they said is powerful evidence he did not commit the crime and that the mother was mistaken. Last month the Virginia attorney general's office asked the justices to dismiss the petition, arguing that Brown made self-incriminating statements, that there were problems with recent DNA testing and that the material tested may not even be associated with the case. “Brown is not actually innocent of (the boy’s) murder,” contends the state. Brown's lawyers countered in court papers last week that, "The DNA evidence proves Mr. Brown's innocence." They said the incriminating statements cited by the attorney general were made during a parole interview and "reflect a desire to be paroled rather than a true confession of guilt.""In subsequent parole interviews after parole was denied, Mr. Brown steadfastly denied committing the crime," Brown argues. The partial male DNA profile identified in what is believed to be a vaginal swab taken from the mother of the slain boy does not match Brown or the woman’s husband. The commonwealth's theory of the case was that the boy was slain to eliminate a witness to the rape of his mother. A vaginal swab was taken from the mother at the University of Virginia Hospital emergency room where she was treated after the attack. It was used to create a microscope slide that was given to the hospital’s pathology department on Oct. 2, 1969. The slide was discovered in a Charlottesville-area warehouse in 2015.........In their reply brief filed Thursday, Brown's lawyers say they have shown a sufficient chain of custody for the slide which has been kept in a metal file cabinet, stored for a number of years at the hospital and transferred to a locked, state-run warehouse. When the slide was located by an administrative assistant with the hospital's pathology lab, it was immediately placed in a plastic container that was closed and later delivered to police. His lawyers say that although the mother identified Brown, who she said she had met before, there were problems with her identification that explain how she could have been mistaken. "No rational jury would credit her identification over the DNA evidence," wrote his lawyers. They also said the evidence is old and degraded and it is not surprising the mother's DNA was not identified on the slide. The DNA profile found on the slide that is "inconsistent" with the mother does not mean the slide was not made from her vaginal swab but rather the profile came from the perpetrator."
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/