Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Prof Nguyen. There is plenty of blame to go around for the cascade of errors that led to Ray Jennings spending 11 years

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Prof Nguyen. There is plenty of blame to go around for the cascade of errors that led to Ray Jennings spending 11 years behind bars for a murder he didn't commit. But most of the institutions responsible for the tragedy — from the D.A.'s office to the judiciary — have owned up to their mistakes. Not so for Mark Safarik. Despite retracting his opinion in court, he is now publicly insinuating that Ray may actually have been guilty, repeating the very falsities that my father and I debunked in order to overturn the false conviction. Everything that Safarik says in the article — from the supposed evidence of sexual assault, to the fact that Ray should have been able to see the killer — is addressed and refuted in our initial 34-page letter to the Conviction Review Unit. The truth is available for anyone who cares to read it: http://www.ehrlichfirm.com/jennings/Ray-Jennings-Letter-to-CRU-October-2-2015.pdf http://www.ehrlichfirm.com/jennings/Ray-Jennings-Letter-to-C... I note that, before we even hired a profiling expert, I was able to point out gross errors in Safarik's work merely by contrasting his testimony to the standards listed in the behavioral-profiling "bible" that he contributed to at the FBI. (See Letter, pp. 20-22.) This is supposed to be the profiling equivalent of the DSM, but Safarik blew off the numerous criteria that contravened his thesis. Safarik's attempt to shift all the blame to the local detectives is unpersuasive. Their failure to interview everyone at the crime scene was obvious from the investigative materials that Safarik was provided by the Sheriff's Department's. Indeed, Safarik was specifically cross-examined about that failure when he took the stand, yet he clung to his opinion, and thereby allowed an innocent man to be convicted of murder. Only Safarik himself is responsible for basing his analysis on the false premise that Ray was the only person present who could have committed the crime. When he presented his "expert" opinion, Safarik acknowledged the presence of other individuals in the parking lot around the time of the murder, but inexplicably brushed that fact aside because it did not fit his desired conclusion. If Safarik is the best that the "science" of profiling can offer, it has no place in our courts.