In a recent post on Dr. Colin Manock - the self-styled forensic 'expert' who was not qualified to do death investigations and was responsible for Henry Keogh's wrongful conviction, and who knows how many others, I raised the question 'what kind of man would allow himself to play such a destructive, harmful role in his state's criminal justice system?' The post can be accessed at:
The post was based upon a two part documentary report by Graham Archer on 'todaytonight Adelaide' which appeared on March 21, 2016 which I noted goes a long way to answering this fundamental question. (Part One takes us to the tiny opal mining South Australian settlement of Mintabie in 1978 where Manock performs an outdoor autopsy on an aboriginal man - even though private, in-door cool-room facilities are available, In the words of reporter Graham Archer: "His plan is to demonstrate his mortuary skills before the entire community. Miners, Aboriginal people, women and perhaps even children congregate around in stunned belief. He then goes to work on the body of the deceased - someone's father - someone's brother - someone's son." Mulla Sumner, an Aboriginal elder interjects: "Well, my sort of response to that, and what I can see is that he gutted this bloke in public, he gutted him took out his insides. Graham Archer responds: "That's what happens in autopsies. The skull is cut open, the brain removed as are the organs of the body. The bystanders, especially the Aboriginal people, must have been horrified at this indignity - the desecration of the poor man in public.") Following through on this "what kind of man theme, I am beginning a series in which I will republish posts published over the past seven years which shed light on the same question, when posed with respect to another forensic fraud who destroyed the lives of innocent people through the perverse role he played in the criminal justice system - who, in a public inquiry admitted his lack of qualifications to determine crucial matters such as the cause of death - disgraced pathologist Charles Randal Smith, the namesake of this Blog. Todays focus: 'What kind of man agrees to go undercover for the Ontario Provincial Police to get evidence against a grieving mother?
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
Friday, February 1, 2008
Smith: A Loyal Member Of The Prosecution Team Right To The End;
Dr. Smith has admitted that he saw himself as a member of the prosecution team - and that his role was to help the Crown win the case, "in the 80's."
However, on Wednesday morning the Goudge Inquiry heard startling evidence that he once agreed to go to Barrie, Ontario to meet with the mother of a deceased child - knowing that the conversation would be recorded by bugs which had been surreptitiously planted in her home by the police.
This was in 1996;
It is also noteworthy that Smith admitted in cross-examination regarded himself as a member of the prosecution team in "Sharon's case" where he testified under cross-examination at the mother's preliminary hearing that it was "absolutely wrong" to hypothesize a dog attack.
(The police theory was that Sharon had 81-wounds inflicted by knives or scissors - and that she had not been attacked by a Pit Bull as defence experts insisted - which later proved to be the case).
"I believe I could well have slipped into an advocacy role here," Dr. Smith said. "I believe that I knew by then that I wasn't to be an advocate ..."
This was in 1998;
Dr. Smith gave this evidence as an "advocate" for the prosecution, seven years after he was appointed Director of the Ontario Forensic Pediatric Pathology Unit at the Hospital For Sick Children in Toronto - and just three years before his name was removed from the roster for performing forensic autopsies.
It was near the end of his career - far from the beginning;
The evidence indicates that Dr. Smith - or "Mr. Smith" as Lawyer James Lockyer, representing nine families insisted on calling him yesterday - saw himself as a loyal member of the prosecution team right to the end.
Back to the Barrie case:
Smith's cooperation in the police investigation is documented in an affidavit by Detective Sergeant Mark Holden which filed as an exhibit;
Here is the complete affidavit - dated January 28, 2008;
"1: I am a staff Sergeant of the Barrie Police Service. I was involved in the investigation into the death of X, who was a minor. I believe that revealing the name of the minor and his mother could jeopardize an on-going investigation. I have knowledge of the matters deposed to in my affidavit.
2: On Sept 4, 1996, the Ontario Provincial Police (O.P.P) intercepted a telephone conversation between Dr. Smith and X’s mother pursuant to an authorization granted under Part VI of the Criminal Code of Canada. Dep. Insp. McNeil of the O.P.P. learned from the conversation that Dr Smith intended to meet with X’s mother at her home in the Barrie area to discuss with her the results of the report on his post-mortem examination on X. Det. Insp. McNeil knew that listening devices installed in the house, also pursuant to a Part VI application, would likely intercept this conversation.
3: Dep. Insp. McNeil subsequently met with members of the Barrie Police Service including me, to discuss the situation. Det. Insp. McNeil telephoned Dr. Smith and advised him that the listening devices installed in the house would likely intercept his conversations with X’s mother.
4: Dr. Smith agreed to meet with the Barrie Police Service and Det. Insp. McNeil and he did so on Sept. 5, 1996, the day he was scheduled to meet with X’s mother. The meeting took place at the Barrie Police Service police station and lasted approximately 20 minutes. During the meeting, the Barrie Police and Det, Insp. McNeil s did not direct Dr. Smith in in any way as to how to conduct the meeting with X’s mother and did not ask him to solicit any information from her. At the conclusion of the meeting with Barrie police and Det. Insp. McNeil, Dr. Smith went to the house of X’s mother and met with her.
5: Following that meeting, Dr. Smith met with representatives of the Barrie Police Service and Det, Insp. McNeil over lunch to discuss his meeting with X's mother. Dr. Smith explained that she had a number of questions about his findings and that he answered her questions arising from his report on post-mortem examination.
6: The Barrie Police officers recall that Dr. Smith expressed a view on X's mother's demeanour when she was discussing her child's death. Dr. Smith said, "It was like talking to a load of gravel." The officers understood this to mean that Dr. Smith was commenting on the inappropriate and flat affect of X's mother during that meeting. The Barrie police do not recall that Dr. Smith expressed a position during the lunch meetings to whether or not his pathology evidence supported X's mother's culpability or not.
7: I recall that there were two case conferences involving Dr. Cairns and Dr. Smith, which were held on April 17, 1996, and May 30, 1996. However at these meetings there was no discussion of any surveillance of X's mother.
8: I do not recall any further meetings with Dr. Smith following his meeting with X's mother.
9: The Barrie police have complied with S. 196 of the Criminal Code and have provided X's mother with written notification of the authorization of the interception."
A few comments:
Doctor Smith acknowledged in cross-examination that his interview with the mother in these circumstances was inappropriate but told the Inquiry that he had been asked to attend the meeting by Deputy Chief Coroner Dr. James Cairns;
In fairness to Dr. Cairns, by now we are well aware that just because Dr. Smith said this under oath does not mean that this is true. (We don't have Dr. Cairns side of the story);
However it is worth pointing out that this may not be an isolated incident in Ontario.
An earlier posting in the context of "Tiffani's case" contained a note written by a prosecutor which read: "Our file contains... a lot of information involving the initial coroner's investigation, including videotaped statements from both accused taken by the Regional Coroner Dr. (Benoit) Bechard and the police without caution, warning, or right to counsel."