WILLIAM MULLINS-JOHNSON'S LAWYERS IN MEMORANDUM TO JUSTICE MINISTER;
During a pre-trial hearing in the Kporwodu and Veno case Justice Brian Trafford heard evidence as to Dr. Charles Smith's competence and objectivity from numerous cases.
Trafford ended up finding six issues surrounding Smith's work which are summarized by William Mullins-Johnson's lawyers in a memorandum filed on their application for ministerial review as follows:
0: His over-interpretation or misinterpretation of findings made during the autopsy;
0: His overstatement or misstatement of findings made by other experts involved in the medical examination of a death;
0: His failure to consult with other experts before expressing an opinion on the cause of death;
0: His failure to review other pertinent information such as lifetime medical records, before expressing his opinion on the cause of death;
0: His failure to conduct tests during the autopsy that should have been done;
0: His failure to properly document all significant aspects of the autopsy or to elaborate on the basis of his opinions;
Mullins-Johnson's lawyers, James Lockyer and David Bayliss, say in the memorandum to the federal justice minister that, "Dr. Smith committed many of the sins including over-interpreting and misinterpreting autopsy findings, and overstating and misstating the fndings of other experts."
"This case (Mullins-Johnson) has all the hallmarks of his modus operandi of finding murder where it does not exist," they continue.
"Whether Doctor Smith's opinions in Mr. Mullins-Johnson's case should be classified as unprofessional, attention-seeking, hyperbolic or just plain wrong is beyond the point - they have contributed to Mr. Mullins-Johnson spending more than twelve years in prison for a crime he did not commit."
(Blogster's note: They might also have added..."for a crime that never occurred.")
One of the reasons that Trafford's indictment of Dr. Smith is so disturbing is that Smith held a position of trust in Ontario's criminal justice system.
Police officers trusted him so highly that they would lay murder charges against parents and babysitters on the basis of his opinion alone - without waiting until all the forensic evidence was in - and without conducting their own independent police investigation; (See previous posting: Interrogation of an innocent man);
Prosecutors not only trusted Smith but built him up as a world class pediatric forensic pathologist when they placed his evidence before the jury.
Judges also got sucked in to the Smith phenomenon - sometimes failing to do all they should have dome to ensure that the proposed expert witness was properly qualified.
But most of all, jurors, reinforced by the adoration bestowed by judges and prosecutors, could be excused for believing that this man was a forensic God who had descended from Mount Olympus to enlighten them.
How could this have happened in a criminal justice system based on the rule of law?
I will leave that for another blog!
Harold Levy;
