Dr. Jack Crane reviewed Joshua's case:
Here are some notable quotes from his "Expanded Report;"
On Dr. Smith's finding of "asphyxia":
"The autopsy report prepared by Dr. Smith was quite detailed but is lacking any form of discussion or conclusion as to how the diagnosis of asphyxia, as the cause of death, was determined...Furthermore, a diagnosis of asphyxia is vague and non-specific and should properly be provided in the context of the mechanism by which it was produced, e.g.compression of neck.""
On Dr. Smith's interpretation of the significance of certain petechia haemorrhages:
"The finding of petechial haemorrhages (pinhead=sized) spots of bleeding on the surfaces of the internal organs is a common finding in all types of infant deaths and is of no significance whatsoever."
On Dr. Smith's testimony:
"It is my view that parts of Dr. Smith's testimony to the court were misleading. Whilst he does concede that he cannot be sure of the cause of death he uses, what I consider to be inappropriate language, terms such as "If I was a betting man, I would bet that it was. (Reference to death being non-accidental);.
He also commented "I am certainly suspicious of that". (Referring to suffocation);
Also in his testimony he makes reference to neck haemorrhage as being worrying and would increase the likelihood of a non-accidental etiology whereas in my opinion this was no more than an artefactual finding. (Inflicted on the body during the autopsy. H.L.);
On the so-called skull fracture Dr. Smith discovered after completing his post-mortem report;
"There is, in my opinion, no evidence of any fracture."
(See previous postings:
The Joshua case: Part One: How Smith caused havoc by failing to deliver a crucial forensic report;
The Joshua case: Part Two: Yet another disturbing tale of important forensic evidence lost by Dr. Charles Randal Smith;)
The Joshua case: Part Three: Aftermath of a flawed opinion;)
Harold Levy: hlevy15@gmail.com;
Triumph v Karma-la – the second coming
18 hours ago