Goudge Inquiry: Sharon's Case: Part Three; Kingston Police Defended Dr. Charles Smith After Murder Charge Withdrawn;

Kingston police were angry and bewildered when prosecutors dropped the murder charge against Sharon's mother on January 25, 2001.

The highly emotional inside story of the withdrawal is told in the "Overview Report" on the case prepared by Commission staff.

We learn, for example, that the police made clear to the Crown prosecutors at a meeting held on January 15, 2001 - ten days before the charge was withdrawn - that they disagreed with the decision to withdraw the charge.

A conversation between the force and prosecutor Jim Stewart and Murray Segal, Director of Crowns for Ontario, regarding the pending withdrawal is summed up in the following police notes:

0: Police speak to both Jim Stewart and then Director of Crown's for Ontario Murray Segal;

0: Both indicate numerous times - not a reflection of police - very good, detailed investigation - mistakes out of our control;

0: As Mr. Segal put it - we just have to be careful what we say - you know the potential for lawsuits;

0: Both Segal and Stewart claim to be very sympathetic to our situation - but they can't prove their case - all the rest of the evidence doesn't matter if you can't prove causation;

We also learn that the day after the withdrawal, Kingston Police Chief Bill Closs said, in a letter to Chief Coroner Dr. James Young, that he wanted to share some of the notes he made in preparation for a radio interview.

One of those notes describe Dr. Smith as, "a doctor who had the courage to at least try and who offered an opinion, and somehow the process of how we use so-called experts allowed unchallenged, differing opinions to beat up on this pathologist."

"After what this doctor has been through, why would others ever want to put themselves through that?"

Chief Closs concluded that, "Dr. Smith is a well-respected doctor who was assisting the police and the Coroner's office in very complex and tragic investigations, and it would appear that the current processes in place do not afford experts such as Dr. Smith the protection and support they so very well deserve."

Closs later wrote former Chief Coroner, Dr. Barry McLellan, that, "(At) the time the trial was halted, the officers were of the opinion that the decision to halt the trial reflected the wishes of the Crown Attorney and Coroner's offices, at the expense of the Kingston police.""

"In other words, the perception was left that the decision to halt the trial was based upon a desire to protect the Coroner's office because Dr. Smith's loss of a piece of evidence and subsequent change in opinion given at the preliminary hearing..."

In a subsequent letter, Closs told McLellan that, "The investigating officers were not included in the decision to withdraw the charge and believed at the time that the real purpose was to protect the government."

With all due respect to the Kingston force, Sharon's case tells us why decisions to withdraw charges must be left to prosecutors - and not to police officers who laid the charge and thereby have, or may be perceived as having, a vested interest in the continuation of the prosecution.

But the immense power of Dr. Charles Smith over other people - including skeptical police officers - is illustrated by the fact that the Kingston police still were in awe of him - even after his findings had been so thoroughly eviscerated by legions of other experts.

Harold Levy; hlevy15@gmail.com;


















We learn that the force initially were troubled by the fact that Smith had changed his opinion that Sharon had suffered about eighty stab wounds from scissors and knives when confronted by the opinions of a battery of defence experts all of whom siad that the wounds were inflicted by a dog.