Goudge Inquiry: "Thinking Dirty: Dr. Cairns Defends "The Indefensible;"

This blogster was surprised to hear Dr. James Cairns, Deputy Chief Coroner attempt to defend the idea of "thinking dirty" which became an official policy in 1994 when it was circulated to Coroners, pathologists and polices services across Ontario.

"The police and the coroner are both at a scene as independent parties," said the memo which was circulated by then Chief Coroner, Dr. James Young.

"While working together they should also be prepared to vigorously, but fairly, question each other's conclusions about the death.

Everyone should be "thinking dirty" and not get lulled into accepting the most obvious conclusions at the beginning of an investigation."

This was not a few lines spouted from the podium of a coroner's conference.

It was an official document containing instructions from head office.

It was the party line.

I was surprised to hear Dr. Cairns defend this policy - using an example that all car accidents may not be innocent - because the policy, which was discontinued ten years later when Dr. Barry McLellan became chief coroner, is indefensible.

The evidence that it is indefensible lies in Dr. McLellan's stated reason for ordering a review into forty-five suspicious death of children cases in which Dr. Smith was involved, in order to restore public confidence in the coroner's office.

The evidence also lies before our very eyes in the twenty cases before the Goudge inquiries in which dirty thinking turned the most innocent but unfortunate falls, bumps of a child's head on a table, or the mere fact that a child's death could not be explained into homicides - and invariably into criminal charges.

Worse, the evidence lies in the all too many individuals who went through so much agony because of a policy based on suspicion rather than the dictates of science - a policy that turned doctors into police officers- and made heroes out of those who could boast that they, in true CSI fashion, had detected crimes.

But to Dr. Cairns, "thinking dirty" was just another slogan - as he put it, "like the Nike Swoosh."

Nike Swoosh?

When Commissioner Goudge pressed Dr. Cairns as to whether "thinking dirty" was akin to a presumption of guilt, Cairns replied: "No, it was not a presumption of guilt. It was to ensure that you haven't missed a homicide."

In this Blogster's humble opinion the coroner or pathologist should never be burdened with considerations of guilt or innocence.

His or her job is to independently, thoroughly and impartially gather the evidence - no matter where it may lead - and to ground all findings on the of science as opposed to suspicion or ideology.

We have all seen - through the evidence called thus far the inquiry - what happens when this isn't isn't the case.

Leave the policing to the cops.

Harold Levy; hlevy15@gmail.com;