Goudge Inquiry: Sharon's Case: Part Five: The Crown's Withdrawal Statement: A Tale Of Two Missing Paragraphs;

A previous posting of this Blog ran Prosecutor Bruce Griffith's entire address to the court on withdrawing the charge against Sharon's mother.

Well, almost the entire address.

According to a story in the Kingston Whigg-Standard, which is contained in the Overview Report of Sharon's case Griffith agreed to remove two paragraphs from his statement at the apparent request of Dr. James Young, then Ontario's Chief Coroner;

The Overview Report, prepared by Commission staff, says that according to the article, Dr. Young told the paper that, "the statement read by Mr. Griffith was altered - at Dr. Young's request - to remove statements "which incorrectly linked the decision to exhume Sharon's body in the summer of 1999 to the loss of the casting of her skull."

"Dr. Young also told the paper that, to the best of his knowledge, "the (lost) x-ray and the casting had nothing to do with the withdrawal of the charges."

The Overview Report then cites the following paragraphs from the Whigg-Standard story:

"Young said he has completed an investigation into the disappearance of the evidence and he has ordered another probe that will focus on Smith's conclusions about how the child died.

He acknowledged the statement read in open court yesterday by Crown Attorney Bruce Griffith was altered at his insistence that two paragraphs referring to the missing evidence be removed.

"Shortly after learning that the casting had been misplaced, the Crown, after consultation with the Chief Coroner's office, obtained an order to have the body of the deceased child exhumed," reads one of the excised paragraphs.

The chief coroner said the draft incorrectly linked the decision to exhume Sharon's body in the summer of 1999 to the loss of the casting of her skull.

"The lost evidence was not the motivation for the exhumation," Young said. The decision to exhume the body followed his office's discovery that there was a growing dispute about what role a dog may have played in Sharon's death, he said.

"I think my office acted very appropriately in raising the issue with the police and the Crown Attorney, encouraging the exhumation, carrying out the exhumation," Young said.

The missing X-ray, taken during the first post-mortem examination, may still be at the hospital.t or how, but it was lost n the X-rays at Sick Kids," he said.

Young said he told hospital officials that in future, exhibits must be segregated from other sample, and kept in a secure place "We want much greater care taken in the handling of exhibits," he said. "They're aware of the need to improve this area."

More important than the lost material, Young maintains, is an independent review of Smith's initial conclusions that the girl was murdered and that a dog did not attack her.

"Whether Dr. Smith's view, initially, is supportable, is the purpose of having the review," Young said, adding that Smith has voluntarily withdrawn from conducting forensic investigations for the Office of the Chief Coroner...Young said he decided Wednesday, when he learned that the Crown would withdraw the murder charge, that an internal review was needed.

"Likely what I will do is have an external reviewer, an expert in pediatric pathology, review the case for us and give us their views on it" Young said. "It was my initiative."

The Whigg-Standard story was published the day after Griffith withdrew the second-degree murder charge against Sharon's mother.

The Overview Report says that, "On January 24, 2001, it appears that Mr. Stewart (a prosecutor H.L.) faxed Dr. Young a draft version of the submissions regarding the withdrawal of charges against (Sharon's mother)."

The Overview Report also tell us that there were "differing reports" about how the misplaced cast of the penetrating wounds the skull bone affected the decision to conduct an exhumation and second post-mortem examination.

"Some of the parties contend that the exhumation and second autopsy were ordered because Dr. Smith misplaced the cast taken at the original post-mortem."

One view, that of Crown Law Officer Jack McKenna, is cited - from McKenna's submissions to the Court on the role of "delay" in the case:

"The reasons for the delay?" McKenna told Court.

"Of course, the preliminary, in this mater, with other counsel, dragged on for weeks, which caused a delay.

And then new counsel was brought on, which resulted in a further delay, as they brought themselves up to speed on this file.

From there, there was considerable difficulty in obtaining the essential material from the previous defence counsel - which has really just been completed now, I understand.

And then, very recently, I was advise that the pathologist who testified at the preliminary...a certain piece of evidence which was introduced at the preliminary, he was allowed to take that away with him, and he's lost it.

So we're now into a further investigation - and, in fact, I've made an application to Attorney General (sic) to exhume the body, and that is going to cause some further delay."

The Overview report also notes that, "in reasons refusing the motion for a change of venue on June 26, 2000, Justice Lally stated, "Because of misadventures in the Coroner's office, Sharon's body was exhumed in July, 1999."

To this humble Bloggist, the reasons for the exhumation are of secondary importance.

The question as to to why Dr. Young - either as Chief Coroner of Ontario or as Assistant Deputy Minister in the Ministry of the Solicitor General - was allowed direct input into the withdrawal of the charge by the prosecutors is, at least in my personal view, of greater significance.

Commissioner Goudge is required to make systemic recommendations which will improve forensic pediatric pathology in Ontario and restore public confidence in the Coroner's system.

I wonder how the public can have confidence in a system in which the Crown's office, the Chief Coroner's office, and the Ministry of the Solicitor General appear to be so intricately intertwined.

The apparent conflict is all the more serious, in my view, as many of the cases involving Dr. Smith involved allegations both against the police (who come under the ambit of the solicitor general), the Coroner's office (also under the Solicitor general), and the Attorney general and its prosecutors.

I am also troubled by Dr. Young's reported comments that he intended to make known to the Hospital for Sick Children the need to improve its system for safe-guarding forensic exhibits.

We know from the Mullins-Johnson case that the Hospital did not put in a system for safeguarding, protecting and tracking exhibits sent to the pathology lab from outside the hospital until 2004, when former Chief Coroner Dr. Barry McLellan began tracking down the missing exhibits from Valin's autopsy.

If the Hospital had been put on notice that it had to take action back in 2001 why was nothing ever done?

Lastly, Dr. Young gave assurance through the Whigg-Standard that an independent review would be conducted.

That review never took place.

Why Not?

More grist for Justice Goudge's mill...

(See previous posting: Sharon's case: Part two: More Revelations; Smith claims Solicitor General agreed "to back me.")

Harold Levy; hlevy15@gmail.com;