I CANNOT SPECIFICALLY RECALL ATTENDING THE AUTOPSY...
DR. DIRK HUYER, DIRECTOR OF THE SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT (SCAN) PROGRAM AT THE HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN IN HIS LETTER TO THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS;
This Blog recently showed how Dr. Charles Smith told the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons that he had been assisted at the autopsy on 21-month-old Jenna by Dr. Dirk Huyer. (See recent posting: Smith mislead College on Waudby case: (November);
Dr. Smith had been asked by the College to respond to a complaint filed against him by Brenda Waudby, Jenna's mother.
Dr. Huyer was Director of the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN) program at the Hospital for Sick Children.
"At the time of the postmortem examination, a sexual abuse examination was
performed by me," Dr. Smith said in his letter to the College dated Dec. 21, 2001;
"In this I was assisted by Dr. Dirk Huyer, the Director of the
Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN) program at the Hospital for Sick
Children."
It is therefore instructive look at Dr. Huyer's letter to the College in reference to Waudby's complaint, dated Feb. 19, 2002 (about two months later)."
"I would frequently attend autopsies at the Hospital for Sick Children when deaths involved forensic evaluations." Dr. Huyer wrote;
"This attendance related to my interest in the area of forensic evaluation.
Dr. Charles Smith was most commonly the pathologist completing the post mortem examinations.
He and I would discuss various aspects of the evaluation in a collegial manner;
As I recall in 1997, my typical approaching considering the need for completion of a sexual abuse evidence kit (forensic evidence collection) in a patient (who was live) would be based on the clinical presentation.
(The College found, on Waudby's complaint, that Smith had failed to use a rape kit on Jenna (HL);
The most important factors would include: history of sexual abuse concerns, symptoms or signs of genital injury (bleeding, pain, observed injury), and time since the reported incident.
When children would present for medical evaluation because of concerns of physical abuse (i.e. unexplained traumatic injuries) visual examination of the genitalia would typically be included in the physical examination, but without additional factors (as noted above) present, a forensic kit would not be completed;"
(Bloggists note: An Overview Report prepared by Commission staff indicates that the following observations were made of Jenna when she was brought to the hospital in Peterborough.
"Dr. Friesen observed numerous areas of bruising on Jenna. He also observed possible rectal stretching and tears in the vulva and a curly hair in the vulva. His Emergency record noted, inter alia, “curly hair found on vulva area? Source.”
Dr. Loukras, who also treated Jenna, noted a rectal tear, genitalia bruising to the anus and a swollen labia. Dr. Loukras suspected both child and sexual abuse.
Cst. Steve Rudback, of the Peterborough Lakefield Community Police Service, took
possession of Jenna’s body after she died. He made notes of his observations of the body including injuries and that “while with Dr. Thompson Nurse pointed out thread on vaginal area partly imbedded (inserted) between labia.”
Nurses Sally Kater, Brenda Love and Lori Mason all noticed the hair in Jenna’s vaginal area.")
"I have not found any notes or documentation relating to my involvement in the post mortem evaluation of Jenna," Dr. Huyer continued in his letter to the College.
"I am aware of the circumstances of the death and the investigation surrounding the death.
I have had conversations with professionals involved in the case since the death.
I cannot specifically recall attending the autopsy although I do recall having conversation with investigating officers around the time of the death discussing potential suspects.
When I would attend autopsy procedures, Dr. Smith and I would generally examine the genitalia together.
I would discuss the findings verbally with Dr. Smith.
It was my impression that he would document the results of our examination.
Given the age of the child, if there were no specific concerns of sexual abuse and there was no evidence of genital injury, I would not have likely recommended completion of specific forensic testing to evaluate for sexual contact.
It is my opinion that without specific injury to the hymen, forensic finding of semen sperm in the vaginal vault would be unlikely in a child this age."
(Bloggists note: A teenage babysitter was charged with two counts of sexual assault following his confession and arrest - and subsequently pleaded to manslaughter. (See previous posting: More revelations on Waudby case from Overview Report;(November));
I can't help but think about the the Thibeault case in which Smith swore in an affidavit that he had had a consultation with a neuropathologist at the Hospital for Sick Children named Dr. Venita Jay.
"In this case such a procedure (the consultation (HL)) was undertaken," Smith says in his affidavit.
"The gross and microscopic neuropathologic observations were made by Dr. Venita Jay and me...Dr. Jay did not issue a written report, but communicated her opinion to me verbally." See previous posting: Questions going to the heart of Dr. Smith's credibility;)
Dr. Jay is on record as informing the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, in December, 2000, when contacted for her records of the "consultation" that, "I have no recollection of the above case at this time."
She, too, was unable to produce any notes or documents relating to her involvement in the post mortem examination of Jenna.
Deja Vu, anyone?
Harold Levy;
Triumph v Karma-la – the second coming
17 hours ago
