Pathologist accuses smith of obstruction: Bowers Case;

"HE WITHELD, IN MY OPINION, ALL THE MATERIALS THAT I NEEDED," SHE (FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST DR. JANICE OPHOVEN) SAID;

REPORTER ROB TRIPP: KINGSTON WHIGG-STANDARD; APRIL 30, 2007;

A Minnesota pediatric forensic pathologist and medical examiner who served as an expert witness for the defence at Julie Bower's 1990 murder trial alleges that Dr. Charles Smith obstructed her efforts to obtain critical forensic exhibits.

Bowers was acquitted of murdering her 11-month-old son, Dustin, after a sensational 49-day trial.

Dr. Janice Ophoven makes the allegations in an interview with Kingston Whigg-Standard reporter Rob Tripp published on April 30, 2007.

Trip reported that, "When Ophoven was first called to review Smith's post-mortem report and other forensic evidence, she could not get important samples from Smith.

"He withheld, in my opinion, all the materials that I needed," she said.

When critical tissue slides were finally produced, Ophoven was shocked.

"They were from somebody else," she said.

Smith eventually produced the correct samples and although the slides weren't critical to her final conclusions, Ophoven was troubled by the behaviour of Smith, who had apparently kept the slides at his home.

"I've never had an experience like this," she said. "I drew a conclusion that [police and prosecutors] had a serious problem on their hands."

Tripp also reported Ophoven's comment that, "I found the process and [Smith's] opinions to be extremely troublesome," - and that she said that his behavior was erratic and he and that he was uncooperative.

"If you have a sentinel case that says something is really, really wrong, there's an obligation to verify if this was a single bad day or it was ... the tip of an iceberg," Ophoven told Tripp. "I would have marked this as a sentinel case."

Ophoven's allegations are extremely serious because they cast Smith as an adversarial party in the criminal justice process rather than an independent, impartial and unbiased Crown witness.

They join a growing list of disturbing allegations relating to forensic exhibits which have been published by this Blog, including:

0: Misplacing key forensic evidence in William Mullins-Johnson case which was later found on top of his desk in his office at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto; Forensic testing of the recovered exhibits led to his exoneration; (See previous posting: Mullins-Johnson: A troubling tale of missing exhibits);

O; Misplacing key evidence in the Brenda Waudby case which the defence lawyers said exonerated their client; (The evidence was found (untested) after the murder charge was withdrawn); (See discussion of missing evidence in Waudby case in previous posting: Trotta: Another Smith case involving misplaced evidence);

0: Misplacing of a skull reconstruction in the Louise Reynold's case which the defence contended would help prove their client's innocence. The cast was never found. (See previous posting: More forensic evidence allegedly misplaced by Dr. Charles Smith: Skull cast in the Louise Reynolds case);

0: Misplacing all of the forensic samples in the Marco and Anisa Trotta case meaning that the forensic materials were not available to the defence for Trotta's trial or appeals. (See previous posting: Trotta: Another Smith case involving misplaced evidence);

And now we are confronted with new allegations suggesting that as far back as 1990:

Smith kept forensic evidence from a murder case in his home;

Smith produced forensic materials from another case to the defence expert, and,

Smith deliberately frustrated defence efforts to obtain forensic materials from the Bower case so that could contest his opinion.

Mere sloppiness anyone?

Harold Levy.