A recent posting this blog focused on a discussion in which a Peterborough Lakefield police officer was asked if his force had ever considered, "charging Dr. Smith or investigating him as a result of our findings." (Police investigating Jenna killing considered charging Dr. Charles Randal Smith.")
The Peterborough officer made a note which read: "Advised that there had been minimal discussion at one time about whether we should question him further and it was determined that whatever documentation we had, we should turn over to the College of Physicians & Surgeons."
The officer added that "this was done", and that, "the coroner's office was made aware of our concerns."
The Inquiry's "Overview Report" into the Waudby case does not specify whether the officers were specifically referring to Dr. Smith's retention of the curly, black, male pubic-type hair which Smith seized at Jenna's autopsy and subsequently kept in his possession for five years.
But it's hard to imagine what else they might be talking about!
Waudby raised three concerns about Smith's retention of the hair in her appeal of the College decision to "caution" him'
0: That Dr. Smith had concealed the hair found at the autopsy from the authorities and courts;
0: How Dr. Smith got possession of the hair: and,
0: Why Dr. Smith testified he never saw a hair during the preliminary hearing;
The "Overview Report" says that a newspaper article indicates that Dr. Smith told the Appeal and Review Board that an officer refused the hair because it was contaminated.
In November, 2003, the panel released its decision rejecting Waudby's appeal on the basis that, "The panel could find no evidence to dispute the information provided by Dr. Smith."
"They also concluded that he never testified that he never saw the hair," the "Overview Report" says.
It will be interesting to learn during the next few months if the College, which is the governing body of the medical profession in Ontario, actually received the documents from the Peterborough police.
If the College did in fact receive them it would not seem to be unreasonable to ask for an explanation as to why it did not take action against Dr. Smith on its own initiative based on the documents provided by the police.
A future posting will examine how the Chief Coroner's office responded to revelations of Dr. Smith's misconduct in the Waudby case.
Triumph v Karma-la – the second coming
18 hours ago