(A CBC Fifth Estate investigation appropriately called "Diagnosis: Murder" exposed the enormous harm Dr. Charles Smith caused to innocent parents and caregivers within Ontario's criminal justice system.
The police probe of Lianne Gagnon - after Smith turned an accidental bump on the head into a suspected homicide - comes under intense scrutiny in the documentary, which ran on November, 10, 1999.
This Blogster would love to see the CBC re-run this powerful program before Dr, Smith enters the witness box at the Goudge Inquiry on Monday under compulsion of a subpoena. (This transcript was filed as an exhibit at the Goudge Inquiry);
It makes us look directly at the human cost imposed on innocent people by Dr. Smith - and those who looked the other way as the evidence of his incompetence mounted - as contrasted with the more abstract systemic issues being explored by the Inquiry.)
------------
"It would be comforting to think that Lianne's ordeal was an isolated case, but it's not. Another occurred in the early nineties in the Northern Ontario lumber town of Timmins. In this case another report by Dr. Charles Smith led to a 12-year-old girl being charged with manslaughter following the death of 16-month-old toddler she was babysitting. The doctor alleged a case of baby-shaking. The baby-sitter swore the child struck its head when it fell down a small flight of stairs.
From the outset the case was embroiled in controversy. Dr. Smith allowed the body to be buried without an autopsy even though he admitted he already had suspicions that the death may not have been accidental. But it turned out that Dr. Smith did have to do an autopsy, and the newly buried body had to be exhumed. Once the autopsy was done, more problems.
Dr. Floyd Gilles, head of Pediatric Neuropathology at the Children's Hospital in Los Angeles testified at the Timmins trial.
Dr. Floyd Gilles: (head of Paediatric Neuropathology Children's Hospital Los Angeles); It's the kind of autopsy that I would report, that I would not allow out of my training program which I had for many years in Boston. It was too lacking in specific detail.
Malarek: According to Dr. Gilles, standard autopsy practices were neglected.
Gilles: For instance, one strips all of the dura form inside the skull and looks for cracks. As far as I could tell from the pictures obtained at the time of the autopsy, the dura had not been stripped, so he could not adequately look for fractures.
Malarek: Dr. Smith said that even if he had found a linear fracture, he still would have concluded death by shaking;
Gilels: Well, I think that's an error. I think that's wrong.
Malarek: Dr. Gilles wasn't the only one who thought Dr. Smith got it wrong. During the trial, numerous medical experts appeared on behalf of the defence, testifying that this wasn't a baby-shaking death. And in his acquittal, the judge was harsh on Dr. Smith. He criticized him for not seriously considering possibilities other than shaking. He was concerned that Dr. Smith's assumptions might "colour his approach to the facts". And he concluded, "For these reasons I am not inclined to put much weight on Dr. Smith's opinion".
(To Dr. Gilles): How serious are the above criticisms? This is what the judge is saying.
Gilles: These are very serious. These are very serious because someone has been charged here and faces a serious outcome. And one has to be very careful about making these statements without adequate evidence.
Malarek: But according to Deputy Coroner James Cairns the judge simply got it wrong.
Cairns: I, with due respect, feel that the medical evidence was confusing and that the judge may not have clearly understood all the evidence that was being given.
Malarek: Although the 12-year-old babysitter was acquitted, (indecipherable)...(suggesting that there is no recourse against incompetent pathologists in an atmosphere where some critics are saying forensic pathology in Canada is in serious trouble.)
Dr. James Ferris: forensic pathologist, Vancouver): It's basically rather unhealthy;
Malarek: Dr. James Ferris is a forensic pathologist working in Vancouver. He was trained and certified through the Royal College of Pathologists in Britain and has worked on many high profile cases.
Ferris: We are short of forensic pathologists, we have really no formal training programs, and there is no such thing as certification in forensic pathology in this country.
Malarek: Although sine Canadian pathologists have gone through the rigorous certification process in the U.S. or Britain, it's not the norm. Most, like Dr Charles Smith, are pathologists who pick up forensic training and experience along the way. Often these pathologists are called in court as so-called experts in areas outside their field of expertise.
(To Dr. Ferris); When pathologists cross their area of expertise what problems can that cause?
Ferris: First of all they may be talking about something they know nothing about, but because the court(s) have qualified them as an expert, they are given authority to talk that is really not justified. And I suppose the danger is that they may be completely wrong.
Malarek: (To Dr. Cairns); So when someone says that the situation in Canada is unhealthy, you're saying in Ontario it's what?
Cairns: I'm saying in Ontario we have recognized for quite a number of years that there needed to be an upgrade in forensic pathology, and we are doing all in our power to, in fact, accomplish that.
Malarek: No formal training, no accreditation, no peer review - it's a worrisome combination when you realize that these people are making crucial decisions in cases where innocent people could end up being dragged through the court system or sent to prison.
Malarek: Today Dr. Smith is at the centre of another controversial case. It involves the death of 7-year-old Sharon Reynolds in Kingston, Ontario. She was found in the basement of the family home with eighty-two (82) wounds to her body; What has aroused attention is another heated debate over medical pathology: Dr. Smith says the injuries are eighty-two (82) stab wound inflicted by the child's mother, Louise. Dr. Ferris has looked at the autopsy results and concludes they weren't stab wounds at all.
Ferris: Well, I believe that all the injuries on (Sharon's) body are consistent with being caused by a dog.
Malarek: Dog bites;
Ferris: Dog bites, because all of those injuries are associated with extensive crushing and splitting and damage to the tissues that you simply do not get in stabbing.
Malarek: Adding to the mystery, a pit bull was seen in and around the house with red stains on its mouth. For now, however, the Louise Reynold's case boils down to a difference of opinion between Dr. Ferris and Dr. Smith. It is schedules to go to trial in the middle of (indecipherable). By then Louise Reynolds will have spent three years in some form of custody, and if the court agrees with Dr. Smith's version, she can face the rest of her life in prison."
(Next posting: Smith takes the stand: The doctor and the judge; Truth or Fantasy? Part One);
(See previous postings:
Lawyers warned "to guard" against Dr. Smith's testimony back in 1993; (October, 2007);
Dr. Smith's "mistakes": The Timmins case: Independent reviewers fond a litany of errors; (November, 2007);
Sharon's Case: Part One: Notable quotes from expanded medico-legal report; (November, 2007);
Sharon's case: Part two: More revelations: Smith claims Solicitor General agrees, "to back me." November, 2007;
Sharon's case: Part three: Kingston police defended Dr. Charles Smith after murder charge withdrawn;
Sharon's case: Part Four: Prosecutor's explanation why murder charge withdrawn; November, 2007;
Sharon's case: Part Five: The Crown's withdrawal statement: A tale of two missing paragraphs; November, 2007;
Sharon's case: Part Six: Kingston police lose bid to keep out documents; November, 2007;
Sharon's case; Part Seven; Police and pathologists and dirt; November, 2007;
Sharon's case: Part Eight; The unravelling of an expert; November, 2007;)
Harold Levy: hlevy15@gmail.com...
Labor’s 30 pieces of voting silver
6 hours ago
