The apology that Dr. Charles Smith made earlier today to Judge Patrick Dunn for two comments to reporter Jane O'Hara rang hollow in this Blogster's ears.
It still leaves open the possibility that Smith's account of his two alleged conversations with Dunn were a full-blown fantasy.
Smith admitted that his statement that Dunn told him that the babysitter in the Amber's case was "guilty" was false.
Smith also admitted that his statement that Dunn told him he believed Amber's case would have had a different result if tried in the 1990's because of new scientific knowledge was false.
His justification for making these two false statements he acknowledged were "harmful" to Dunn's reputation is that, "I believe I heard what I wanted to hear."
That's ludicrous.
It's like saying, "forgive me for my opinions that caused innocent people to be jailed, lose their other children to the authorities, and have their names placed on sexual offender lists, because that is what I wanted to believe."
The fact remains that even today Smith insisted that Dunn discussed Amber's case with him - while Dunn, deposed, in a sworn affidavit, that no such discussions had ever occurred.
During the course of the day Smith made numerous apologies to the innocent people he had caused to suffer.
These apologies had one thing in common: They were all made in cases where his misconduct was so notorious that there was nothing else that he could do.
I was not left with any confidence that these apologies came from his heart - if, indeed, he truly has one.
On several occasions, Dr. Smith told the Inquiry that he was "embarrassed" by his actions - which means, I suppose that they might sully the reputation of the great Dr. Charles Randal Smith.
How embarrassing!
If I seem angry and more sarcastic than usual - because even today - the day on which he says he is embarrassed, humbled, and contrite - there is something fundamental that he still does not seem to understand.
It is that pathologists who work in the criminal justice system bear a huge responsibility to be neutral, fair, thorough and accurate - because if they abuse their power innocent people may suffer.
On another note, I can't imagine how difficult it must have been for the fifteen individuals and family members who were sitting just a few feet away from Dr. Smith, as he tried to justify much of his misconduct.
One of them described her reasons for being present when Smith took the witness stand in an email She posted to friends over the Internet:
"I want this man to see he has not broken me nor my family nor my children," she said.
"I want this man to see that I still have a hell of a lot of fight left in me.
I want this man to know this is just the beginning for me yet the complete end for him.
I hope he loses he license to practice period.
If he can make mistakes and affect peoples lives in death then I am sure he has no problem doing it in life."
Another had to flee the hearing room in obvious distress just moments after Dr. Smith had begun testifying.
I wonder if I would have been able to show such restraint when finally confronted with this obnoxious, pedantic, professorial, and yes, arrogant man, who tore a hole in my life at a time when I should have been allowed to mourn the sudden loss of my child.
Their dignity is exemplary.
(My thanks to the reader who promptly pointed out that I had mixed up the Nicholas and Amber cases). This type of input is greatly appreciated. I have promptly made the necessary changes. HL;
Harold Levy; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Labor’s 30 pieces of voting silver
5 hours ago
