"AND BECAUSE YOU TELL US YOU DON'T REMEMBER WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE INDEED AT --AT THE AUTOPSY, IS IT FAIR TO SAY, DR. HUYER, THAT YOU DON'T REMEMBER THEREFORE THERE BEING ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE HAIR?," ROTHSTEIN ASKED.
"NO. I DON'T", HUYER REPLIED;
One of the fascinating issues that has emerged at the Goudge inquiry is the extent to which Dr. Charles Smith was backed up by his colleagues in the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN) Unit At the Hospital for Sick Children.
This Blog has looked at that relationship in several contexts including:
0: Amber's case, where Judge Dunn severly criticized the evidence caled by the SCAN team and subsequently dismissed Dunn as an inexperienced family court judge "at the bottom of the heap," at a "damage control" meeting called by the Hospital. (See previous posting:
0: the Mullins-Johnson case where Dr. Marcelllina Mian (a physician) testified in a court hearing that she had "deferred" to Dr. Smith in a forensic report she co-authored with Smith making a clear finding - later proven erroneous -that 4-year-old Valin had been sexually assaulted and then strangled; See previous posting:
A third case raising questions about the relationship between Smith and the SCAN team came up at the Goudge Inquiry on Thursday during examination of Dr. Dirk Huyer, a former SCAN team director, by Commission Counsel Linda Rothstein.
By way of context, Smith, who had failed to conduct a standard rape kit test on Baby Jenna in the Waudby, buttressed his opinion that Jenna had not been sexually assaulted by saying that he had received a supportive second opinion from Huyer, who, Smith claimed, was present at the autopsy.
(An "overview report" on the Waudby case by Commission staff, contains a letter from Dr. Smith to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.
The letter states that: "At the time of the postmortem examination, a sexual abuse examination was performed by me. 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."
The letter also states that, >"He (Dr. Dirk Huyer) and I agreed that there was no evidence of abuse. Nevertheless, appropriate sampling was undertaken," the posting began.)
Huyer's presence at the autopsy - and his supportive weight - would clearly have given enormous support to Smith's credibility - and to his medical opinion, which subsequently came under fire when the baby sitter was charged not only with murder - but with two counts of sexually assaulting Jenna;
Did Dr. Huyer actually attend the autopsy as claimed by Smith?
The "overview report" tells us that, "On January 17, 2002, D/Cst. Charmley (a Peterborough police investigator H.L. ) spoke with Dr. Huyer by telephone. Dr. Huyer was aware of Jenna’s case, but had no recollection or notes of attending her autopsy."
Later that day, Charmley sent Huyer a letter stating: "Further to our telephone conversation of January 17, 2002, I am faxing this letter to request a response of your recollection of being in attendance at [Jenna‘s] autopsy on January 22, 1997, at the Hospital for Sick Children.
Dr. Charles Smith has indicated that you were present during the examination, in particular for your expertise in the area of sexual abuse."
I would appreciate a copy of any notes you may have or a written explanation of
how you participated in this examination.
Dr. Huyer began his reply by noting that: "This letter follows your letter and our conversation earlier today about my involvement in the death investigation of [Jenna], specifically my attendance at the autopsy and involvement in the examination of the child at that time."
"I am aware of the circumstances of the death and the investigation surrounding
the death," he continued.
"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 a conversation with the investigating officers around the time of the death,
discussing potential suspects.
While I don’t recall specifically attending the autopsy, I would frequently attend
autopsies at the Hospital for Sick Children when deaths involved traumatic
injuries.
This related to my interest in injury evaluation as an expert in the area of child maltreatment (including medical aspects of sexual abuse).
When I would attend during autopsy procedures, Dr. Charles Smith and I would
frequently discuss injuries and autopsy findings.
I would generally examine the genitalia in these cases with Dr. Smith. We would discuss the examination.
At that time I did not typically complete notes and would not have completed a
report. Today I asked the secretary at the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN) program at the Hospital for Sick Children to search for any documentation related to this child- she did not find any."
The dilemma as to whether Dr. Huyer was present, as Dr. Smith claims, is also complicated by the fact that Dr. Smith recorded in his handwritten notes of Jenna's death, "Hymen examined by D. (sic) Huyer."
However, the fact that Dr. Smith wrote these words doesn't mean Dr. Huyer was actually there - and there does not appear to be any concrete evidence indicating that he was there.
The nagging doubts about Dr. Smith's claim that Huyer was present will not go away.
Indeed, Commission Counsel Linda Rothstein asked Dr. Huyer directly: MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: "What can you tell us today about whether or not you were in attendance at the autopsy of Jenna for any portion of it?
"Well, as -- as you've commented in -- in initiating this conversation, the --
Dr. Smith says that I was there. I don't have a reason to doubt Dr. Smith saying that I was there. I don't remember being there."
But Dr. Huyer said his recollections might be confused because of different involvement he had with the case such as discussions with the investigating officers and participation in lectures where it was discussed.
Asked by Rothstein as to why he would have had discussions with police investigators investigating a death if he had not been at the autopsy, Huyer replied:
"Yeah. No, that suggests that I could have been there at the time, but also I had frequent involvement with the Peterborough Police, and it may have been another case at the same sort of time.
That suggests I could have been there and would support me being there around the pre-autopsy discussions which were common, and that the investigators may have been there.
They may have seen me for some other reason around that time as well 'cause Peterborough was one (1) of the referral sources for us in injuries to children, sexual abuse, that we would be receiving informa -- children directly from Peterborough."
Rothstein then zeroed in on why Huyer was involved, "in so many discussions of this case on a teaching basis over the years and before very recently."
To which Huyer replied:
"There's some pretty dramatic findings in this child and findings that are not
often seen in -- in child maltreatment or in death evaluations of children.
And I have utilized this case as a teaching case based upon the photographs, based upon the autopsy findings, and my understanding of Dr. Smith's evaluation, at that time, of what the findings were and how the -- the case was a complicated case in trying to sort through.
I haven't used it as a teaching case since my involvement in '94. This was all pre '94 when I used it.
Rothstein then asked a question which goes to the heart of whether Huyer was present or not.
It related to one of the most disturbing aspects of the Waudby case: the fact that Dr. Smith - by his own admission - removed a male type dark curly pubic hair from Jenna's vulva area which he did not disclose to the authorities.
It is reasonable to wonder if Dr. Huyer was at the autopsy, as an expert in the sexual abuse of children wouldn't he have paid close attention to such an important discovery.
It is also reasonable to wonder, if, indeed Dr. Huyer, the head of a sexual abuse unit at an important hospital, was present at the autopsy, how he would not have insisted on a battery of further examinations, including appropriate swabs, a complete rape kit, and protection of the evidence.
"And because you tell us you don't remember whether or not you were indeed at -- at the autopsy, is it fair to say, Dr. Huyer, that you don't remember therefore there being any discussion about the hair?," Rothstein asked.
"No, I don't", Huyer replied.
But Dr. Huyer made it very clear that if he had been at an autopsy where a hair of this nature had been discovered in these circumstances - especially where a possible suspect was the teenage boy babysitter - he would have done all of these things.
As the transcript indicates, the last word on the issue of whether Dr. Huyer was present at the autopsy went to Commissioner Goudge, who asked him: "Doesn't all
that suggest to you, Dr. Huyer, you weren't at the autopsy?"
"My colleague says I was at the autopsy. I mean, I can't dispute the fact that my colleague has said that I was at the autopsy. I've forgotten things," Huyer replied.
"I forgot I was at the Amber Conference. Could I have forgotten that I was at the
autopsy? Was I there maybe only part of the autopsy?
Maybe I came after the hair was collected; maybe I came before the hair was collected; maybe I looked at the genitals.
Honestly, Commissioner, I don't know."
The transcript continues as follows:
COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Okay.
DR. DIRK HUYER: And, I mean, somebody has commented that I was there, I -- I can't challenge the voracity of that, because I don't have independent recollection --
COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right.
DR. DIRK HUYER: -- to being anywhere else.
One thing is clear - the only thing! - to this humble Bloggist:
If Dr. Huyer had been required to make notes recording his participation in Jenna's autopsy, his observations, and his opinion, there would be no lingering confusion or suspicion today.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com
Labor’s 30 pieces of voting silver
6 hours ago
