Practice What You Preach, Dr. Smith;

One of the most revealing exhibits filed at the Goudge Inquiry is a speech called "See you in court: (The Invitation You can't Refuse)" that Dr. Smith presented to anesthesia students in May, 1992);

Dr. Smith described it as a speech, "on how to be a better expert witness" in a letter he sent to Deputy Chief Coroner Dr. James Cairns.

Commission Counsel Linda Rothstein was quick to point out that at this juncture in his career Dr. Smith did not have any experience as an expert witness - and asked him why he did not turn down the invitation to deliver it - to which Dr. Smith replied:

"Well, I -- I don't think I -- it would be fair to say that it was what I had
learned thus far. Virtually all of this was -- was information which I had -- had borrowed from others or gotten in discussion with others, so -- so some of this was my own experience, but much of it was -- was based upon what I was -- was told because I had no experience in those areas."

Stopping right there, this is a classic example of Dr. Smith's willingness to charge ahead - and take on responsibilities - in areas in which he was ignorant.

The timing was also significant;

Dr. Smith accepted the invitation to deliver this paper in May 1992 - around the same time that he agreed to head the newly established pediatric Ontario Forensic Pediatric Pathology Unit at the Hospital For Sick Children.

He candidly admitted in his testimony over the last several days that he new nothing about forensic pathology - or the justice system - when he took on that job for which he had neither professional qualifications or experience.

(Another classic example of a serious character flaw: A willingness to thrust himself in positions which are over his head without any consideration of the responsibilities involved and how it may affect other people.)

Unless, of course, he lived in a fantasy world at the time, and actually thought he was the wise, ethical, truth-telling, knowledgeable expert witness he was portraying himself as by delivering the speech.

In this Blogster's view, the speech tells us how created the persona of "Dr. Charles Randal Smith" - back in 1992 - like an actor writing his own script, playing the role to the hilt and convincing the audience that he really is the character he so skillfully portrays.

In short, Dr. Smith cunningly, and in a calculated manner, created the persona through speeches such as this and colleagues at the Hospital for Sick Children and the Chief Coroner's Office quite naturally bought in.

It was a pivotal moment;

His new position as head of the impressive sounding Ontario Forensic Pediatric Pathology Unit - I stress "forensic" - helped reinforce the illusion - and served as a prop for his performance as the impressive, experienced forensic pathologist.

The speech also reveals another unfortunate character trait: A willingness to coast on the work of others - making himself look good - without giving them credit.

Dr. Smith may have admitted to Rothstein under cross-examination that he had borrowed "virtually all of this" from others - but he didn't tell this to his audience - who would naturally assume this was all coming from him.

Nor, with one or two exceptions, did he acknowledge the specific source of the information which did not emanate from himself for the benefit of his audience.

That, of course, would have tainted the illusion.

(He actually uses the word "lifted" when he describes how he described how he obtained the contents for the speech - and raises even further questions about Dr. Smith's honesty);

Commission Counsel Rothstein used this speech brilliantly to illustrate the gaping Grand Canyonesque disconnect between the advice Dr. Smith was giving the students on what was required to be an expert witness - and his own career which has drawn the very term "expert witness" into disrepute.

She pointed out passages like:

0: (From the section: "What it means to be an expert, Fact": "The most important part of your evidence is the fact that you are a trained expert. You must communicate in such a way that the jury is convinced of your professional status. They need to know that you are current, credible, competent, capable."

0: (Same section): "The trier of fact, the judge or jury, has to base the decision on fact; however, the understanding or interpretation of a fact may be beyond the ability of a layperson if that fact is of a complex, technical, scientific or medical nature. Therefore, the law recognizes that a judge or jury can be helped by a person who can interpret facts to them. Thus, your role as an expert witness allows you to make statements of fact and interpretation or opinion. It is a significant responsibility and must not be taken lightly."

(Rothstein was also making the point that this fixes Smith's detailed knowledge of the justice system back in 1992: Smith testified under oath at the inquiry that he was utterly ignorant about forensic science and about the justice system because no one taught him how they worked!)

Try this one on for size: Under the heading "Ethics of this position"; "You must show that you are ethical. It is only ethics that bind what you do to what you say. Don't ever get to the place where you have to say, I'm the expert, trust me; the judge and jury won't.." ,

("Those words are apt today are they not, Sir?" Rothstein asked Smith. " I -- I think they are, yeah," he replied.)

Dr. Smith's 17-page speech was filed as an exhibit at the Inquiry.

I am enclosing an unedited version in the next posting - but please note, dear readers. It is entirely Dr. Charles Smith's work - not mine!

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;