Dr. Smith's Loss Of His Own Child: Does it Explain His Twisted Opinions?

The National Post suggests that Dr. Charles Smith's loss of his own infant child may have a bearing on his judgment in dealing with many of his cases, in a powerful opinion piece published today.

As reported earlier in this Blog, Smith mentioned the his child's death in an interview he gave reporter Christie Blatchford after completing his testimony in a notorious murder trial. (See Smith And the Media: Part One; Why media share some of the blame; October, 2007);

"Dr. Smith is a gentle man, and a religious one", wrote Blatchford.

"God loves the little children," he whispered to me on his way out of court. "As a Christian, I wondered, how did the love of God ever penetrate that bedroom?"

Once, on his way to the downtown courthouse from the farm north of the city where he raises beef cattle, Dr. Smith thought of his own baby son, who died years ago of birth defects.

"I remembered how my wife and I willed him to live," he said. "If only I could have transferred some of that here."

Dr. Smith reference to the loss of his child - during his testimony at the Goudge Inquiry - is noted in a National Post opinion piece which appears in today's paper under the heading "The Disgrace of Charles Smith."

(Smith made this reference after Commission Counsel Linda Rothstein questioned him about his professed "frustration" at having to participate in the court process,

"The downside was Court, but Court wasn't every day," Smith replied.

"The upside was, the work is extraordinarily challenging.

It's absolutely fscinating; rewarding beyond that which I can express to you.

How -- let me be personal here. My own experience with the death of a child gave me a certain sense of the -- of the pain that a parent can know and I saw, as well, some value in trying to give parents the best information possible."

The National Post opinion analysis begins with the assertion that, "That Dr. Charles Smith was professionally unfit in his former capacity as a forensic pathologist has now been clear for months."

"An Ontario coroner's inquiry into his practices, released last April, found that Dr. Smith had come to questionable, or downright incorrect, conclusions in 20 of the 45 cases reviewed by the coroner's office," it continues.

"On 13 occasions, his testimony was key to wrongful convictions. And in some cases, his expert evidence led to children being taken away from parents falsely accused of foul-play or homicide.

But what originally appeared to be a simple -- if appalling -- case of an incompetent medical practitioner took a bizarre twist this week when Dr. Smith spoke before an Ontario government-sponsored public inquiry into his actions.

Explaining how and why he came so often to such incorrect conclusions, Dr. Smith offered a panoply of excuses:

He lacked proper training; he was under the impression that his role was to support Crown prosecutors, not offer impartial testimony; the loss of his own infant child clouded his judgment in dealing with cases.

These admissions may help explain some of the more disturbing of Dr. Smith's botched cases.

In January, 1997, for instance, Dr. Smith testified that Brenda Waudby had beaten her two-year-old daughter to death.

Five years later, a crucial piece of forensic evidence (described in news reports as a "pubic-like hair") that had gone missing during the investigation turned up in his desk drawer.

In another case, an autopsy done by Dr. Smith led prosecutors to charge Louise Reynolds with second-degree murder for having killed her seven-year-old daughter.

Ms. Reynolds was held in jail for two years, until further investigation revealed that the child had been mauled to death by a pit bull.

In 1996, Sherry Sherret was convicted of infanticide in the death of her four-month-old son on the basis of Dr. Smith's testimony that the boy had a skull fracture and had been smothered.

Ms. Sherret was jailed and another of her children was sent to Children's Aid and eventually adopted by another family.

In 2006, the boy's body was exhumed and a new autopsy showed that there had been no skull fracture and that Dr. Smith himself had been the cause of marks on the boy's neck.

These "errors" are so extraordinary that they suggest Dr. Smith may actually have wilfully obstructed justice.

His repeated apologies during his Monday testimony and later in the week offer no solace to the families whose lives he shattered.

Indeed, some of the victims may well suspect that behind his contrition is a conscience rendered guilty by truly dark -- and not just accidental-- actions.

The public inquiry into Dr. Smith's record must now dig deeper -- both into what Dr. Smith did, and the reasons that such a pitiful specimen would be entrusted with the fate of those accused of some of the most horrible crimes imaginable."

Well said!

I couldn't agree more.

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;