It Was All A Big Game To Dr. Smith: Part One;

Dr. Charles Smith does not deny that he may have told a young girl present in court that the criminal justice system was "all a big game".

That is evident from his evidence at the Goudge Inquiry under cross-examination by by lawyer Peter Wardle who represents six families or caregivers affected by his opinions.

Here is the transcript: (Jan. 31, 2007)

MR. PETER WARDLE: And this is the cross-examination by Ms. (Cindy) Wasser, and do you recall that Ms. Wasser acted for one (1) of the accused in that case?

DR. CHARLES SMITH: Yes, yes.

MR. PETER WARDLE: And it begins:
"Doctor, yesterday while you were in
Court, did you notice a very young girl
sitting in the Court during the day?

A: There were two (2) or three (3)
that were in here during the course of
the day.

Q: And one (1) with long brown hair in
a gray suit, did you notice her?"
There was an objection, and then Ms. Wasser says:
"Did you approach the young lady after Court in the hallway?

A: I spoke to a student who was
sitting on the north side of the aisle
as I was leaving, yes.

Q: And this was a girl with long brown
hair?

A: Could be.

Q: And what did you say to her?

A: I don't remember.

Q: Did you ask her if she had enjoyed
the day?

A: I could have.

Q: And did she respond that she found
it was interesting?

A: I don't remember the conversation.
She should have.

Q: --"

DR. CHARLES SMITH: Could have.

MR. PETER WARDLE: "She could have," I'm sorry.

DR. CHARLES SMITH: Mm-hm.

MR. PETER WARDLE: "Q: Did you then say to her that you
found that this was all a big game?

A: I might have; I have no idea.

Q: You might have said that?

A: I might have".

Dr. Smith also acknowledged under cross-examination by Wardle that he viewed himself as playing on the prosecution's side in this big game, as the following portions of the transcript makes clear:

MR. PETER WARDLE: We had an interchange 11 yesterday, sir, at the beginning of examination, and I asked you some questions about "the chess game" of the
Judicial System, do you recall that?

DR. CHARLES SMITH: Yes.

MR. PETER WARDLE: And this is what you said to me at one (1) point: "Do you recall saying to us that on Monday, that at the beginning you thought your role was to support the Crown?" This is at page 192 of the transcript from
yesterday, by the way.

"Dr. Smith: Yes, yes, that's certainly
in the '90's was the -- was the
impression that I had, yes.

Q: As -- and as I took down your
evidence you said that later on you
understood that your role was to be
more impartial, that you were poor in
executing.

A: Yes, I believe that's correct.

Q: Do you agree, in retrospect, from
some of the admissions you've made this
week that you continued throughout to
take on that role of supporting the
Crown's case?

A: Yes, I -- I recognize that I have
made that error."

Sadly, by his own admission, Smith's determination to help the Crown the game affected the manner in which he presented his evidence in Sharon's case - where he tenaciously advanced his position that the child died as a result of stab wounds - as opposed to dog bites.

MR. PETER WARDLE: Do you agree now that our role in this case; your definitive opinion at the beginning; your definitive opinion to the police; your definitive opinion after the defence began raising the dog theory, and your definitive evidence at the preliminary inquiry.

Do you recognize that this was one of those cases where, as you told us yesterday, you -- you made that error of continuing throughout to take on the role of supporting the Crown's case?

DR. CHARLES SMITH: Once the -- once the issue -- I -- I recognize that my testimony in Court was -- was concrete. I -- I don't know how else to express
the fact that I recognize that error nor do I know how better I can explain what may have been the basis of that mistake.

I can hardly imagine how Sharon's mother and the other families and caregivers affected by Dr. Smith must have felt to learn that the man who appeared on the witness stand to be so professorial, neutral and disinterested saw his role as helping convict them and put them in jail.

It may have been a big game to Dr.Smith, but to them - good people who were mourning the loss of beloved children - the stakes included prison, loss of other children to the authorities, humiliation, and pariah status in their communities.

Out of fairness to Smith, he may not have been the only one who failed to understand his role in the criminal justice system - prosecutors were at fault as well.

As the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the landmark Boucher case:

"It cannot be over-emphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction, it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime.

Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented: it should be clone firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength but it must also be done fairly.

The role of prosecutor excludes any notion 'of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty than which in civil life there can be none charged with greater personal responsibility.

It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness and the just?ness of judicial proceedings."

To this Blogster it appears that even as the evidence of Smith's incompetence kept mounting, the province's prosecutors kept calling him up to the plate time after time to go to bat for them

Something is very wrong with that picture.

Next posting: It was all a big game for Dr. Smith: Part Two; Was he a mere pawn as he claims?

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;