"THE SYSTEM - AN AMORPHOUS COLLECTIVE OF POLICE, PROSECUTORS, DEFENCE LAWYERS, DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS - DOES NOT OPERATE WITH THE RUTHLESS EFFICIENCY OF A TV CRIME DRAMA, EVIDENCE AT THE INQUIRY HAS SHOWN. AT TIMES, IT APPEARS FRIGHTENINGLY INEPT, BOTH AT DOING THE WORK THAT IS ITS RAISON D'ETRE AND AT MONITORING ITS OWN PERFORMANCE".
FROM "SYSTEM FAILURE" BY ROBB TRIPP; KINGSTON WHIG-STANDARD;
Several of our readers have suggested that I highlight "System failure" - an analysis of many of the important things that have been learned thus far at the Goudge Inquiry.
The story is by reporter Robb trip who has distinguished himself by his fine reporting on "Sharon's Case" and the larger context involving Dr. Charles Smith and Ontario's badly broken pediatric forensic pathology system, for the Kingston Whig-Standard;
It is particularly relevant in view of the recently filed witness statement in which Dr. Martin Queen says he heard Kingston police making disparaging comments about Sharon's mother during Sharon's autopsy. (See: Kingston Police disparaged Sharon's mother during autopsy; Witness Statement; Sunday Feb. 10, 2009);
"More than 50 days of testimony at a provincial inquiry did not foster any certainty about how Sharon, a seven-year-old Kingston girl, died in a filthy basement 11 years ago," the story begins.
"No certainty, although the case is central to the work of the inquiry as it reviews more than a decade of faulty child-death investigations in Ontario.
There is certainty now about two things.
The pathologist who conducted the autopsy on the mutilated body of the child, Dr. Charles Smith, was stunningly inept and poorly supervised.
The system in which he worked failed miserably in its narrow-minded quest to affix blame for Sharon's death.
"Justice is never going to be served for that little girl," says Lynn Bergeron, a factory worker in Cornwall.
Bergeron lived four doors away from Louise Reynolds and her daughter Sharon on June 12, 1997, the night Sharon's body was found in the basement of her Rosemund Crescent townhouse.
Bergeron took the distraught mother into her home, comforted her and helped search the neighbourhood that night when Sharon could not be found.
"It still haunts me," says Bergeron. "Not a week goes by that I don't think of her."
It frustrates her that the inquiry has deepened, not resolved, the mystery.
"Everyone's forgetting about this little girl," she says.
Advertisement
The Goudge commission was established by the province after a shocking review by the Office of the Chief Coroner.
It found that Smith, once considered the country's leading expert on suspicious child deaths, made mistakes in 20 cases, including at least a dozen in which wrongful convictions may have occurred.
The inquiry's mandate is to find out what went wrong and offer recommendations to restore public confidence and to fix a badly broken system. It was not charged with uncovering the truth about how 20 children died.
That may never be possible, particularly in Sharon's case.
Louise Reynolds was charged with second-degree murder in June 1997, two weeks after her daughter died.
Sharon had been savaged.
There were more than 80 wounds to her arms, neck and head. A large portion of her scalp was torn from her head and tossed on the floor a metre from her body.
Police theorized that Reynolds, a single mother living on welfare, stabbed her third-born child in a fit of rage over recurring head lice.
Smith was assigned by his boss, chief coroner Dr. James Young, to do the autopsy, he has testified.
Smith had virtually no experience with penetrating injuries or animal attacks, the inquiry heard, although by then he had been doing coroner's autopsies for 16 years.
Smith concluded that Sharon was stabbed to death. When the defence raised the notion that a pit bull terrier that was in the basement that night attacked the child, Smith was unequivocal.
It was "absurd" to suggest a dog had anything to do with the child's death, Smith testified at a preliminary hearing in Kingston in 1998. A judge ordered Reynolds to stand trial for murder.
With that, the justice system bore down on the accused mother, unrelentingly for another three years, until prosecutors withdrew the charge in the face of uncertain forensic evidence.
After a second autopsy, other experts concluded that most of Sharon's injuries were attributable to a dog attack. Smith changed his opinion.
In January 2001, the system released its grip on Reynolds.
For many observers, the story was concluded - a dog did it.
This tidy explanation hasn't satisfied everyone, the inquiry revealed.
Insp. Brian Begbie, one of the key Kingston Police investigators on the case, made it clear he still has doubts about what happened.
"Not one defence expert ... has been able to definitively say all of these wounds - all of these wounds - were caused by a dog," Begbie testified.
Begbie alluded to mountains of other circumstantial evidence the police amassed that was never tested in a courtroom.
There were signs of a cleanup in the basement that night.
There were conflicting accounts from witnesses that the man who owned the pit bull in the basement that night found Sharon's body long before police officers did.
There were conflicting statements about whether Sharon's body was found covered in garbage bags - although no bags covered her when she was found by police.
A large sweatshirt, soaked in blood, was found near Sharon's body.
Begbie still has doubts about the forensic findings. He noted that one of the final experts to consider the evidence, a renowned forensic anthropologist in Tennessee, found marks on Sharon's skull that he didn't think were dog injuries.
"The dog didn't put the marks there, so what did?" Begbie responded under questioning by Peter Wardle, a lawyer who represents Reynolds. Wardle said some experts believe that those marks were made during the first autopsy.
Begbie said police investigated the possibility and were told that no one used a scalpel on the child's skull in the area where the marks appear.
Begbie is not alone in his doubt.
Dr. Robert Wood, a forensic dentist and bite-mark expert who mistook dog injuries for stab wounds when he first considered the case, testified that he still has misgivings.
"I even believe that some of the marks were stab marks in the head," Wood told the inquiry.
Smith did not use his testimony at the inquiry as a chance to permanently distance himself from the mystery of Sharon's death.
Instead, he said he was never convinced that Louise Reynolds was guilty.
"I always recognized that she could have been innocent," Smith testified. "The determination of who was responsible for Sharon's death was not mine."
Begbie also noted, cryptically, that Kingston Police continue to work on the case, although he did not elaborate.
Smith's appearance at the inquiry solidified any remaining doubt about his incompetence. During a week of sometimes solemn, sometimes tearful testimony, the doctor acknowledged his many mistakes.
He apologized profusely and said he was embarrassed and truly sorry. But Smith afforded himself absolution, professing that he didn't know, as he bungled case after case, that he should have been better trained.
"Retrospectively, I didn't realize how extraordinarily limited was my knowledge or expertise and so I didn't recognize how potentially dangerous it was, if I can use that expression, to do that work," Smith testified of his autopsy on Sharon.
The disastrous public failure of the Reynolds prosecution, coupled with several other botched cases, eventually led to the review that exposed Smith's mistakes.
The public inquiry that followed has exposed the failings of the entire system.
Dr. James Young, who was chief coroner from 1990 to 2004, testified that he should have realized sooner that there were serious problems with Smith's work.
Young said that "sadly," he never read a blistering judgment issued by a Timmins judge in 1991, who acquitted a young girl charged with killing a child she was babysitting.
The judge harshly criticized Smith's opinions, which were contradicted by nine other experts. The judgment cast serious doubt on Smith's work. Young testified that he never read the judgment until the Goudge commission began its work.
Eight years after the Timmins case, after another bungled child death investigation involving Smith, Young received a complaint from the father of a Sudbury woman wrongly accused of killing her child, based on Smith's faulty work.
The man quoted the 1991 judgment in his letter of complaint.
Young testified that he read only the first portion of the 1999 letter of complaint.
"So I very likely stopped reading at that point 'cause I have absolutely no recollection, and I was - I think it would be fair to say - dumbfounded in your office when you showed me the [1991] judgment and referred to it the first time," Young told a lawyer for the inquiry.
While Young testified at the inquiry that he read only part of the 1999 letter, that's not what he told the Sudbury man who sent it.
"I have read your brief in detail and considered it very carefully," Young wrote in a May 1999 response entered into evidence at the inquiry.
Eventually, Young dismissed the complaints against Smith.
Young also sought to block the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons from hearing complaints against Smith, arguing that the college had no jurisdiction over Smith's work done on contract for the Office of the Chief Coroner.
Eventually the college did hear the complaints, and censured Smith for troubling deficiencies in his work.
There was no detailed investigation of Smith's work until a new chief coroner, Dr. Barry McLellan, was in place.
While Smith's errors are alarming, he was just one component in a process - a justice system in Ontario that grinds through more than half a million criminal prosecutions each year.
The system - an amorphous collective of police, prosecutors, defence lawyers, doctors and scientists - does not operate with the ruthless efficiency of a TV crime drama, evidence at the inquiry has shown.
At times, it appears frighteningly inept, both at doing the work that is its raison d'etre and at monitoring its own performance.
The inquiry heard that:
The branch of the justice system that prosecutes, Crown attorneys, has no central system of monitoring and tracking the performance of expert witnesses. Senior Crown officials rely on word-of-mouth to uncover problems.
In some parts of Ontario, local coroners never attend death scenes. In the Reynolds case, local coroner Dr. Ross McIlquham visited the death scene the morning after Sharon's body was found. He did not get close to the body, pronouncing her dead from a distance.
Local coroners have virtually no forensic training, although they are often the only person with a medical background to visit a death scene. Most are family doctors.
Virtually no one with forensic medical expertise attends at death scenes in Ontario.
Pathologists virtually never attend death scenes, unlike practices in parts of the U.S. and England.
When a two-month-old Belleville boy died in 1992, there was suspicion he had been shaken to death. Examination of his brain was important, yet staff at Kingston General Hospital accidentally destroyed the brain before it could be microscopically examined. No one took responsibility for placing the brain in a bucket of water, rather than preservative. Despite this significant error, the child's father was convicted in the boy's death.
The death of a four-month-old Trenton boy in 1996, Joshua, was investigated by a police officer with no experience in suspicious deaths. The officer testified that he'd never even been to an autopsy before he watched Smith examine Joshua.
The inquiry also heard that Smith operated in an unattractive and highly specialized field. Few doctors seek to specialize in forensic medicine and, although a certification system is in the works, there is still no formal accreditation and education process for forensic pathologists in Canada.
The inquiry will now conduct 11 days of round-table discussions on systemic issues..."
As I said in the previous posting:
"It boggles this Blogster's mind that the Kingston force cannot admit that it made a horrible mistake that put a grieving mother and her family through hell, refuses to learn whatever it can from the experience, and is unable to just get on with it."
For shame!
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Is The Age of Progressive Prosecutors Over?
5 hours ago
