COUNTDOWN: 15 DAYS TO GO: THE MANY FACES OF DR. CHARLES SMITH: HOW WILL JUSTICE GOUDGE RECONCILE THEM? PART EIGHT:

"IN THE SEVERAL COURT CASES I COVERED AT WHICH HE TESTIFIED (NONE OF WHICH ARE AT ISSUE AT THIS INQUIRY), I FOUND DR. SMITH A COMPELLING WITNESS, AN ODD DUCK BUT SO SEEMINGLY SQUARE – HE PRONOUNCED HIMSELF A STRONG CHRISTIAN, HAD A SOFT VOICE AND GENTLE MANNERISMS, AND USED TO WEAR CARTOON-PRINT TIES TO COURT SO AS TO REMIND JURORS HE HAD FEELINGS TOO."

COLUMNIST CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD: GLOBE AND MAIL;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFINITION OF "MALICE; MERRIAM-WEBSTER ON-LINE DICTIONARY;

"1: DESIRE TO CAUSE PAIN, INJURY, OR DISTRESS TO ANOTHER
2: INTENT TO COMMIT AN UNLAWFUL ACT OR CAUSE HARM WITHOUT LEGAL JUSTIFICATION OR EXCUSE;"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the most important findings that I am looking forward to reading in the Goudge report to be released on October 1, is whether he says he believes the evidence given by Dr. Smith - or that of the police officer present at Baby Jenna's autopsy.

The tiny, curly dark, male pubic-like hair has taken a huge profile at the Goudge inquiry.

If Smith had turned it over to the police, the police investigation would have focuses intensely on JD, the babysitter, from the outset - and Brenda Waudby, a grieving mother, would not likely have been put through the horror of being charged with murdering her daughter.

(JD was finally arrested years later and pleaded guilty in connection with Baby Jenna's death...The Crown dropped two charges of sexual assault on Jenna after accepting JD's plea);

We know from Smith's own admissions that he retained this evidence in his personal possession, that he never submitted it for forensic testing, that he had it in the courtroom when testifying at Waudby's preliminary hearing while testifying he was unaware of it, and that he did not inform the prosecutor about its existence.

Justice Goudge will have to decide between the credibility of Dr. Smith, who insists that he offered the hair to the police but was rebuffed on the ground that it was contaminated - and the police officer who insists that he was not made aware of the hair and that it would have been crucial evidence for the police investigation.

(We also know from documents filed at the inquiry that Dr. Smith was troubled by what he perceived to be Waudby's lifestyle.)

To this day I am shocked by the fact that Dr. Smith had in his possession in the courtroom evidence that could possibly have cleared Waudby and pointed to the real killer - yet he remained quiet.

What human being would do this to another - let alone what pathologist?

Is this an example as to how far Dr. Smith would go to help the prosecution team win the case?

I am also troubled by the revelations at the Inquiry that Dr. Smith had kept this hair in his home - before he handed it over to the police several years after prosecutor's withdrew the second degree murder charge against Waudby - as indicated in the following posting which ran on Sunday, December 2, 2007, under the heading: " Goudge Inquiry: Smith Said He Kept Key Exhibit in Waudby Case At His Home, Former Chief Coroner says;"

"The Goudge Inquiry has learned that that Dr. Charles Smith Said He had kept a key piece of forensic evidence from an autopsy at his home," the posting began.

"The evidence is the tiny, dark, curly, male pubic hair found in Baby Jenna's vulva area, which Smith has admitted retaining in his personal possession following the autopsy. (See previous blog: Another shocking revelation: Former Chief Coroner sent letter drafted by Smith's lawyers to College,") it continued.

The Inquiry received this evidence from former Chief Coroner Dr. James Young, who testified:

"Well, he (Deputy Chief Coroner James Cairns) told me about
the existence of the hair that -- that Dr. Smith had told
him that the hair had been taken;

that the hair had been offered to a police officer, and that the police officer
had refused to take it as an exhibit;

that he had held onto the hair;

that at one (1) point he had even gone to court with it in his pocket, and no one had asked him anything about it;

He'd taken it home, and for some reason he was choosing to disclose the existence of the hair at this point in time."

The questions raised by this revelation are significant;

First, in terms of continuity, how could one ever be sure that the exhibit in a marked envelope Smith ultimately handed over to the police was the same one he had kept in a pocket when testifying in court, and then kept (in whatever conditions) at his home?

Second: If Dr. Smith kept that exhibit in his home, what other exhibits from autopsies might he also have kept in his home? (The Inquiry did receive an anonymous letter indicating that Dr. Smith maintained a museum in his home in which he kept forensic exhibits - including a collection of earrings seized at autopsies.)

Third: Why would he have kept the exhibit at his home instead of submitting it for forensic analysis;

Fourth: How could the Hospital for Sick Children have failed to maintain a system for tracking forensic exhibits so they could quickly be traced when needed for used in court?. (The Hospital finally put such a system in place - but only after the Smith revelations);"

Were Dr. Smith's actions with respect to the Waudby investigation criminal?

It is clear that Justice Goudge is not permitted to make any findings relating to criminality in his report.

But he did hear evidence that at one point the police did consider charging Dr. Smith in connection with the Waudby case.

I wrote about this revelation in a posting entitled, "Police Say They Turned Documentation On Dr. Charles Smith Over To The College And The Coroner's Office" which ran on November 14, 2007.

"A recent posting this blog focused on a discussion in which a Peterborough Lakefield police officer was asked if his force had ever considered, "charging Dr. Smith or investigating him as a result of our findings." (Police investigating Jenna killing considered charging Dr. Charles Randal Smith."),", the posting began;

"The Peterborough officer made a note which read: "Advised that there had been minimal discussion at one time about whether we should question him further and it was determined that whatever documentation we had, we should turn over to the College of Physicians & Surgeons," it continued.

The officer added that "this was done", and that, "the coroner's office was made aware of our concerns."

The Inquiry's "Overview Report" into the Waudby case does not specify whether the officers were specifically referring to Dr. Smith's retention of the curly, black, male pubic-type hair which Smith seized at Jenna's autopsy and subsequently kept in his possession for five years.

But it's hard to imagine what else they might be talking about!

Waudby raised three concerns about Smith's retention of the hair in her appeal of the College decision to "caution" him'

0: That Dr. Smith had concealed the hair found at the autopsy from the authorities and courts;

0: How Dr. Smith got possession of the hair: and,

0: Why Dr. Smith testified he never saw a hair during the preliminary hearing;

The "Overview Report" says that a newspaper article indicates that Dr. Smith told the Appeal and Review Board that an officer refused the hair because it was contaminated.

In November, 2003, the panel released its decision rejecting Waudby's appeal on the basis that, "The panel could find no evidence to dispute the information provided by Dr. Smith."

"They also concluded that he never testified that he never saw the hair," the "Overview Report" says...

The last word is up to Justice Goudge;

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;