COUNTDOWN: 22 DAYS TO GO: THE MANY FACES OF DR. CHARLES SMITH; HOW WILL JUSTICE GOUDGE RECONCILE THEM? (PART ONE):

"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;"

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

The evidence called at the Goudge inquiry revealed has revealed made clear that Dr. Smith has many faces which contradicted his public persona.

Globe and Mail columnist Christie Blatchford caught that persona extremely well in a column under the heading "Why Charles Smith fooled so many people for so long" published on Saturday Dec. 1, 2007, in which she wrote:

"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."

Like Blatchford, judges and jurors were confronted by a humble, trustworthy principled man, who seemingly had no personal interest in the case and wanted nothing more than to help bring the truth out in court - the ideal expert witness for the Crown.

Now consider the face of Dr. Smith as depicted through the evidence called at the Goudge inquiry, starting with his alleged conduct on the evening of Nov. 9, 2002, when he was pulled over for speeding by an Ontario Provincial Police Officer.

This evidence was the subject of the following four entries to this blog which I am repeating in their entirety;

Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Goudge Inquiry: The OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) Letter: Part One: ( Unabridged);

The real Dr. Charles Randal Smith may have emerged in a letter filed at the Inquiry yesterday.

The letter, dated 18 November, 2002, is on the letterhead of the Northumberland OPP - Cobourg detachment.

It is addressed to Chief Coroner Dr. James Young and signed by Inspector J.J. (Jim) Szarka, Inspector and Detachment Commander.

I am running the letter in its entirety without editorial comment for the benefit of the readers of this Blog. (My comments will follow in a later posting);

"Dear Dr. Young.

An officer from my detachment has contacted me about the circumstances of a traffic stop that I feel you should be aware of.

The stop took place on the 401 Highway near Percy Street in Cramahe Township on the 9th of November, 2002. Constable Nancy Wagner advised the driver she had clocked him at 136 km/hr and asked if he had a reason for traveling at that speed. He indicated "I was passing". There was one other occupant in the passenger seat, being an 18-20 year old male. The officer showed some discretion and issued the driver a ticket for 115 km/hr which would result in no demerit points (instead of 4) and approximately $200.00 less of a fine.

The driver got angry and said "did you not see my license plate?" The officer said "Yes sir". He then said "Do you know who I am, I am the head of Pediatric Forensic Pathology for this province." He asked "What office do you work out of?" The officer responded "Northumberland OPP, Cobourg office."

He then said "Next time Cobourg needs forensics on a child they won't get one from our office."

The officer asked "So you are denying Cobourg your services because you got a speeding ticket?" He then responded "Yes." The officer clarified "You are going to risk an investigation for a family and child because you got a speeding ticket?" He again motioned with a head nod up and down. The officer advised the motorist she would be speaking to her Inspector about the matter and he quickly drove off.

Constable Wagner was obviously very concerned by the statements made to her. I do not think I need to comment further about the seriousness of this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you in relation to this issue.

Signed. J. Szarka;

Next Posting: Dr. Young's reply:

Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Goudge Inquiry: The OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) Letter: Part Two; Dr. Young's reply;

A previous posting referred to a letter sent to a letter sent to former Chief Coroner Dr. James Young from an OPP Inspector who wrote that Dr. Smith was so angry about a speeding ticket that he threatened to cut off his office's services to families and their children in the Cobourg area.

Here is Dr. Young's reply to Inspector J.J. Szarka, dated December 23, 2002.

I am running the letter unabridged for the benefit of the readers of this Blog;

Dear Inspector Szarka:

Re: Your file Reference Number 100 Dr. Charles Smith;

I am replying to your letter of November 18, 2002 which was received at the Office of the Chief Coroner on November 22, 2002.

The complaint has been reviewed with Dr. Smith. Without agreeing to the accuracy of the description of what took place, he sincerely regrets any suggestion or impression that services would not be available.

Moreover, the Office of the Chief Coroner wants to assure your officers that the provision of services was never in jeopardy.

Thank you for bringing this unfortunate incident to my attention.

Sincerely.

James G. Young, MD
Chief Coroner for Ontario;

Next posting: Dr. Young's testimony on the OPP letter to the Inquiry;
Wednesday, December 5, 2007;

Goudge Inquiry: OPP (Ontario Provincial Police Letter); Part Three: Dr. Young's Testimony: A "Nice Letter" On Charles Smith's Behalf?

Previous postings set out correspondence between then Chief Coroner Dr. James Young and an OPP police inspector over a Constable's allegations that Dr. Smith was so upset with a speeding ticket that he threatened to cut off the delivery of his office's forensic pediatric pathology services to the City of Cobourg.

One of the most troubling aspects of the Inspector's letter is the allegation that Dr. Smith misused his position as Head of the Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit identified himself as head of Ontario's Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit."

Let's pause here.

Dr. Smith had been suspended from from performing medico-legal autopsies in 2001 - because of the growing growing controversy surrounding his work.

However, Dr. Young permitted him to keep his title and remain on two prestigious death review committees which would all remain on his Curriculum Vitae - and which also suggested to the outside world that the Chief Coroner's Office still had confidence in his work.

But in his testimony yesterday, in response to questioning by lawyer Peter Wardle, Dr. Young made it seem that Dr. Smith's title was little more than a blip on an Smith's title as well, Dr. Young replied:

"I didn't because I didn't see the title -- I didn't see the title as meaning anything," Young told Commissioner Goudge.

"I didn't see the title as being anything but an administrative job. No one else wanted to do it. And frankly, if he went to court, the title would be valueless, because he -- there was so much else swirling around Dr. Smith at this point in time,
that a defence attorney, the least of his problems would be the title. He's got enormous other problems. So I just -- I didn't view the title or the -- you know, I had him doing a job that no one else wanted to do and I didn't spend the time or think about the title in these terms."

Wardle also confronted Young with the suggestion that that, "In fact, what you did, sir, was you wrote a nice letter back to the officer on Dr. Smith's behalf saying that he regretted what had taken place, isn't that right?"

Here's Dr. Young's reply: " Well, I -- I had a discussion with him, and he told me his side of it and I -- I told Dr. Smith he was wrong and that -- that his side was not believable, and -- and he owed the police an apology."

Next posting: This Blogster's views on what the incident resulting in the OPP Inspector's letter says about Dr. Charles Smith;

Wednesday, December 5, 2007;
Goudge Inquiry: The OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) letter: Part Four: Was This The Real Dr. Charles Smith?

To be fair, the letter from OPP Inspector Szarka to then Chief Coroner Dr. James Young contains unproven allegations.

If the matter ever came to court, each one of us would have to decide, who, in all of the circumstances, we would be inclined to believe: The police officer or Dr. Smith.

However, this Bloggist thinks it would be a very interesting exercise to give Dr. Smith the benefit of the doubt, and treat all of the facts set out in the letter as a hypothetical problem posing the question: What kind of human being is depicted here?

Let me take the first shot.

For a start, the driver is clearly an arrogant bully, who will not hesitate to use threats - even very ugly threats - in order to get his way.

I would also surmise that the driver is not very concerned that his conduct may come back in some way to haunt him - probably because he is confidant that his superiors will undoubtedly cover it up.

The driver also evidences a huge, swollen sense of his own importance, and does not hesitate to trade on his stature in order to get his way.

He clearly does not have any respect for the Officer - who is just doing her difficult job - and I wonder if he would have picked on a male officer in the same belligerent way.

Nor does he have any respect for the institutions he serves - because someone who did would never threaten, out of spite, to deny his office's services to people who are enduring unbearable personal grief.

There is no way the driver in this hypothetical example could be the Dr. Charles Smith admired for so many years by Deputy Coroner James Cairns who saw him as "a very sincere religious person" who could be expected to tell the truth.

Nor could the driver be the Dr. Charles Smith who Globe and Mail columnist Christie Blatchford recently said she saw as: "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."

I am confident that the readers of this Blog will have no trouble making up their own minds as to which one is the real Dr. Charles Smith.

It will be fascinating to see how Justice Goudge views the serious allegations made against Dr. Smith by the OPP - and whether he addresses himself as to whether the Chief Coroner's tap on the wrist was sufficient in the circumstances;

In any event, the evidence called at the Inquiry is relevant to a question which I have often been asked over the years: Were Dr. Smith's actions innocent - as he maintained in his evidence to the Inquiry - or were they tainted by malice?

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;