"OVERTURNING HER CONVICTION, LORD JUSTICE TOULSON SAID IT WAS THE COURT’S VIEW THAT IF THE FRESH MEDICAL EVIDENCE HAD BEEN GIVEN AT HER TRIAL IT MIGHT REASONABLY HAVE AFFECTED THE JURY’S DECISION TO CONVICT. HE SAID THAT MS HOLDSWORTH’S CONVICTION “MUST BE JUDGED UNSAFE”.
“CONCLUSIONS OF MEDICAL EXPERTS ON THE CAUSE OF AN INJURY OR DEATH NECESSARILY INVOLVE A PROCESS OF DEDUCTION, THAT IS INFERRING CONCLUSIONS FROM GIVEN FACTS BASED ON OTHER KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE. BUT PARTICULAR CAUTION IS NEEDED WHERE THE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROCESS OR PROCESSES INVOLVED IS, OR MAY BE, INCOMPLETE.”
HE ADDED: “AS KNOWLEDGE INCREASES, TODAY’S ORTHODOXY MAY BECOME TOMORROW’S OUTDATED LEARNING. SPECIAL CAUTION IS ALSO NEEDED WHERE EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE IS NOT JUST RELIED UPON AS ADDITIONAL MATERIAL TO SUPPORT A PROSECUTION BUT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO IT.”"
FRANCES GIBBS: THE TIMES;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Holdsworth' retrial is to be held tomorrow.
The Holdsworth case was the subject of previous posts on this Blog;
BBC News reporter John Sweeney provides an excellent background to the case ina story headed "Doubt cast on baby death verdict" which was published on December 6, 2007.
(Our readers will readily identify parallels with Dr. Charles Smith's propensity to turn tragic but innocent deaths of children into intentional killings;)
Sweeney's story bears the sub-heqadings "Kyle Fisher was due to have an operation on his eye socket" and "Pathologist's view."
"Fresh evidence casting doubt on the conviction of a woman for the murder of a boy she was babysitting, has been uncovered by BBC Newsnight," Sweeney's story begins;
"Suzanne Holdsworth, from Hartlepool, is serving life after a court was told she smashed Kyle Fisher against a banister with as much force as a 60mph crash," it continues;
"The two-year-old died in hospital with a massively swollen brain but only some bruising on the outside of his head.
A leading neuro-pathologist says it is "unlikely" an impact caused his death.
Holdsworth, 37, who worked at the check-out at Asda supermarket in Hartlepool, has always said she did not commit the crime.
Kyle had bruises, he had no scalp swelling, he had no skull fractures, so I think that is extremely unlikely
Dr Waney Squier
Her partner, Lee Spencer, and their two daughters, Lesley, 19 and Jamie-Leigh, 13, have never believed that she killed the little boy they all doted on.
The jury at Holdsworth's trial at Teesside Crown Court was told that the death took place after Kyle's mother, Clare Fisher, dropped her son off at her neighbour's in Millpool Close in July 2004 when she went clubbing.
'Meaningless'
According to the 60mph impact version of events, Kyle was left brain dead but the banister remained intact and unmarked by hair, tissue and blood.
But one of the country's most eminent neuro-pathologists, Dr Waney Squier, has dismissed the scenario as "meaningless, emotive words that have absolutely no scientific validity".
Suzanne Holdsworth was sentenced in April, 2005
She said: "A 60mph impact of a baby's head on a banister would cause massive damage to the head, massive skull fracturing.
"Kyle had bruises, he had no scalp swelling, he had no skull fractures, so I think that is extremely unlikely.'"
Kyle's father, Jon Taylor, who is separated from his mother, told the BBC: "It just happened to be that Suzanne was babysitting him.
"I could have been babysitting him, so that would mean I'd have probably ended up in jail."
999 call
Kyle's eye is at the heart of a case which may prove to be yet another grave miscarriage of justice.
Surgeons Professor Brian Avery and Sid Marks both saw Kyle in May, 2004, and planned to operate on his face.
The court heard that Kyle suffered an eye injury in 2003 after he fell from a buggy while he was being looked after by his mother.
Dr Squier told the BBC that Kyle's brain had two separate abnormalities, a congenital brain condition that can cause fits and the eye socket injury.
She said: "The brain had started to push down through that fracture into the eye socket and displacing the eye. The brain was scarred.
"So Kyle in fact had two abnormalities in his brain that would predispose him to having seizures. And seizures can kill."
I had potentially useful information and I was surprised that the police did not contact me
Professor Brian Avery
The investigation into Kyle's death was led by Det Supt Tony Hutchinson of Cleveland police, an officer with 50 murder inquiries under his belt.
Det Supt Hutchinson said after the trial that Holdsworth "very calmly applied her mind as to how she would explain the injury to the authorities".
In Holdsworth's 999 call, she told the operator Kyle was "not breathing... his eyes are rolling and everything..."
The operator asked if Kyle had had a fit. Holdsworth said he had.
The operator then asked Holdsworth if Kyle had any pre-existing injury.
She replied: "He's got a hole in his head, a hole in his eye and they're going to have take his skin off to get to it. You know, his face."
No comment
The police did not take written statements from either of the two surgeons who saw Kyle in 2004.
Prof Avery, who is a dean of the Royal College of Surgeons, told the BBC: "I had potentially useful information and I was surprised that the police did not contact me."
Newsnight put a number of questions to Det Supt Hutchinson but he declined to comment. Asked how she was going to get through her third Christmas inside, Holdsworth said: "I go on the phone, pretend I'm fine because my babies and my partner are having Christmas. I go back to my room and I cry and I cry and I cry."
Since making that call, Suzanne Holdsworth has been disciplined by the prison authorities for talking to the BBC and her ability to talk to her family restricted."
Fortunately Ms. Holdsworth's murder convictionwas quashed and a new trial - the one scheduled to begin on December 1, 2008 - was ordered on May 1, 2008:
Frances Gibbs, The Times Legal Editor, reported the hard-hitting Court of Appeal's decision in her story in "The Times" published on May 2, 2008, under the heading "Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth has murder conviction quashed," and the sub-heading, "Suzanne Holdsworth's conviction for murder was successfully challenged today - she will now face a retrial."
"A babysitter sentenced to life for the murder of her neighbour’s two-year-old son was released from prison yesterday after the Court of Appeal declared her conviction unsafe and ordered a retrial," Gibb's story begins;
"Suzanne Holdsworth, 37, a mother of two who has spent three years behind bars, was driven away from Low Newton prison in Co Durham with a blanket over her head," it continues;
"Lord Justice Toulson, Mr Justice Aikens and Judge Michael Baker, QC, granted her conditional bail after ordering a new trial over the death of her neighbour’s son, Kyle Fisher.
At her trial at Teesside Crown Court, Ms Holdsworth was accused of repeatedly banging Kyle’s head against a wooden banister. She was said to have “snapped” while minding Kyle at her home in Hartlepool, while the child’s 19-year-old single mother was having a night out. She was jailed for life and told that she must serve at least ten years before she could apply for parole.
The prosecution case was that the boy died from a fatal brain swelling, or oedema, caused by a blow or blows of significant force. Jurors were told that the impact on his head was similar to being thrown from a car at 60mph.
Kyle was taken to hospital after the injury, in August 2004, and died two days later.
During her appeal, which was opposed by the Crown, Ms Holdsworth’s lawyer, Henry Blaxland, told the judges that the doctors who gave evidence at trial “got it wrong” and “collectively failed to diagnose” that the child had a “highly unusual brain”, with abnormalities that predisposed him to epilepsy.
Fresh evidence established that there was a reasonable possibility that the child suffered a prolonged epileptic seizure, he argued.
The opinion of experts called on behalf of Ms Holdsworth was that Kyle’s condition, including an injury to the orbit of the right eye suffered in an accident a year before his death, predisposed him to epilepsy.
Overturning her conviction, Lord Justice Toulson said it was the court’s view that if the fresh medical evidence had been given at her trial it might reasonably have affected the jury’s decision to convict. He said that Ms Holdsworth’s conviction “must be judged unsafe”.
“Conclusions of medical experts on the cause of an injury or death necessarily involve a process of deduction, that is inferring conclusions from given facts based on other knowledge and experience. But particular caution is needed where the scientific knowledge of the process or processes involved is, or may be, incomplete.”
He added: “As knowledge increases, today’s orthodoxy may become tomorrow’s outdated learning. Special caution is also needed where expert opinion evidence is not just relied upon as additional material to support a prosecution but is fundamental to it.”
After the hearing, Ms Holdsworth’s partner of 19 years, Lee Spencer, a lorry driver, said: “She is a wonderful person and she is a wonderful mother. Children come first in her life. To say she put a child’s head into the banisters at 60mph is absolutely ridiculous.”
Ms Holdsworth’s solicitor, Campbell Malone, said: “She’s obviously very relieved at the outcome and understands it is the necessary first stage in the process of clearing her name.”
Kyle’s family said in a statement that was issued through Cleveland Police: “All we have ever wanted was to know the truth about what happened to Kyle. Since his death our lives have focused around the case. Not one of us has been able to move on. Today’s decision has brought all the heartache back. However, we will fully co-operate in the preparation for the retrial.” "
This Blog will report developments;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
NOTE TO READERS: IT'S TIME! NEW STAGE FOR CHARLES SMITH BLOG
"WE WILL, OF COURSE, ALWAYS BE INTERESTED IN THE WHEREABOUTS OF DR. SMITH - A LITTLE NERVOUS THAT HE MIGHT SOMEHOW POP UP IN SOME BACKWATER THAT HAS SOMEHOW NOT LEARNED ABOUT ABOUT THE TRAGIC DEBACLE IN ONTARIO: SASKATCHEWAN? JUST KIDDING!!!"
HAROLD LEVY; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few weeks ago I advised our readers that after the current series relating to Justice Goudge's findings is completed I would move away from publishing on a daily basis to posting matters of interest as they arise.
Well, dear readers, Justice Goudge has issued his report, the series is completed, and now I am in a position to spend more of my time working on a current writing project which, as you may guess, deals with a certain Dr. Charles Randal Smith.
Future posts will focus on the aftermath to the Goudge Inquiry including matters such as the many appeals to the Ontario Court of Appeal, the civil lawsuits, possible class actions, applications for compensation, discipline proceedings and criminal investigations.
As well. the Blog will keep an eye on developments in the world of forensic pathology - not just here in Ontario, but elsewhere in Canada and throughout the world, with a stress on the need to examine so called "shaken-baby" cases which cry out for review - not just in Ontario but elsewhere in the world;
In Ontario, we will be keeping an eye specifically on the compensation process, the review of Smith's suspicious death cases between 1981 and 1991, the review of "shaken-baby" cases recently ordered by the government, and the responses by various institutions, such as the Chief Coroner's Office, to the recommendations set out in the Goudge report.
We will, of course, always be interested in the whereabouts of Dr. Smith - a little nervous that he might somehow pop up in some backwater that has somehow not learned about about the tragic debacle in Ontario: Saskatchewan? Just kidding!!!
As always I am relying on our readers to keep me posted with information and developments that I may well be unaware of - at hlevy15@gmail.com; (The best way to keep track of future postings may be through setting up an RSS feed to the site);
If anything, we have learned through this dark experience is that although forensic pediatric pathology can be an extremely helpful tool in the criminal justice system -it can do immeasurable harm to innocent people and their families who deserve sympathy and compassion rather than persecution - and who deserve so much more from their criminal justice system - when its limitations are exceeded, when it is entrusted to the wrong hands, when so-called "experts" are placed on thrones, when accountability is abandoned, and when basic legal safeguards are thrust aside.
I want to thank the many readers who have provided me with useful materials for the site, have encouraged (if not pushed) me to keep publishing the Blog - and have reminded me that there really has been interest out there in cyber-space.
It can be lonely out there!
I am very grateful to you all.
But don't go away.
There is still considerable grist for our mill;
Best wishes,
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
HAROLD LEVY; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few weeks ago I advised our readers that after the current series relating to Justice Goudge's findings is completed I would move away from publishing on a daily basis to posting matters of interest as they arise.
Well, dear readers, Justice Goudge has issued his report, the series is completed, and now I am in a position to spend more of my time working on a current writing project which, as you may guess, deals with a certain Dr. Charles Randal Smith.
Future posts will focus on the aftermath to the Goudge Inquiry including matters such as the many appeals to the Ontario Court of Appeal, the civil lawsuits, possible class actions, applications for compensation, discipline proceedings and criminal investigations.
As well. the Blog will keep an eye on developments in the world of forensic pathology - not just here in Ontario, but elsewhere in Canada and throughout the world, with a stress on the need to examine so called "shaken-baby" cases which cry out for review - not just in Ontario but elsewhere in the world;
In Ontario, we will be keeping an eye specifically on the compensation process, the review of Smith's suspicious death cases between 1981 and 1991, the review of "shaken-baby" cases recently ordered by the government, and the responses by various institutions, such as the Chief Coroner's Office, to the recommendations set out in the Goudge report.
We will, of course, always be interested in the whereabouts of Dr. Smith - a little nervous that he might somehow pop up in some backwater that has somehow not learned about about the tragic debacle in Ontario: Saskatchewan? Just kidding!!!
As always I am relying on our readers to keep me posted with information and developments that I may well be unaware of - at hlevy15@gmail.com; (The best way to keep track of future postings may be through setting up an RSS feed to the site);
If anything, we have learned through this dark experience is that although forensic pediatric pathology can be an extremely helpful tool in the criminal justice system -it can do immeasurable harm to innocent people and their families who deserve sympathy and compassion rather than persecution - and who deserve so much more from their criminal justice system - when its limitations are exceeded, when it is entrusted to the wrong hands, when so-called "experts" are placed on thrones, when accountability is abandoned, and when basic legal safeguards are thrust aside.
I want to thank the many readers who have provided me with useful materials for the site, have encouraged (if not pushed) me to keep publishing the Blog - and have reminded me that there really has been interest out there in cyber-space.
It can be lonely out there!
I am very grateful to you all.
But don't go away.
There is still considerable grist for our mill;
Best wishes,
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Thursday, November 13, 2008
JUSTICE GOUDGE'S FINDINGS; PART TWELVE; JOSHUA'S CASE;
Over the past eighteen months I have used this Blog to intensively report on developments relating to Dr. Charles Smith culminating with the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry.
I am now winding up this phase of the Blog - to be replaced eventually by periodic reporting of developments relating to Dr. Smith and related issues as they occur - with an examination of Justice Goudge's findings in the cases reviewed by the Inquiry.
I think it is important to take this closer look at the report in this Blog, because the mainstream media, which has done an admirable job in reporting the inquiry, have gone on to other stories.
Justice Goudge's findings relating to the various cases have been scattered throughout the report.
My approach is to weave together the findings relating to all of the principal actors - so we can get a fuller picture of Justice Goudge's findings as to their conduct;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An overview of Joshua's case prepared by Commission staff indicates that:
Joshua was born in Belleville, Ontario on September 23, 1995 to Sherry Lee-Ann Sherret and Peter.
Joshua had an older half-brother born on July 4, 1994 to Sherry and another partner.
Sherry, Peter, Joshua and Joshua's bother all resided together in Trenton.Ontario.
Joshua died on January 23, 1996, at the age of four months in Trenton,Ontario.
At the time of Joshua's death Sherry was 20 years old.
On March 27, 1996, sherry was charged with first-degree murder in Joshua's death.
After a preliminary inquiry she was committed to stand trial on that charge.
However, that committal was subsequently quashed and she was ordered to stand trial on a charge of second-degree murder instead.
On January 4, 1999, a new indictment charging infanticide was placed before the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division).
Sherry entered a plea of not guilty.
However, the Crown then read into the record certain agreed facts.
The defence called no evidence in response to the facts read in and did not dispute them.
As a result sherry was convicted of infanticide.
On June 2, 1999, she was sentenced to a one-year custodial term followed by two years of probation.
Just prior to the laying of the criminal charge, on March 7, 1996, Joshua's brother was apprehended by the Northumberland Children's Aid Society and placed in foster care.
He was ultimately adopted by his foster family.
In September, 2005, Sherry had another child, a daughter.
The Children's Aid Society obtained a Supervision Order in October, 2006, in relation to this child.
On April 11, 2007, that order was terminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure to disregard irrelevant and prejudicial information;
"It is equally clear that the pathologist must disregard irrelevant and prejudicial information," says Justice Goudge. "Good science demands no less."
In Joshua's case, Justice Goudge faults Dr. Smith for recording in the final autopsy report that Joshua's mother was married, but did not officially live with her husband so she could continue to collect welfare.
"None of this information is at all relevant to pathology," he says..."None of the information set out above should have been included in a final autopsy report because it leaves the impression that it somehow played a part in Dr. Smith's thinking."
Preserving autopsy records:
Justice Goudge was extremely troubled by Dr. Smith's loss of exhibits in criminal case.
This is also true of Joshua's case, where he finds that Smith was asked to provide for the defence the microscopic slides and X-Rays relating to the case before the preliminary hearing.
"D. Smith failed to deliver the material requested," he says.
"In fact he lost the slides for some time, although he eventually found them.
The X-Rays, however, were lost and never found."
Misinterpreting artifact's:
Justice Goudge reports that Dr. Smith also misinterpreted artifact's in Joshua's case - Just as he had in Valin's case and Nicholas' case.
In Joshua's case, for example, Dr. Smith performed the post-mortem examination and found a microscopic hemorrhage in the connective tissues of Joshua's neck.
Dr. Smith concluded that the cause of death was asphyxia,and testified at the preliminary hearing in the case that the hemorrhage was a "worrying" finding, suggesting that Joshua was suffocated.
"That diagnosis was wrong" says Justice Goudge.
"The experts who examined the microscopic slides determined that the hemorrhage was likely caused during dissection at the autopsy.
It likely was a post-mortem artifact and was therefore unrelated to Joshua's cause of death."
Delay:
Charles Smith got caught in a lie relating to delay in the context of Joshua's case;
In March 1996, he told a police officer that he had completed his final post-mortem report, was waiting for it to be typed, but was typing the report himself at home at night because he had no administrative assistant and was the only pathologist on schedule for the next few days.
"This was untrue," says Goudge.
"Dr. Smith had access to an administrative assistant, and the 1996 schedule for pathologists showed that Dr. Smith was not the only pathologist on rotation for the few days following his conversation Sergeant MacLellan,
Despite this, when Sergeant MacLellan advised that he needed the report by the following Tuesday because court proceedings were scheduled for Wednesday, Dr. Smith responded that he did not think the report would be ready y then."
Ongoing communication with the police;
Justice Goudge heard evidence that at a meeting with police on February 8, 1996, Dr. Smith, when asked, said that he believed Sherry Sherret had killed Joshua.
"He said that mothers who kill their babies share certain characteristics," said Goudge.
"For example, they usually talk about it ahead of time, or they might be involved in relationship fights or custody battles, as a result of which they may be trying to get back at the baby's father."
But Justice Goudge concluded that Smith's remarks about the characteristics of mothers who kill their children were also inappropriate, since they were beyond his expertise.
"To say that he believed that Ms. Sherret killed her son on the basis of "hallmark characteristics" was inappropriate," said Goudge.
"He had no expertise to say so."
The speculating expert:
Justice Goudge ruled that Dr. Smith should not have offered opinions that were "speculative, unsubstantiated, and not based on the pathology findings" as he did in his evidence at the preliminary hearing in Joshua's case when he said he was "highly suspicious" that Joshua had been suffocated - even though there was no pathological evidence to support the opinion."
"I find it hard to accept Dr. Smith's explanation that he did not know that he ought not speculate," said Goudge. Pathologists provide pathology opinions. I do not see how pathologists can believe that, when there is no pathology evidence, it is open to them to speculate on what could have happened."
This humble Bloggist is quite confident that Dr. Smith was well aware that he should not give speculative evidence in court.
Whether it was based on pathological evidence or not, it certainly was an excellent way to make sure the accused parent or caregiver was convicted.
The expert and casual language;
Dr. Smith's propensity from time to time to use language that was loose and unscientific shone through in Joshua's case where he testified that, if he were a "betting man" he would say that Joshua's death was non-accidental.
It sounds like another sure-fire trick to get a conviction to me - and reinforces my belief that one has to stretch and contrive in order to convict an Innocent person.
What else would you expect from a supposedly neutral person who saw himself as a member of the prosecution team?
Cooperating with other experts:
Justice Goudge notes that court proceedings had to be postponed because Smith did to requests to locate and forward autopsy materials from Joshua's case to another pathologist for review.
This was typical of Smith.
The last thing he would ever have wanted was to have his work reviewed by another set of eyes (a truly expert set of eyes) - especially someone hired by the defence who may not have bought into his mystique.
Indeed, virtually all of his delays, could be interpreted as efforts to avoid countability - rather than the lack of training that he claimed.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
I am now winding up this phase of the Blog - to be replaced eventually by periodic reporting of developments relating to Dr. Smith and related issues as they occur - with an examination of Justice Goudge's findings in the cases reviewed by the Inquiry.
I think it is important to take this closer look at the report in this Blog, because the mainstream media, which has done an admirable job in reporting the inquiry, have gone on to other stories.
Justice Goudge's findings relating to the various cases have been scattered throughout the report.
My approach is to weave together the findings relating to all of the principal actors - so we can get a fuller picture of Justice Goudge's findings as to their conduct;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An overview of Joshua's case prepared by Commission staff indicates that:
Joshua was born in Belleville, Ontario on September 23, 1995 to Sherry Lee-Ann Sherret and Peter.
Joshua had an older half-brother born on July 4, 1994 to Sherry and another partner.
Sherry, Peter, Joshua and Joshua's bother all resided together in Trenton.Ontario.
Joshua died on January 23, 1996, at the age of four months in Trenton,Ontario.
At the time of Joshua's death Sherry was 20 years old.
On March 27, 1996, sherry was charged with first-degree murder in Joshua's death.
After a preliminary inquiry she was committed to stand trial on that charge.
However, that committal was subsequently quashed and she was ordered to stand trial on a charge of second-degree murder instead.
On January 4, 1999, a new indictment charging infanticide was placed before the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division).
Sherry entered a plea of not guilty.
However, the Crown then read into the record certain agreed facts.
The defence called no evidence in response to the facts read in and did not dispute them.
As a result sherry was convicted of infanticide.
On June 2, 1999, she was sentenced to a one-year custodial term followed by two years of probation.
Just prior to the laying of the criminal charge, on March 7, 1996, Joshua's brother was apprehended by the Northumberland Children's Aid Society and placed in foster care.
He was ultimately adopted by his foster family.
In September, 2005, Sherry had another child, a daughter.
The Children's Aid Society obtained a Supervision Order in October, 2006, in relation to this child.
On April 11, 2007, that order was terminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure to disregard irrelevant and prejudicial information;
"It is equally clear that the pathologist must disregard irrelevant and prejudicial information," says Justice Goudge. "Good science demands no less."
In Joshua's case, Justice Goudge faults Dr. Smith for recording in the final autopsy report that Joshua's mother was married, but did not officially live with her husband so she could continue to collect welfare.
"None of this information is at all relevant to pathology," he says..."None of the information set out above should have been included in a final autopsy report because it leaves the impression that it somehow played a part in Dr. Smith's thinking."
Preserving autopsy records:
Justice Goudge was extremely troubled by Dr. Smith's loss of exhibits in criminal case.
This is also true of Joshua's case, where he finds that Smith was asked to provide for the defence the microscopic slides and X-Rays relating to the case before the preliminary hearing.
"D. Smith failed to deliver the material requested," he says.
"In fact he lost the slides for some time, although he eventually found them.
The X-Rays, however, were lost and never found."
Misinterpreting artifact's:
Justice Goudge reports that Dr. Smith also misinterpreted artifact's in Joshua's case - Just as he had in Valin's case and Nicholas' case.
In Joshua's case, for example, Dr. Smith performed the post-mortem examination and found a microscopic hemorrhage in the connective tissues of Joshua's neck.
Dr. Smith concluded that the cause of death was asphyxia,and testified at the preliminary hearing in the case that the hemorrhage was a "worrying" finding, suggesting that Joshua was suffocated.
"That diagnosis was wrong" says Justice Goudge.
"The experts who examined the microscopic slides determined that the hemorrhage was likely caused during dissection at the autopsy.
It likely was a post-mortem artifact and was therefore unrelated to Joshua's cause of death."
Delay:
Charles Smith got caught in a lie relating to delay in the context of Joshua's case;
In March 1996, he told a police officer that he had completed his final post-mortem report, was waiting for it to be typed, but was typing the report himself at home at night because he had no administrative assistant and was the only pathologist on schedule for the next few days.
"This was untrue," says Goudge.
"Dr. Smith had access to an administrative assistant, and the 1996 schedule for pathologists showed that Dr. Smith was not the only pathologist on rotation for the few days following his conversation Sergeant MacLellan,
Despite this, when Sergeant MacLellan advised that he needed the report by the following Tuesday because court proceedings were scheduled for Wednesday, Dr. Smith responded that he did not think the report would be ready y then."
Ongoing communication with the police;
Justice Goudge heard evidence that at a meeting with police on February 8, 1996, Dr. Smith, when asked, said that he believed Sherry Sherret had killed Joshua.
"He said that mothers who kill their babies share certain characteristics," said Goudge.
"For example, they usually talk about it ahead of time, or they might be involved in relationship fights or custody battles, as a result of which they may be trying to get back at the baby's father."
But Justice Goudge concluded that Smith's remarks about the characteristics of mothers who kill their children were also inappropriate, since they were beyond his expertise.
"To say that he believed that Ms. Sherret killed her son on the basis of "hallmark characteristics" was inappropriate," said Goudge.
"He had no expertise to say so."
The speculating expert:
Justice Goudge ruled that Dr. Smith should not have offered opinions that were "speculative, unsubstantiated, and not based on the pathology findings" as he did in his evidence at the preliminary hearing in Joshua's case when he said he was "highly suspicious" that Joshua had been suffocated - even though there was no pathological evidence to support the opinion."
"I find it hard to accept Dr. Smith's explanation that he did not know that he ought not speculate," said Goudge. Pathologists provide pathology opinions. I do not see how pathologists can believe that, when there is no pathology evidence, it is open to them to speculate on what could have happened."
This humble Bloggist is quite confident that Dr. Smith was well aware that he should not give speculative evidence in court.
Whether it was based on pathological evidence or not, it certainly was an excellent way to make sure the accused parent or caregiver was convicted.
The expert and casual language;
Dr. Smith's propensity from time to time to use language that was loose and unscientific shone through in Joshua's case where he testified that, if he were a "betting man" he would say that Joshua's death was non-accidental.
It sounds like another sure-fire trick to get a conviction to me - and reinforces my belief that one has to stretch and contrive in order to convict an Innocent person.
What else would you expect from a supposedly neutral person who saw himself as a member of the prosecution team?
Cooperating with other experts:
Justice Goudge notes that court proceedings had to be postponed because Smith did to requests to locate and forward autopsy materials from Joshua's case to another pathologist for review.
This was typical of Smith.
The last thing he would ever have wanted was to have his work reviewed by another set of eyes (a truly expert set of eyes) - especially someone hired by the defence who may not have bought into his mystique.
Indeed, virtually all of his delays, could be interpreted as efforts to avoid countability - rather than the lack of training that he claimed.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
JUSTICE GOUDGE'S FINDINGS: PART ELEVEN; KASANDRA'S CASE; SMITH;
Over the past eighteen months I have used this Blog to intensively report on developments relating to Dr. Charles Smith culminating with the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry.
I am now winding up this phase of the Blog - to be replaced eventually by periodic reporting of developments relating to Dr. Smith and related issues as they occur - with an examination of Justice Goudge's findings in the cases reviewed by the Inquiry.
I think it is important to take this closer look at the report in this Blog, because the mainstream media, which has done an admirable job in reporting the inquiry, have gone on to other stories.
Justice Goudge's findings relating to the various cases have been scattered throughout the report.
My approach is to weave together the findings relating to all of the principal actors - so we can get a fuller picture of Justice Goudge's findings as to their conduct;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An overview of the Kassandra case prepared by Commission staff reads as follows:
Kassandra was born in Mississauga on December 15, 1987;
Kasandra's parents lived together in a common law relationship at the time of her birth;
They separated in June 1988 when Kasandra was six months old.
Kasandra died pn April 11, 1991, at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.
Kasandra was three and a half years old and was living with her father and stepmother, Maria, in Brampton,Ontario, at the time of her death.
Criminal proceedings were initiated against Kasandra's stepmother.
The criminal proceedings concluded on October 22, 1992, when Maria pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to two years less a day.
Maria was paroled on June 21, 1993;
The Peel Children's Aid Society became involved with Kasandra in July 1989.
A Coroner's inquest was held into Kasandra's death in 1997;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Goudge discusses Kasandra's case in a section of his report called "interaction with the police at autopsy."
"In a number of his cases, his early informal expressions of opinions to the police were too categorical, potentially skewing the criminal investigation," he wrote.
"His recording of these interchanges was as haphazard as his note-taking at autopsy.
Requests for timely responses to questions or for supplementary opinions were frequently met with procrastination or were ignored.
These cases exemplify practices which can and did cause great difficulties for the criminal justice system."
More specifically, in Kasandra's case - one in which he found that Dr. Smith expressed early informal opinions to the police in far too categorical terms:
By way of background, Dr. Smith performed the post-mortem examination on Kasandra and discovered a "donut-shaped" hemorrhage on her scalp.
After observing the shape of the injury, he told the police to search Kasandra's home for rounded items such as a knob on a cupboard or something with a distinctive geometric shape that could have either a flat surface or a ring-shaped feature.
The police took a woman's wrist-watch from Kasandra's home to Dr. Smith, who found it to be a good match for the injury.
At the preliminary hearing in the case, Dr. Smith told the court that the configuration of the wristwatch was consistent with the configuration of the area of hemorrhage...It was therefor reasonable to conclude that the watch was responsible for the fatal blow to Kasandra's head.
But Justice Goudge finds that "the method of interpretation was wrong" after noting that two of the independent experts testified at the Inquiry that Dr. Smith's overlay of the watch on to the scalp contusion was an incorrect and misleading approach tothe interpretation of that wound.
Justice Goudge also noted that although overlaying an object on to an injury might be useful in some circumstances - for example, where there is a patterned object and an external injury - it was in the deep tissues of the scalp, rather than the surface - and the presence of thick hair and scalp tissues altered the appearance of the injury, "making such a technique useless."
"According to Dr. Pollanen, Dr. Smith's interpretation was really "a pseudoscientific wound-weapon matching analysis," wrote Goudge.
"In this case, all that could be said from the scalp injury was that there was an impact of some sort.
To suggest that a particular object caused the injury was misleading.
Dr. Smith's suggestion to the police, made on superficial analysis, led to an improper, inaccurate, and misleading interpretation of the evidence.
The suggestion should not have been given at all."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
I am now winding up this phase of the Blog - to be replaced eventually by periodic reporting of developments relating to Dr. Smith and related issues as they occur - with an examination of Justice Goudge's findings in the cases reviewed by the Inquiry.
I think it is important to take this closer look at the report in this Blog, because the mainstream media, which has done an admirable job in reporting the inquiry, have gone on to other stories.
Justice Goudge's findings relating to the various cases have been scattered throughout the report.
My approach is to weave together the findings relating to all of the principal actors - so we can get a fuller picture of Justice Goudge's findings as to their conduct;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An overview of the Kassandra case prepared by Commission staff reads as follows:
Kassandra was born in Mississauga on December 15, 1987;
Kasandra's parents lived together in a common law relationship at the time of her birth;
They separated in June 1988 when Kasandra was six months old.
Kasandra died pn April 11, 1991, at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.
Kasandra was three and a half years old and was living with her father and stepmother, Maria, in Brampton,Ontario, at the time of her death.
Criminal proceedings were initiated against Kasandra's stepmother.
The criminal proceedings concluded on October 22, 1992, when Maria pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to two years less a day.
Maria was paroled on June 21, 1993;
The Peel Children's Aid Society became involved with Kasandra in July 1989.
A Coroner's inquest was held into Kasandra's death in 1997;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Goudge discusses Kasandra's case in a section of his report called "interaction with the police at autopsy."
"In a number of his cases, his early informal expressions of opinions to the police were too categorical, potentially skewing the criminal investigation," he wrote.
"His recording of these interchanges was as haphazard as his note-taking at autopsy.
Requests for timely responses to questions or for supplementary opinions were frequently met with procrastination or were ignored.
These cases exemplify practices which can and did cause great difficulties for the criminal justice system."
More specifically, in Kasandra's case - one in which he found that Dr. Smith expressed early informal opinions to the police in far too categorical terms:
By way of background, Dr. Smith performed the post-mortem examination on Kasandra and discovered a "donut-shaped" hemorrhage on her scalp.
After observing the shape of the injury, he told the police to search Kasandra's home for rounded items such as a knob on a cupboard or something with a distinctive geometric shape that could have either a flat surface or a ring-shaped feature.
The police took a woman's wrist-watch from Kasandra's home to Dr. Smith, who found it to be a good match for the injury.
At the preliminary hearing in the case, Dr. Smith told the court that the configuration of the wristwatch was consistent with the configuration of the area of hemorrhage...It was therefor reasonable to conclude that the watch was responsible for the fatal blow to Kasandra's head.
But Justice Goudge finds that "the method of interpretation was wrong" after noting that two of the independent experts testified at the Inquiry that Dr. Smith's overlay of the watch on to the scalp contusion was an incorrect and misleading approach tothe interpretation of that wound.
Justice Goudge also noted that although overlaying an object on to an injury might be useful in some circumstances - for example, where there is a patterned object and an external injury - it was in the deep tissues of the scalp, rather than the surface - and the presence of thick hair and scalp tissues altered the appearance of the injury, "making such a technique useless."
"According to Dr. Pollanen, Dr. Smith's interpretation was really "a pseudoscientific wound-weapon matching analysis," wrote Goudge.
"In this case, all that could be said from the scalp injury was that there was an impact of some sort.
To suggest that a particular object caused the injury was misleading.
Dr. Smith's suggestion to the police, made on superficial analysis, led to an improper, inaccurate, and misleading interpretation of the evidence.
The suggestion should not have been given at all."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
LEST WE FORGET: CANADA'S WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS - INCLUDINGTHOSE CAUSED BY DR. CHARLES SMITH - MUST NOT BE FORGOTTEN, DEFENCE LAWYERS SAY;
"RECENTLY, MR. WILLIAM MULLINS-JOHNSON WAS FOUND TO BE WRONGLY CONVICTED ON THE BASIS OF THE EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE OF DR. CHARLES SMITH. WHEN GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS HIS ACCUSER, MR. MULLINS-JOHNSON TOLD DR. SMITH: “YOU PUT ME IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE I COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED ANY DAY FOR SOMETHING THAT NEVER HAPPENED. YOU DESTROYED MY FAMILY, MY BROTHER’S RELATIONSHIP WITH ME AND MY NIECE THAT’S STILL LEFT AND MY NEPHEW THAT’S STILL LIVING. THEY HATE ME BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU DID TO ME”. THOUGH DR. CHARLES SMITH WAS CERTAINLY LABELLED JUDAS AT THE INQUIRY INTO PEDIATRIC FORENSIC PATHOLOGY IN ONTARIO, THE HONOURABLE STEPHEN T. GOUDGE PROPERLY REMINDED US THAT THE WRONGFUL CONVICTION OF MR. MULLINS-JOHNSON AND OTHERS WAS AS MUCH AS PRODUCT OF DR. SMITH AS IT WAS FAILED OVERSIGHT."
DAVID G. CHOW; CALGARY DEFENCE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this moving Remembrance Day commentary, Lawyer David Chow reminds us that the average citizen deserves enough protection to ensure that no citizen is ever wrongfully convicted, interned or persecuted for something they did not do, as he implores us never to forget the wrongly convicted.
On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month all Canadians should pause to remember the thousands of men and women who sacrificed their lives for our freedom," the commentary, under the heading "Lest We Forget," begins.
"The soldiers who braved historic battlefields such as Vimy Ridge, Passchendaele, Dieppe, Normandy or the Atlantic Ocean, gave themselves so citizens of this Country could enjoy life free from oppression and tyranny," it continues.
"These were men and women of action, not words; and it is because of them that in our civilization there is often little distinction between action and word.
Rather than raising a weapon, citizens today may raise a pen; rather than engaging in physical combat, citizens may debate with ideas; rather than having freedom determined at the end of a gun or the heel of a boot, it is determined by a rule of law – to be assiduously protected – out of respect for our way of life and those who made the ultimate sacrifice to help us get here.
As inscribed on the Monument to Canadian Fallen at Confederation Park in Ottawa, “We Will Never Forget You Brave Sons of Canada”.
November 11th is the day dedicated to remember those who sacrificed during the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, the Afghanistan conflict and during Canada’s many other peacekeeping missions.
It strikes me, however, that after paying homage to our fallen heroes on November 11th, we should take a moment – on another day – to remember those who were sacrificed because our system failed.
Woven into history are important lessons for the future.
For example, let us not forget that Democratic Canadians were responsible for interning more than 22,000 Japanese Canadians during the Second World War;
Some of these citizens were combat veterans of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.
Some had even been decorated for bravery during the fighting on the Western Front in the First World War. Despite citizenship in a free, democratic and multi-cultural Canada, they were collected and scurried off to internment camps.
In the words of MP, Ian MacKenzie, “It is the government’s plan to get these people out of B.C. as fast as possible. It is my personal intention, as long as I remain in public life, to see they never come back here. Let our slogan be for British Columbia: No Japs from the Rockies to the seas”.
Just for a moment, let that frightening slogan resonate in your mind.
It mattered not that most if not all of the interned Japanese Canadians were not spies of the Japanese government.
It mattered not that there was no evidence of treason to the point that even the Royal Canadian Mounted Police felt that the public’s fears were unwarranted.
It mattered not that most of the Japanese in British Columbia were naturalized or native-born citizens.
Japanese Canadians were fired from their jobs, excised from their homes and lost the right to partake in the ocean’s scenic beauty along a protected 160 km strip on the Pacific Coast.
In the words of Japanese Canadian, Ken Adachi: “Born in Canada, brought up on big-band jazz, Fred Astaire and the novels of Rider Haggard, I had perceived myself to be as Canadian as the beaver. I hated rice. I had committed no crime. I was never charged, tried or convicted of anything. Yet I was fingerprinted and interned”.
The sad irony is, while our brave soldiers littered battlegrounds across Europe to protect Holocaust victims of a land not their own, the Government of Canada enacted legislation ordering the internment of its own people.
Despite a lack of evidence or proof of guilt of any crime, Ian MacKenzie, a Member of Parliament stated on a national CBC Broadcast, “No Japs from the Rockies to the seas”.
The Japanese Canadian Internment is a grim reminder of a chequered past, where our civilization was prepared to infringe upon the human rights of its citizens in response to irrational fears on public safety.
Though citizens today are not particularly concerned about a Japanese submarine emerging of the coast of British Columbia or a Japanese fisherman leaking information about Canada’s coastline to an Axis enemy, we should not forget that despite our noblest traditions, we have in the past been responsible for the tragic abrogation of the civil liberties of our own citizens.
Even the so-called pillar of democracy, the United States of America, is not without its lessons.
During the McCarthy era, for example, the search for communists during the cold war saw thousands of citizens rounded-up, interrogated, accused and even convicted for crimes they did not commit.
The McCarthyist search for communists is considered by many to be the most famous witch hunt of the 20th Century;
When Ken Adachi was fingerprinted and interned, he had committed no crime. Perhaps the most frightening thought for any citizen is being arrested, charged and convicted for a crime they did not commit.
Yet even with the Canadian Charter of Rights firmly engrafted into our criminal law, Canada’s justice system is not without its casualties.
Thomas Sophonow spent four years in jail for a crime he did not commit.
Though he was compensated by the Manitoba government, he said “no compensation can pay for all the years”;
In 1990, another Winnipeg resident, James Driskell was imprisoned for life after he was convicted of first-degree murder.
He spent twelve years behind bars and was not exonerated until February 15th, 2007, when the Justice Department finally acknowledged that the jurors at his trial had been “seriously misled” on the reliability of key witnesses and the failure on the part of prosecutors to disclose information;
In 1995, Randy Druken was convicted of murdering his girlfriend on the basis of evidence from a jailhouse informer.
Though Druken was released in 1999 after the informer claimed police pressured him into making a false statement, he spent four years in jail faced with constant danger from inmates who savagely punished those convicted of killing women and children.
Druken later stated, “there were times that…I even wanted to kill myself. And again, I had to think of reasons why not to”;
David Milgaard spent 23 years of his life in jail for the murder of Gail Miller.
He was falsely identified by a casual friend.
After his release, Mr. Milgaard stated “There is no justice in being locked up behind bars for something you have not done…. How would you feel if no one would tell the truth about you?”
David Milgaard, Thomas Sophonow, James Driskell and a host of others such as Gregory Parsons, Guy Paul Morin, Donald Marshal, Steven Truscott, and Herman Kaglik stand as firm reminders of the frailties of criminal justice.
Herman Kaglik spent over 4 years behind bars after being wrongly convicted for sexually assaulting his niece.
He was convicted on a single witnesses’ testimony and later exonerated through DNA evidence.
After his release, Mr. Kaglik commented: “It was a daily grind of fighting for your life and trying to convince people you were innocent”;
Recently, Mr. William Mullins-Johnson was found to be wrongly convicted on the basis of the expert opinion evidence of Dr. Charles Smith.
When given opportunity to address his accuser, Mr. Mullins-Johnson told Dr. Smith: “You put me in an environment where I could have been killed any day for something that never happened. You destroyed my family, my brother’s relationship with me and my niece that’s still left and my nephew that’s still living. They hate me because of what you did to me”;
Though Dr. Charles Smith was certainly labelled Judas at the Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario, the Honourable Stephen T. Goudge properly reminded us that the wrongful conviction of Mr. Mullins-Johnson and others was as much as product of Dr. Smith as it was failed oversight.
Our system of justice is built upon the presumption of innocence along with other principles designed to make the presumption meaningful.
Recent attacks on the justice system, and in particular, the law of bail, by those such as Alberta Justice Minister, Ms. Alison Redford are just a little troubling because they demonstrate an apparent willingness by those responsible for justice in this province to reduce legal protections for those accused of crime.
If history has taught us anything, it’s that people in Canada can be accused, charged, convicted and even incarcerated for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
Notwithstanding that Ms. Redford’s message may be high on catch phrases, such as “catch and release” and “revolving door” the message is frighteningly low on substance.
“We need to write vigorous legislation” she says, “[i]f people don’t like it they can challenge it. The fear of a Charter challenge should not stop us from passing legislation that makes sense”;
This begs the question: what makes sense? Should parliament write potentially unconstitutional legislation to ensure that those who are “presumed innocent” are kept behind bars?
Journalists such as Rick Bell obviously think so.
In his words, “[i]t’s Alison against Goliath, with the giant being the weak-kneed Canadian criminal justice system."
Police Chief Rick Hansen obviously thinks so too. “How much protection does the average citizen deserve…”;
Alberta’s Minister of Public Security, Fred Lindsay also thinks so. As he says, “[t]he justice system operates on a principle of innocent until proven guilty. Sometimes they go overboard”;
Well I feel safer already. The talking heads stand united!
According to Ms. Redford, “it’s fine to be presumed innocent until proven guilty” and “[i]t’s fine if we have to keep more people in jail”.
In fact, as she says, “I want to keep more people in remand”[13]. David Milgaard had a chequered past.
According to Ms. Redford, I guess “it’s fine” that he was jailed?
But hang on, wasn’t he innocent?
The message of this article is to suggest that before charging ahead with unintelligent and dramatic plans to overhaul a system with the aim of making it easier to incarcerate citizens, we should remember those who were sacrificed because our system failed.
And it’s not “fine” that it did.
How much protection does the average citizen deserve?
How about enough to ensure that no citizen is ever wrongfully convicted, interned or persecuted for something they did not do?"
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
DAVID G. CHOW; CALGARY DEFENCE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this moving Remembrance Day commentary, Lawyer David Chow reminds us that the average citizen deserves enough protection to ensure that no citizen is ever wrongfully convicted, interned or persecuted for something they did not do, as he implores us never to forget the wrongly convicted.
On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month all Canadians should pause to remember the thousands of men and women who sacrificed their lives for our freedom," the commentary, under the heading "Lest We Forget," begins.
"The soldiers who braved historic battlefields such as Vimy Ridge, Passchendaele, Dieppe, Normandy or the Atlantic Ocean, gave themselves so citizens of this Country could enjoy life free from oppression and tyranny," it continues.
"These were men and women of action, not words; and it is because of them that in our civilization there is often little distinction between action and word.
Rather than raising a weapon, citizens today may raise a pen; rather than engaging in physical combat, citizens may debate with ideas; rather than having freedom determined at the end of a gun or the heel of a boot, it is determined by a rule of law – to be assiduously protected – out of respect for our way of life and those who made the ultimate sacrifice to help us get here.
As inscribed on the Monument to Canadian Fallen at Confederation Park in Ottawa, “We Will Never Forget You Brave Sons of Canada”.
November 11th is the day dedicated to remember those who sacrificed during the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, the Afghanistan conflict and during Canada’s many other peacekeeping missions.
It strikes me, however, that after paying homage to our fallen heroes on November 11th, we should take a moment – on another day – to remember those who were sacrificed because our system failed.
Woven into history are important lessons for the future.
For example, let us not forget that Democratic Canadians were responsible for interning more than 22,000 Japanese Canadians during the Second World War;
Some of these citizens were combat veterans of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.
Some had even been decorated for bravery during the fighting on the Western Front in the First World War. Despite citizenship in a free, democratic and multi-cultural Canada, they were collected and scurried off to internment camps.
In the words of MP, Ian MacKenzie, “It is the government’s plan to get these people out of B.C. as fast as possible. It is my personal intention, as long as I remain in public life, to see they never come back here. Let our slogan be for British Columbia: No Japs from the Rockies to the seas”.
Just for a moment, let that frightening slogan resonate in your mind.
It mattered not that most if not all of the interned Japanese Canadians were not spies of the Japanese government.
It mattered not that there was no evidence of treason to the point that even the Royal Canadian Mounted Police felt that the public’s fears were unwarranted.
It mattered not that most of the Japanese in British Columbia were naturalized or native-born citizens.
Japanese Canadians were fired from their jobs, excised from their homes and lost the right to partake in the ocean’s scenic beauty along a protected 160 km strip on the Pacific Coast.
In the words of Japanese Canadian, Ken Adachi: “Born in Canada, brought up on big-band jazz, Fred Astaire and the novels of Rider Haggard, I had perceived myself to be as Canadian as the beaver. I hated rice. I had committed no crime. I was never charged, tried or convicted of anything. Yet I was fingerprinted and interned”.
The sad irony is, while our brave soldiers littered battlegrounds across Europe to protect Holocaust victims of a land not their own, the Government of Canada enacted legislation ordering the internment of its own people.
Despite a lack of evidence or proof of guilt of any crime, Ian MacKenzie, a Member of Parliament stated on a national CBC Broadcast, “No Japs from the Rockies to the seas”.
The Japanese Canadian Internment is a grim reminder of a chequered past, where our civilization was prepared to infringe upon the human rights of its citizens in response to irrational fears on public safety.
Though citizens today are not particularly concerned about a Japanese submarine emerging of the coast of British Columbia or a Japanese fisherman leaking information about Canada’s coastline to an Axis enemy, we should not forget that despite our noblest traditions, we have in the past been responsible for the tragic abrogation of the civil liberties of our own citizens.
Even the so-called pillar of democracy, the United States of America, is not without its lessons.
During the McCarthy era, for example, the search for communists during the cold war saw thousands of citizens rounded-up, interrogated, accused and even convicted for crimes they did not commit.
The McCarthyist search for communists is considered by many to be the most famous witch hunt of the 20th Century;
When Ken Adachi was fingerprinted and interned, he had committed no crime. Perhaps the most frightening thought for any citizen is being arrested, charged and convicted for a crime they did not commit.
Yet even with the Canadian Charter of Rights firmly engrafted into our criminal law, Canada’s justice system is not without its casualties.
Thomas Sophonow spent four years in jail for a crime he did not commit.
Though he was compensated by the Manitoba government, he said “no compensation can pay for all the years”;
In 1990, another Winnipeg resident, James Driskell was imprisoned for life after he was convicted of first-degree murder.
He spent twelve years behind bars and was not exonerated until February 15th, 2007, when the Justice Department finally acknowledged that the jurors at his trial had been “seriously misled” on the reliability of key witnesses and the failure on the part of prosecutors to disclose information;
In 1995, Randy Druken was convicted of murdering his girlfriend on the basis of evidence from a jailhouse informer.
Though Druken was released in 1999 after the informer claimed police pressured him into making a false statement, he spent four years in jail faced with constant danger from inmates who savagely punished those convicted of killing women and children.
Druken later stated, “there were times that…I even wanted to kill myself. And again, I had to think of reasons why not to”;
David Milgaard spent 23 years of his life in jail for the murder of Gail Miller.
He was falsely identified by a casual friend.
After his release, Mr. Milgaard stated “There is no justice in being locked up behind bars for something you have not done…. How would you feel if no one would tell the truth about you?”
David Milgaard, Thomas Sophonow, James Driskell and a host of others such as Gregory Parsons, Guy Paul Morin, Donald Marshal, Steven Truscott, and Herman Kaglik stand as firm reminders of the frailties of criminal justice.
Herman Kaglik spent over 4 years behind bars after being wrongly convicted for sexually assaulting his niece.
He was convicted on a single witnesses’ testimony and later exonerated through DNA evidence.
After his release, Mr. Kaglik commented: “It was a daily grind of fighting for your life and trying to convince people you were innocent”;
Recently, Mr. William Mullins-Johnson was found to be wrongly convicted on the basis of the expert opinion evidence of Dr. Charles Smith.
When given opportunity to address his accuser, Mr. Mullins-Johnson told Dr. Smith: “You put me in an environment where I could have been killed any day for something that never happened. You destroyed my family, my brother’s relationship with me and my niece that’s still left and my nephew that’s still living. They hate me because of what you did to me”;
Though Dr. Charles Smith was certainly labelled Judas at the Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario, the Honourable Stephen T. Goudge properly reminded us that the wrongful conviction of Mr. Mullins-Johnson and others was as much as product of Dr. Smith as it was failed oversight.
Our system of justice is built upon the presumption of innocence along with other principles designed to make the presumption meaningful.
Recent attacks on the justice system, and in particular, the law of bail, by those such as Alberta Justice Minister, Ms. Alison Redford are just a little troubling because they demonstrate an apparent willingness by those responsible for justice in this province to reduce legal protections for those accused of crime.
If history has taught us anything, it’s that people in Canada can be accused, charged, convicted and even incarcerated for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
Notwithstanding that Ms. Redford’s message may be high on catch phrases, such as “catch and release” and “revolving door” the message is frighteningly low on substance.
“We need to write vigorous legislation” she says, “[i]f people don’t like it they can challenge it. The fear of a Charter challenge should not stop us from passing legislation that makes sense”;
This begs the question: what makes sense? Should parliament write potentially unconstitutional legislation to ensure that those who are “presumed innocent” are kept behind bars?
Journalists such as Rick Bell obviously think so.
In his words, “[i]t’s Alison against Goliath, with the giant being the weak-kneed Canadian criminal justice system."
Police Chief Rick Hansen obviously thinks so too. “How much protection does the average citizen deserve…”;
Alberta’s Minister of Public Security, Fred Lindsay also thinks so. As he says, “[t]he justice system operates on a principle of innocent until proven guilty. Sometimes they go overboard”;
Well I feel safer already. The talking heads stand united!
According to Ms. Redford, “it’s fine to be presumed innocent until proven guilty” and “[i]t’s fine if we have to keep more people in jail”.
In fact, as she says, “I want to keep more people in remand”[13]. David Milgaard had a chequered past.
According to Ms. Redford, I guess “it’s fine” that he was jailed?
But hang on, wasn’t he innocent?
The message of this article is to suggest that before charging ahead with unintelligent and dramatic plans to overhaul a system with the aim of making it easier to incarcerate citizens, we should remember those who were sacrificed because our system failed.
And it’s not “fine” that it did.
How much protection does the average citizen deserve?
How about enough to ensure that no citizen is ever wrongfully convicted, interned or persecuted for something they did not do?"
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
JUSTICE GOUDGE'S FINDINGS; PART TEN; THE ASPHYXIA CASES; (SMITH); TIFFANI; KATHARINA; DELANEY AND TAYLOR;
Over the past eighteen months I have used this Blog to intensively report on developments relating to Dr. Charles Smith culminating with the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry.
I am now winding up this phase of the Blog - to be replaced eventually by periodic reporting of developments relating to Dr. Smith and related issues as they occur - with an examination of Justice Goudge's findings in the cases reviewed by the Inquiry.
I think it is important to take this closer look at the report in this Blog, because the mainstream media, which has done an admirable job in reporting the inquiry, have gone on to other stories.
Justice Goudge's findings relating to the various cases have been scattered throughout the report.
My approach is to weave together the findings relating to all of the principal actors - so we can get a fuller picture of Justice Goudge's findings as to their conduct;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview reports prepared by Commission staff on the four cases which Justice Goudge refers to in his section called "Diagnosing Asphyxia" - Tiffani's case, Katharina's case, Delaney's case, and Taylor's case - read as follows
Tiffani's case:
Tiffani was born in Kingston,Ontario on March 24, 1993;
Tiffani was the child of Mary and William;
Tiffani died on July 4, 1993 in Glen Miller, Ontario;
Tiffani was three and a half months old at the time of her death;
Criminal proceedings were initiated against Mary and William;
On May 12, 1995, Mary and William pleaded guilty to the offence of failure to provide the necessities of life.
Mary received a suspended sentence and probation of two years (plus three days pre-trial custody) and William received a sentence of five months imprisonment;
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Katharina's case:;
Katharina was born in Toronto, Ontario on March 20, 1992;
Katharina was the only child of Lawrence Babineau and Gabriela Chaparro-Najar; (Ms. Babineau);
Katharina was found dead in her mother's apartment on September 15, 1995, in Toronto at the age of three and a half;
Criminal proceedings were initiated against Ms. Babineau on September 15, 1995;
On November 3, 1997, Ms. Babineau was found not criminally responsible for Katharina's death.
She received an absolute discharge from the Ontario Review Board on December 13, 2001;
The Toronto Catholic Children's Aid Society was involved with this family from October 17, 1994, until September 15, 1995;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaney's case:
Delaney was born in Woodstock, Ontario on December 20, 1992;
Delaney was the child of Olga Policarpo and Fernando Policarpo;
Delaney was pronounced dead on May 23, 1993, at Woodstock General Hospital.
Delaney was five months old at the time of his death;
Criminal proceedings were initiated against Olga Policarpo.
On April 25, 1994, Ms.Policarpo was convicted by a jury of infanticide.
On June 20, 1994, Ms. Policarpo was given a suspended sentence and three years probation;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor's case;
Taylor was born on April 16, 1996, in Thunder Bay.
Taylor was found dead in his cradle on July 31, 1996;
Taylor was three and a half months old at the time of his death;
Taylor lived with his mother and father, Lanny and Laura, in Thunder Bay.
Also living in the home was Laura's son from a previous relationship (Taylor's brother), who was 20 months when Taylor died;
The Children's Aid Society was involved with respect to Taylor's brother following Taylor's death;
Lanny and Laura were charged with second degree murder in relation to Taylor's death on November 30, 1996;
They were also charged with criminal negligence causing death and failure to provide the necessities of life.
On June 30, 1997, Lanny and Laura were discharged on all counts following their preliminary inquiry.
The Crown brought an application in the nature of certiorari to quash the discharges which was dismissed on September 21, 199;
An appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was launched in October 1999 and was ultimately abandoned by the Crown in January 2000;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Justice Goudge, one of the principal reasons Dr. Smith erred in the cases where he wrongfully concluded a child had died a suspicious death because of asphyxia was his misinterpretation of "non-specific findings" such as petechial hemorrhages in the thoracic viscera, congestion and edema of the lungs, cyanosis of the fingernails and cerebral edema, as indications of suspicious death.
But Justice Goudge noted that as early as 1974 forensic pathology textbooks were referring to those criteria as "obsolete" because they can appear on a body for many reasons - and without more evidence cannot be said to be diagnostic of asphyxia.
"Nonetheless, Dr. Smith determined that asphyxia was the cause of death in nine of the 18 cases the Commission studied in detail," he said.
Here are some of Justice Goudge's comments in the four cases referred to above:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffani:
Justice Goudge concludes that all of Dr. Smith's criteria were "non-specific and therefore non-diagnostic" - and that "the diagnosis of asphyxia was not available to him on the basis of the findings."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katharina:
As in Delaney's case (below), the independent experts diagreed with Smith's finding that the cause of death was asphyxia - and said that if he had diagnosed asphyxia based on the circumstantial, rather than the pathology evidence, he should have at least said so in his report.
"Instead, his reports were silent on the issue."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaney:
The panel of independent experts disagreed with Smith's assertion that the pathological evidence established that Delaney's airway had been obstructed.
"According to Dr. Saukko, the toxicology, radiology and histology examinations did not reveal any specific or significant findings that could explain Delaney's death," said Goudge.
"Although the circumstances suggest homicide, there were no pathology findings to substantiate it or exclude it."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor;
This was a case where Smith did not find asphyxia to be the cause of death but determined there was an "asphyxial component" to the death
But Justice Goudge finds that Dr. Smith based this conclusion entirely on non-specific findings and that "there was no other evidence to suggest that asphyxia played a part in Taylor's death.
"Contrary to Dr. Smith's assertion that he did not diagnose asphyxia based on non-specific findings alone, he did exactly that in Taylor's case."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There you have it;
Four cases in which none of the parents should have been put through the agony of being charged criminally with the death of a child;
Look at the consequences:
Tiffani: On May 12, 1995, Mary and William pleaded guilty to the offence of failure to provide the necessities of life.Mary received a suspended sentence and probation of two years (plus three days pre-trial custody) and William received a sentence of five months imprisonment;
Katharina: Criminal proceedings were initiated against Ms. Babineau on September 15, 1995; On November 3, 1997, Ms. Babineau was found not criminally responsible for Katharina's death.
Delaney: On April 25, 1994, Ms.Policarpo was convicted by a jury of infanticide. On June 20, 1994, Ms. Policarpo was given a suspended sentence and three years probation;
Taylor: Lanny and Laura were charged with second degree murder in relation to Taylor's death on November 30, 1996; They were also charged with criminal negligence causing death and failure to provide the necessities of life. On June 30, 1997, Lanny and Laura were discharged on all counts following their preliminary inquiry. The Crown brought an application in the nature of certiorari to quash the discharges which was dismissed on September 21, 1999; An appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was launched in October 1999 and was ultimately abandoned by the Crown in January 2000;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am now winding up this phase of the Blog - to be replaced eventually by periodic reporting of developments relating to Dr. Smith and related issues as they occur - with an examination of Justice Goudge's findings in the cases reviewed by the Inquiry.
I think it is important to take this closer look at the report in this Blog, because the mainstream media, which has done an admirable job in reporting the inquiry, have gone on to other stories.
Justice Goudge's findings relating to the various cases have been scattered throughout the report.
My approach is to weave together the findings relating to all of the principal actors - so we can get a fuller picture of Justice Goudge's findings as to their conduct;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview reports prepared by Commission staff on the four cases which Justice Goudge refers to in his section called "Diagnosing Asphyxia" - Tiffani's case, Katharina's case, Delaney's case, and Taylor's case - read as follows
Tiffani's case:
Tiffani was born in Kingston,Ontario on March 24, 1993;
Tiffani was the child of Mary and William;
Tiffani died on July 4, 1993 in Glen Miller, Ontario;
Tiffani was three and a half months old at the time of her death;
Criminal proceedings were initiated against Mary and William;
On May 12, 1995, Mary and William pleaded guilty to the offence of failure to provide the necessities of life.
Mary received a suspended sentence and probation of two years (plus three days pre-trial custody) and William received a sentence of five months imprisonment;
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Katharina's case:;
Katharina was born in Toronto, Ontario on March 20, 1992;
Katharina was the only child of Lawrence Babineau and Gabriela Chaparro-Najar; (Ms. Babineau);
Katharina was found dead in her mother's apartment on September 15, 1995, in Toronto at the age of three and a half;
Criminal proceedings were initiated against Ms. Babineau on September 15, 1995;
On November 3, 1997, Ms. Babineau was found not criminally responsible for Katharina's death.
She received an absolute discharge from the Ontario Review Board on December 13, 2001;
The Toronto Catholic Children's Aid Society was involved with this family from October 17, 1994, until September 15, 1995;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaney's case:
Delaney was born in Woodstock, Ontario on December 20, 1992;
Delaney was the child of Olga Policarpo and Fernando Policarpo;
Delaney was pronounced dead on May 23, 1993, at Woodstock General Hospital.
Delaney was five months old at the time of his death;
Criminal proceedings were initiated against Olga Policarpo.
On April 25, 1994, Ms.Policarpo was convicted by a jury of infanticide.
On June 20, 1994, Ms. Policarpo was given a suspended sentence and three years probation;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor's case;
Taylor was born on April 16, 1996, in Thunder Bay.
Taylor was found dead in his cradle on July 31, 1996;
Taylor was three and a half months old at the time of his death;
Taylor lived with his mother and father, Lanny and Laura, in Thunder Bay.
Also living in the home was Laura's son from a previous relationship (Taylor's brother), who was 20 months when Taylor died;
The Children's Aid Society was involved with respect to Taylor's brother following Taylor's death;
Lanny and Laura were charged with second degree murder in relation to Taylor's death on November 30, 1996;
They were also charged with criminal negligence causing death and failure to provide the necessities of life.
On June 30, 1997, Lanny and Laura were discharged on all counts following their preliminary inquiry.
The Crown brought an application in the nature of certiorari to quash the discharges which was dismissed on September 21, 199;
An appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was launched in October 1999 and was ultimately abandoned by the Crown in January 2000;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Justice Goudge, one of the principal reasons Dr. Smith erred in the cases where he wrongfully concluded a child had died a suspicious death because of asphyxia was his misinterpretation of "non-specific findings" such as petechial hemorrhages in the thoracic viscera, congestion and edema of the lungs, cyanosis of the fingernails and cerebral edema, as indications of suspicious death.
But Justice Goudge noted that as early as 1974 forensic pathology textbooks were referring to those criteria as "obsolete" because they can appear on a body for many reasons - and without more evidence cannot be said to be diagnostic of asphyxia.
"Nonetheless, Dr. Smith determined that asphyxia was the cause of death in nine of the 18 cases the Commission studied in detail," he said.
Here are some of Justice Goudge's comments in the four cases referred to above:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffani:
Justice Goudge concludes that all of Dr. Smith's criteria were "non-specific and therefore non-diagnostic" - and that "the diagnosis of asphyxia was not available to him on the basis of the findings."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katharina:
As in Delaney's case (below), the independent experts diagreed with Smith's finding that the cause of death was asphyxia - and said that if he had diagnosed asphyxia based on the circumstantial, rather than the pathology evidence, he should have at least said so in his report.
"Instead, his reports were silent on the issue."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaney:
The panel of independent experts disagreed with Smith's assertion that the pathological evidence established that Delaney's airway had been obstructed.
"According to Dr. Saukko, the toxicology, radiology and histology examinations did not reveal any specific or significant findings that could explain Delaney's death," said Goudge.
"Although the circumstances suggest homicide, there were no pathology findings to substantiate it or exclude it."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor;
This was a case where Smith did not find asphyxia to be the cause of death but determined there was an "asphyxial component" to the death
But Justice Goudge finds that Dr. Smith based this conclusion entirely on non-specific findings and that "there was no other evidence to suggest that asphyxia played a part in Taylor's death.
"Contrary to Dr. Smith's assertion that he did not diagnose asphyxia based on non-specific findings alone, he did exactly that in Taylor's case."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There you have it;
Four cases in which none of the parents should have been put through the agony of being charged criminally with the death of a child;
Look at the consequences:
Tiffani: On May 12, 1995, Mary and William pleaded guilty to the offence of failure to provide the necessities of life.Mary received a suspended sentence and probation of two years (plus three days pre-trial custody) and William received a sentence of five months imprisonment;
Katharina: Criminal proceedings were initiated against Ms. Babineau on September 15, 1995; On November 3, 1997, Ms. Babineau was found not criminally responsible for Katharina's death.
Delaney: On April 25, 1994, Ms.Policarpo was convicted by a jury of infanticide. On June 20, 1994, Ms. Policarpo was given a suspended sentence and three years probation;
Taylor: Lanny and Laura were charged with second degree murder in relation to Taylor's death on November 30, 1996; They were also charged with criminal negligence causing death and failure to provide the necessities of life. On June 30, 1997, Lanny and Laura were discharged on all counts following their preliminary inquiry. The Crown brought an application in the nature of certiorari to quash the discharges which was dismissed on September 21, 1999; An appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was launched in October 1999 and was ultimately abandoned by the Crown in January 2000;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, November 9, 2008
MAKING AN INNOCENT MOTHER ACCUSED OF KILLING HER INFANT DAUGHTER LOOK GUILTY: THE XIU ZHANG CASE;
One day before the Goudge Inquiry was released, Ontario prosecutors dropped a murder charge that had been laid against Xiu Zhang in connection with the death of her baby daughter;
Ms. Zhang had gone through the horror and infamy of being charged with murdering her own child and had spent five and a half months behind bars.
The Toronto Star story ran on September 30, 2008 under the heading, "Charges dropped in baby's death," and runs under the sub-heading, "Xiu Zheng's arrest based on her reaction after death, court told."
"A 39-year-old Toronto woman who was accused of killing her infant daughter walked free yesterday after a court was told the charge was based on apparently nothing more than her own physical reactions in the aftermath of the child's death," the story began.
"Accompanied by family members, Xiu Zheng left the Old City Hall courthouse quickly and quietly after a charge of second-degree murder, laid by Toronto police last February, was withdrawn," it continued.
At the heart of reporter Tracey Tyler's story is an interview with lawyer James Lockyer, which proceeds as follows:
"Much of her ordeal – which included five months in a segregation cell at a Milton jail – could have been avoided if police had waited two days for an autopsy to be performed, instead of charging her after an interview conducted in the hours after 40-day-old Xin Lei was found dead," he (Lockyer) said.
"Police jumped the gun," Lockyer said in an interview outside court yesterday.
Arrested shortly after her daughter was pronounced dead by paramedics on Feb. 23, Zheng – who came to Canada in 2006 and speaks no English – was "essentially catatonic," unclear on what was happening and unaware of her rights, Lockyer said.
During the interview, she stared at the floor, mumbling "mmmm" and nodding her head in response to virtually anything posed to her by officers, which included suggestions as to how her daughter might have died, all of which amounted to "homicide," he said.
"Assistant Crown attorney Jill Witkin told Justice Paul Bentley that Zheng's videotaped statement would likely be ruled inadmissible because of her condition at the time of the interview," the story continued;
"Two days after she was questioned, Dr. David Chiasson, the director of pediatric forensic pathology at the Hospital for Sick Children, concluded an autopsy did not reveal a cause of death. Toxicology tests also provided no answers.
Zheng came to Canada in 2006 with two other daughters, ages 4 and 10. Her husband, Li Huang, had arrived earlier.
On the day his youngest daughter died, Huang left the family's home on Manning Ave., near Bathurst and Queen Sts., around 7:30 a.m. to look for work. When he returned home some 12 hours later, the baby appeared to be asleep in bed, with a pillow under her head and a quilt rolled up to her chest, the court was told.
But Zheng was pacing back and forth.
Later that night, Huang's sister and landlord came downstairs to see little Xin Lei, telling her brother the child looked pale. He called paramedics after discovering she was cold and wouldn't wake up.
Witkin said the Crown concluded there was no reasonable prospect of conviction after reviewing Chiasson's report in May.""
Given our current knowledge that there was never any pathological evidence against Ms. Zhang - just a statement taken during a time of enormous grief the tragic death of her daughter, the news stories on the laying of the murder charge against her (based on police sources) deserve close examination.
For example, the Toronto Star story ran on February 25 2008, under the heading, "Mother, 38, charged with murdering her baby."
"A woman has been charged with second-degree murder after her baby was found dead in her home Saturday night," the story by staff reporters Carmen Chai and Paola Loriggio began.
"Police received a call from a home on Manning Ave. near Queen St. W. about a baby not breathing," it continued;
"The victim, Xin Lei Huang, 40 days old, was pronounced dead just before 9 p.m.
Det. Sgt. Gary Grinton of the homicide squad said the baby's death wasn't an accident.
The baby's mother, Xiu Zheng, 38, has been charged with second-degree murder.
Post-partum depression can affect up to 15 per cent of women within 12 months of giving birth. One in 500 to one in 1,000 may suffer from psychosis.
Of the small number who become psychotic, only up to 4 per cent might harm their babies, some studies have shown.
Two cases of infanticide were reported nationwide in 2005, according to Statistics Canada, which defines infanticide as a woman wilfully killing her newborn under the effects of a postpartum disorder.
Police said they did not know whether Zheng suffered from postpartum depression
Police officers last night guarded the family's two-storey, semi-detached brick home until forensics experts could conduct a search.
A post-mortem examination is scheduled for today.
Anyone with information is asked to contact Crime Stoppers anonymously at 416-222-TIPS (8477) or at the website www.222tips.com."
Looking briefly at this story, we see a statement by the police that the death was not accidental, a suggestion has been made (but not attributed) that this was an infanticide (an extremely serious criminal offence) - and the invitation to contact Crimestoppers, essentially tells the public that Ms. Zhang is a criminal (rather than a grieving mother), and that there may be more dirt out there.
So terribly unfair.
Harold Levy...hlevy15gmail.com;
Ms. Zhang had gone through the horror and infamy of being charged with murdering her own child and had spent five and a half months behind bars.
The Toronto Star story ran on September 30, 2008 under the heading, "Charges dropped in baby's death," and runs under the sub-heading, "Xiu Zheng's arrest based on her reaction after death, court told."
"A 39-year-old Toronto woman who was accused of killing her infant daughter walked free yesterday after a court was told the charge was based on apparently nothing more than her own physical reactions in the aftermath of the child's death," the story began.
"Accompanied by family members, Xiu Zheng left the Old City Hall courthouse quickly and quietly after a charge of second-degree murder, laid by Toronto police last February, was withdrawn," it continued.
At the heart of reporter Tracey Tyler's story is an interview with lawyer James Lockyer, which proceeds as follows:
"Much of her ordeal – which included five months in a segregation cell at a Milton jail – could have been avoided if police had waited two days for an autopsy to be performed, instead of charging her after an interview conducted in the hours after 40-day-old Xin Lei was found dead," he (Lockyer) said.
"Police jumped the gun," Lockyer said in an interview outside court yesterday.
Arrested shortly after her daughter was pronounced dead by paramedics on Feb. 23, Zheng – who came to Canada in 2006 and speaks no English – was "essentially catatonic," unclear on what was happening and unaware of her rights, Lockyer said.
During the interview, she stared at the floor, mumbling "mmmm" and nodding her head in response to virtually anything posed to her by officers, which included suggestions as to how her daughter might have died, all of which amounted to "homicide," he said.
"Assistant Crown attorney Jill Witkin told Justice Paul Bentley that Zheng's videotaped statement would likely be ruled inadmissible because of her condition at the time of the interview," the story continued;
"Two days after she was questioned, Dr. David Chiasson, the director of pediatric forensic pathology at the Hospital for Sick Children, concluded an autopsy did not reveal a cause of death. Toxicology tests also provided no answers.
Zheng came to Canada in 2006 with two other daughters, ages 4 and 10. Her husband, Li Huang, had arrived earlier.
On the day his youngest daughter died, Huang left the family's home on Manning Ave., near Bathurst and Queen Sts., around 7:30 a.m. to look for work. When he returned home some 12 hours later, the baby appeared to be asleep in bed, with a pillow under her head and a quilt rolled up to her chest, the court was told.
But Zheng was pacing back and forth.
Later that night, Huang's sister and landlord came downstairs to see little Xin Lei, telling her brother the child looked pale. He called paramedics after discovering she was cold and wouldn't wake up.
Witkin said the Crown concluded there was no reasonable prospect of conviction after reviewing Chiasson's report in May.""
Given our current knowledge that there was never any pathological evidence against Ms. Zhang - just a statement taken during a time of enormous grief the tragic death of her daughter, the news stories on the laying of the murder charge against her (based on police sources) deserve close examination.
For example, the Toronto Star story ran on February 25 2008, under the heading, "Mother, 38, charged with murdering her baby."
"A woman has been charged with second-degree murder after her baby was found dead in her home Saturday night," the story by staff reporters Carmen Chai and Paola Loriggio began.
"Police received a call from a home on Manning Ave. near Queen St. W. about a baby not breathing," it continued;
"The victim, Xin Lei Huang, 40 days old, was pronounced dead just before 9 p.m.
Det. Sgt. Gary Grinton of the homicide squad said the baby's death wasn't an accident.
The baby's mother, Xiu Zheng, 38, has been charged with second-degree murder.
Post-partum depression can affect up to 15 per cent of women within 12 months of giving birth. One in 500 to one in 1,000 may suffer from psychosis.
Of the small number who become psychotic, only up to 4 per cent might harm their babies, some studies have shown.
Two cases of infanticide were reported nationwide in 2005, according to Statistics Canada, which defines infanticide as a woman wilfully killing her newborn under the effects of a postpartum disorder.
Police said they did not know whether Zheng suffered from postpartum depression
Police officers last night guarded the family's two-storey, semi-detached brick home until forensics experts could conduct a search.
A post-mortem examination is scheduled for today.
Anyone with information is asked to contact Crime Stoppers anonymously at 416-222-TIPS (8477) or at the website www.222tips.com."
Looking briefly at this story, we see a statement by the police that the death was not accidental, a suggestion has been made (but not attributed) that this was an infanticide (an extremely serious criminal offence) - and the invitation to contact Crimestoppers, essentially tells the public that Ms. Zhang is a criminal (rather than a grieving mother), and that there may be more dirt out there.
So terribly unfair.
Harold Levy...hlevy15gmail.com;
JUSTICE GOUDGE'S FINDINGS: PART NINE; PAOLO'S CASE;
Over the past eighteen months I have used this Blog to intensively report on developments relating to Dr. Charles Smith culminating with the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry.
I am now winding up this phase of the Blog - to be replaced eventually by periodic reporting of developments relating to Dr. Smith and related issues as they occur - with an examination of Justice Goudge's findings in the cases reviewed by the Inquiry.
I think it is important to take this closer look at the report in this Blog, because the mainstream media, which has done an admirable job in reporting the inquiry, have gone on to other stories.
Justice Goudge's findings relating to the various cases have been scattered throughout the report.
My approach is to weave together the findings relating to all of the principal actors - so we can get a fuller picture of Justice Goudge's findings as to their conduct;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the Goudge Inquiry did not publish an overview of Paolo's case, here is a Blog I published on Thursday, November 8, 2007, under the heading, "Trotta: Supreme Court Discredits Smith: A Defining Moment";
"The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the havoc caused by Dr. Charles Smith on Canada's criminal justice system," the post began.
"(The Globe and Mail got it right in an editorial following release of the results of the Chief Coroner's review when it described Dr. Smith as an "earthquake" that struck our justice system over and over again), it continued.
"This was the first time that the Supreme Court has delivered a judgment on a case in which Dr. Smith was the issue.
"Essentially the fresh evidence - mainly the expert opinions of Dr. Michael Pollanen and Dr. Simon Avis - discredits the evidence given at trial by Dr. Charles Smith, an expert called by the Crown," Justice Morris Fish wrote for the unanimous court. "And the evidence of a second Crown witness at trial, Dr. David Chan, has been rendered unreliable as a result..."
(The Supreme Court of Canada's description of the once-renowned Crown expert's evidence as "discredited" is akin to a General's epaulettes being pulled off in disgrace by the Commander-in-chief);
"We think it neither safe nor sound to conclude that the verdicts on any charges would necessarily have been the same but for Dr. Smith's successfully impugned evidence."
(Justice Fish explains that the Court cannot provide any more details than necessary about the fresh evidence because it directed a new trial on all counts);
The Trotta decision falls closely on the heels of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision acquitting William Mullins-Johnson in the first-degree murder of his 4-year-old niece Valin - which we now know to be an alleged crime that never occurred. (See earlier posting: Mullins-Johnson acquittal: Notable quotes);
So now both the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal have closely examined Dr. Smith's work in two cases where he was the central crown witness and found that the Emperor was wearing no clothes.
The toll in the just these two cases:
Mullins-Johnson served more than twelve years of his first-degree sentence before being released from custody pending his application for a ministerial review;
Marco Trotta had served nine years of a life sentence with no chance of parole for fifteen years as his son's killer.
Anisa Trotta had completed serving her five year term for negligent homicide and failure to provide the necessaries of life;
And that's just the cost in terms of years.
All because of the once celebrated Dr. Charles Randal Smith.
Globe and Mail reporter Kirk Makin got it right yesterday in a report published on the Globe's Web-site shortly after the judgment was released:
"Thursday's ruling was a major victory for lawyers James Lockyer and Michael Lomer," wrote Makin.
"They had tried to persuade the court that, by misidentifying or fabricating injuries – and then overstating his evidence at the Trotta trial – Dr. Smith had poisoned the entire proceeding."
"The Supreme Court of Canada has now encapsulated what has become more and more clear in recent years - that Dr. Smith's mistakes have discredited him," Mr. Lomer said in an interview (with Makin).
For Dr. Smith, the light at the end of the tunnel is the train."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Goudge concludes that Deputy Chief Coroner, Dr. Jim Cairns, defended Dr. Smith's work in Paolo's case by providing an expert pathology opinion (which he did not have the expertise to provide) - in the same manner as Chief Coroner, Dr. James Young, had written a supportive letter (drafted by Smith's lawyers) to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario which was investigating Smith at the time;
"This time it was in relation to Dr. Smith's pathology opinion in Paolo's case," said Gouge.
"In so doing, Dr. Cairns exceeded his expertise, the effect was to shield Dr. Smith's opinion from further scrutiny."
Justice Goudge also concludes that Dr. Cairns made "three incorrect misrepresentations to Crown Law Officer Lucy Ceccheto about the nature of the 2001 review of Dr. Smith's work and Dr. Smith's status regarding coroner's cases, as follows:
0: that Dr Smith's work in approximately 20 cases had been reviewed, in 18 of those there was no difference of opinion with Dr. Smith, in the other two the difference of opinion was limited to where experts might reasonably agree;
0: that there was no suggestion from these reviews that Dr. Smith was incompetent or negligent in these cases;
0: that following the review, Dr. Smith was returned to the autopsy roster in June, 2001 and that, as far as the Chief Coroner's Office was concerned, Dr. Smith was competent to conduct any autopsy;
"None of Dr. Cairns three statements was correct," write Goudge, adding that Cairns did not take any steps to correct the misunderstandings.
"This failure to act had the effect of misleading Crown and defence counsel about the rigour of the Chief Coroner's Office process and the scope of Dr. Smith's practice after June 2001."
Justice Goudge also faults Cairns for confirming in a letter to Ms. Cecchetto in a letter that he had conducted a, "thorough review" of Dr. Smith's work in Paolo's case, including the autopsy report, photographs, and expert testimony at the trial - and he confirmed that, "he had no concerns regarding the opinion given by Dr. Smith and (saw) no reason what so ever for the Chief Coroner's Office or the Crown to hire another expert."
Once again, in the words of Justice Goudge: "Dr. Cairns was wrong."
"Other experts reviewed the case.
Dr. Smith's opinion was sufficiently discredited by other pathology experts that the Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial for Paolo's parents.
As with his affidavit in Nicholas' case, Dr. Smith did not have the expertise to provide this opinion.
A proper review required expertise in forensic pathology.
Moreover, at the time Dr. Cairns provided the unqualified opinion,he was fully apprised of the serious concerns about Dr. Smith's competence, integrity and judgment arising from cases such as Jenna's.
This incident provides yet another example of the importance about experts undertaking and respecting the limits of their expertise.
As he candidly acknowledged at the Inquiry, Dr. Cairns had absolutely no business offering this opinion."
In this Blogster's humble opinion, this incident provides yet another example of the axiom (Levy's law) that without basic honesty and a commitment to communicating the truth to other actors in the criminal justice system on the part of those who run our Coroner's system, you can make all the systemic changes in the world and nothing will ever change.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
I am now winding up this phase of the Blog - to be replaced eventually by periodic reporting of developments relating to Dr. Smith and related issues as they occur - with an examination of Justice Goudge's findings in the cases reviewed by the Inquiry.
I think it is important to take this closer look at the report in this Blog, because the mainstream media, which has done an admirable job in reporting the inquiry, have gone on to other stories.
Justice Goudge's findings relating to the various cases have been scattered throughout the report.
My approach is to weave together the findings relating to all of the principal actors - so we can get a fuller picture of Justice Goudge's findings as to their conduct;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the Goudge Inquiry did not publish an overview of Paolo's case, here is a Blog I published on Thursday, November 8, 2007, under the heading, "Trotta: Supreme Court Discredits Smith: A Defining Moment";
"The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the havoc caused by Dr. Charles Smith on Canada's criminal justice system," the post began.
"(The Globe and Mail got it right in an editorial following release of the results of the Chief Coroner's review when it described Dr. Smith as an "earthquake" that struck our justice system over and over again), it continued.
"This was the first time that the Supreme Court has delivered a judgment on a case in which Dr. Smith was the issue.
"Essentially the fresh evidence - mainly the expert opinions of Dr. Michael Pollanen and Dr. Simon Avis - discredits the evidence given at trial by Dr. Charles Smith, an expert called by the Crown," Justice Morris Fish wrote for the unanimous court. "And the evidence of a second Crown witness at trial, Dr. David Chan, has been rendered unreliable as a result..."
(The Supreme Court of Canada's description of the once-renowned Crown expert's evidence as "discredited" is akin to a General's epaulettes being pulled off in disgrace by the Commander-in-chief);
"We think it neither safe nor sound to conclude that the verdicts on any charges would necessarily have been the same but for Dr. Smith's successfully impugned evidence."
(Justice Fish explains that the Court cannot provide any more details than necessary about the fresh evidence because it directed a new trial on all counts);
The Trotta decision falls closely on the heels of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision acquitting William Mullins-Johnson in the first-degree murder of his 4-year-old niece Valin - which we now know to be an alleged crime that never occurred. (See earlier posting: Mullins-Johnson acquittal: Notable quotes);
So now both the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal have closely examined Dr. Smith's work in two cases where he was the central crown witness and found that the Emperor was wearing no clothes.
The toll in the just these two cases:
Mullins-Johnson served more than twelve years of his first-degree sentence before being released from custody pending his application for a ministerial review;
Marco Trotta had served nine years of a life sentence with no chance of parole for fifteen years as his son's killer.
Anisa Trotta had completed serving her five year term for negligent homicide and failure to provide the necessaries of life;
And that's just the cost in terms of years.
All because of the once celebrated Dr. Charles Randal Smith.
Globe and Mail reporter Kirk Makin got it right yesterday in a report published on the Globe's Web-site shortly after the judgment was released:
"Thursday's ruling was a major victory for lawyers James Lockyer and Michael Lomer," wrote Makin.
"They had tried to persuade the court that, by misidentifying or fabricating injuries – and then overstating his evidence at the Trotta trial – Dr. Smith had poisoned the entire proceeding."
"The Supreme Court of Canada has now encapsulated what has become more and more clear in recent years - that Dr. Smith's mistakes have discredited him," Mr. Lomer said in an interview (with Makin).
For Dr. Smith, the light at the end of the tunnel is the train."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Goudge concludes that Deputy Chief Coroner, Dr. Jim Cairns, defended Dr. Smith's work in Paolo's case by providing an expert pathology opinion (which he did not have the expertise to provide) - in the same manner as Chief Coroner, Dr. James Young, had written a supportive letter (drafted by Smith's lawyers) to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario which was investigating Smith at the time;
"This time it was in relation to Dr. Smith's pathology opinion in Paolo's case," said Gouge.
"In so doing, Dr. Cairns exceeded his expertise, the effect was to shield Dr. Smith's opinion from further scrutiny."
Justice Goudge also concludes that Dr. Cairns made "three incorrect misrepresentations to Crown Law Officer Lucy Ceccheto about the nature of the 2001 review of Dr. Smith's work and Dr. Smith's status regarding coroner's cases, as follows:
0: that Dr Smith's work in approximately 20 cases had been reviewed, in 18 of those there was no difference of opinion with Dr. Smith, in the other two the difference of opinion was limited to where experts might reasonably agree;
0: that there was no suggestion from these reviews that Dr. Smith was incompetent or negligent in these cases;
0: that following the review, Dr. Smith was returned to the autopsy roster in June, 2001 and that, as far as the Chief Coroner's Office was concerned, Dr. Smith was competent to conduct any autopsy;
"None of Dr. Cairns three statements was correct," write Goudge, adding that Cairns did not take any steps to correct the misunderstandings.
"This failure to act had the effect of misleading Crown and defence counsel about the rigour of the Chief Coroner's Office process and the scope of Dr. Smith's practice after June 2001."
Justice Goudge also faults Cairns for confirming in a letter to Ms. Cecchetto in a letter that he had conducted a, "thorough review" of Dr. Smith's work in Paolo's case, including the autopsy report, photographs, and expert testimony at the trial - and he confirmed that, "he had no concerns regarding the opinion given by Dr. Smith and (saw) no reason what so ever for the Chief Coroner's Office or the Crown to hire another expert."
Once again, in the words of Justice Goudge: "Dr. Cairns was wrong."
"Other experts reviewed the case.
Dr. Smith's opinion was sufficiently discredited by other pathology experts that the Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial for Paolo's parents.
As with his affidavit in Nicholas' case, Dr. Smith did not have the expertise to provide this opinion.
A proper review required expertise in forensic pathology.
Moreover, at the time Dr. Cairns provided the unqualified opinion,he was fully apprised of the serious concerns about Dr. Smith's competence, integrity and judgment arising from cases such as Jenna's.
This incident provides yet another example of the importance about experts undertaking and respecting the limits of their expertise.
As he candidly acknowledged at the Inquiry, Dr. Cairns had absolutely no business offering this opinion."
In this Blogster's humble opinion, this incident provides yet another example of the axiom (Levy's law) that without basic honesty and a commitment to communicating the truth to other actors in the criminal justice system on the part of those who run our Coroner's system, you can make all the systemic changes in the world and nothing will ever change.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Saturday, November 8, 2008
WHY WAS ANNA SOKOTNYUK AND HER FAMILY PUT THROUGH THIS ORDEAL? SHE AND THE PUBLIC DESERVE ANSWERS;
THE ARREST CAME AFTER POLICE RECEIVED A NEW, DETAILED REPORT FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE REGARDING HEAD INJURIES SUSTAINED BY THE INFANT, SAID ACTING STAFF INSP. BRIAN RAYBOULD.
HOMICIDE DETECTIVES HAVE BEEN LOOKING INTO THE CASE FOR 10 MONTHS, AFTER A FEBRUARY AUTOPSY REVEALED THE BABY DIED FROM INJURIES THAT LIKELY OCCURRED WHEN SHE WAS SHAKEN OR SPUN.
RAYBOULD SAID THE REASON THE ARREST TOOK SO LONG IS BECAUSE "THE CORONER'S OFFICE WANTS TO ENSURE ALL OF THESE CASES ARE THOROUGHLY AND METICULOUSLY INVESTIGATED."
REPORTER JESSICA LEEDER: TORONTO STAR;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have devoted two recent postings to the case of Anna Sokotnyuk who faced a second-degree murder charge - in connection with the death of her three-month- old daughter - until it was dropped by prosecutors last week because of their concerns with the pathology evidence.
Knowing, as we now, that there was no sound basis on which to lay the charge, it is most instructive to look at the information relayed to the public about the case as evidenced by a December, 2, 2005 story on her arrest published by the Toronto Star, under the heading "Mother charged in death of her baby girl."
"A 24-year-old woman whose infant daughter died in February has been charged with second-degree murder in the baby's death, after police conducted a 10-month long investigation," the story by reporter Paul Choi begins.
"On Jan. 26, police responded to a 14-storey apartment at Jane St. and Steeles Ave. W. after receiving a 911 call about an infant who had stopped breathing," the story continues.
Police say the 3-month-old girl, named Anastasia, was taken to Humber River Regional Hospital's Finch site and later the Hospital for Sick Children.
She died a few days later, on Feb. 1.
An examination determined the infant had suffered a severe brain injury.
Shortly after, the homicide squad, along with two officers from 31 Division, began investigating the circumstances surrounding the child's death.
Yesterday, police said the child's mother, Anna Sokotnyuk of Toronto, had been arrested and charged with second-degree murder.
Police say the investigation is continuing.
Neighbours said the 24-year-old woman had been living at the apartment with her husband for about a year.
They said she moved out about a month after the baby died.
Sokotnyuk is expected to appear this morning at College Park courts.
This is the city's 73rd homicide of the year."
Ms. Sokotnyuk would later find herself on Metropolitan Toronto's list of homicides which occurred in 1995 - among some of the most brutal homicides imaginable.
Indeed, she was labelled with "homicide number 73" in a National Post story y reporter Kelly Patrick, published on Saturday, January 14, 2006, under the heading "Snapshots of a deadly year," (2005) and the sub-heading, Toronto recorded 78 murders last year, a record 52 of which were by the bullet."
"Today marks the one-year anniversary of Toronto's first murder of 2005, a deadly 12-month stretch that came to be known as the year of the gun," the story began.
The year did not start out that way.
Thanushan Jeyakumaran, the 18-year-old slain last Jan. 14, was stabbed, not shot.
But his death marked the beginning of a year in which violence claimed 78 lives, the most since Toronto recorded 88 homicides in 1991.
Of the murdered, a record 52 were shot, 12 were stabbed, seven were beaten, two were bludgeoned, two were strangled and one drowned.
Two others, a baby girl and an elderly woman, died of other causes...."
The entry relating to Ms. Sokotnyuk ran as follows: "73. On Dec. 1, after a 10-month investigation, pathologists determined three-month-old Anastasia Sokotnyuk had been shaken to death. Police deemed her Feb. 1 death a homicide. Charged is the baby's mother, Anna Sokotnyuk, 24."
The agony Ms. Sokotnyuk and her husband were put through becomes apparent in a story by reporter Jessica Leeder, which appeared in the Toronto Star on December 3, 2005, under the heading, "Husband can't visit wife in jail."
The story was accompanied by a courtroom artist's representation of Sokotnyuk bearing the caption, "Anna Sokotnyuk was in court for a bail hearing yesterday."
"The husband of a mother charged with killing their baby daughter says he has been blocked from visiting his wife since her arrest this week," the story began.
"Artem Sokotnyuk said yesterday he's angry he hasn't been able to visit his wife, Anna, 24, who has been in jail since she was arrested Wednesday and charged with killing her three-month-old daughter," it continued.
The arrest came after police received a new, detailed report from the coroner's office regarding head injuries sustained by the infant, said Acting Staff Insp. Brian Raybould.
Homicide detectives have been looking into the case for 10 months, after a February autopsy revealed the baby died from injuries that likely occurred when she was shaken or spun.
Raybould said the reason the arrest took so long is because "the coroner's office wants to ensure all of these cases are thoroughly and meticulously investigated."
A police spokesperson said it is customary for visitation rights of the recently arrested to be restricted.
Artem Sokotnyuk said he was caught off guard by the arrest.
"I hate these kinds of surprises," he said yesterday
during a brief interview.
Police began investigating the woman, a designer at the Russian Express Weekly newspaper, after she called 911 on Jan. 26 because her daughter had stopped breathing.
Artem Sokotnyuk was not present during his wife's brief appearance at a bail hearing yesterday.
Looking tired and dishevelled in a white winter coat, Anna remained expressionless when told she would remain in custody until Dec. 6, when she'll have another chance to post bail."
We learn from the Homicide detective that, "the arrest took so long is because "the coroner's office wants to ensure all of these cases are thoroughly and meticulously investigated."
This quote would certainly give the public an impression that the charge must be warranted because of the intensive ten month examination conducted by the Chief Coroner's Office.
However, we know now, that the Coroner's office got it wrong in 2005 - after the Office was well aware of the dangers of forensic pediatric pathology evidence for years because of the Charles Smith debacle.
Ms. Sokotnyuk and the public deserve some answers.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
HOMICIDE DETECTIVES HAVE BEEN LOOKING INTO THE CASE FOR 10 MONTHS, AFTER A FEBRUARY AUTOPSY REVEALED THE BABY DIED FROM INJURIES THAT LIKELY OCCURRED WHEN SHE WAS SHAKEN OR SPUN.
RAYBOULD SAID THE REASON THE ARREST TOOK SO LONG IS BECAUSE "THE CORONER'S OFFICE WANTS TO ENSURE ALL OF THESE CASES ARE THOROUGHLY AND METICULOUSLY INVESTIGATED."
REPORTER JESSICA LEEDER: TORONTO STAR;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have devoted two recent postings to the case of Anna Sokotnyuk who faced a second-degree murder charge - in connection with the death of her three-month- old daughter - until it was dropped by prosecutors last week because of their concerns with the pathology evidence.
Knowing, as we now, that there was no sound basis on which to lay the charge, it is most instructive to look at the information relayed to the public about the case as evidenced by a December, 2, 2005 story on her arrest published by the Toronto Star, under the heading "Mother charged in death of her baby girl."
"A 24-year-old woman whose infant daughter died in February has been charged with second-degree murder in the baby's death, after police conducted a 10-month long investigation," the story by reporter Paul Choi begins.
"On Jan. 26, police responded to a 14-storey apartment at Jane St. and Steeles Ave. W. after receiving a 911 call about an infant who had stopped breathing," the story continues.
Police say the 3-month-old girl, named Anastasia, was taken to Humber River Regional Hospital's Finch site and later the Hospital for Sick Children.
She died a few days later, on Feb. 1.
An examination determined the infant had suffered a severe brain injury.
Shortly after, the homicide squad, along with two officers from 31 Division, began investigating the circumstances surrounding the child's death.
Yesterday, police said the child's mother, Anna Sokotnyuk of Toronto, had been arrested and charged with second-degree murder.
Police say the investigation is continuing.
Neighbours said the 24-year-old woman had been living at the apartment with her husband for about a year.
They said she moved out about a month after the baby died.
Sokotnyuk is expected to appear this morning at College Park courts.
This is the city's 73rd homicide of the year."
Ms. Sokotnyuk would later find herself on Metropolitan Toronto's list of homicides which occurred in 1995 - among some of the most brutal homicides imaginable.
Indeed, she was labelled with "homicide number 73" in a National Post story y reporter Kelly Patrick, published on Saturday, January 14, 2006, under the heading "Snapshots of a deadly year," (2005) and the sub-heading, Toronto recorded 78 murders last year, a record 52 of which were by the bullet."
"Today marks the one-year anniversary of Toronto's first murder of 2005, a deadly 12-month stretch that came to be known as the year of the gun," the story began.
The year did not start out that way.
Thanushan Jeyakumaran, the 18-year-old slain last Jan. 14, was stabbed, not shot.
But his death marked the beginning of a year in which violence claimed 78 lives, the most since Toronto recorded 88 homicides in 1991.
Of the murdered, a record 52 were shot, 12 were stabbed, seven were beaten, two were bludgeoned, two were strangled and one drowned.
Two others, a baby girl and an elderly woman, died of other causes...."
The entry relating to Ms. Sokotnyuk ran as follows: "73. On Dec. 1, after a 10-month investigation, pathologists determined three-month-old Anastasia Sokotnyuk had been shaken to death. Police deemed her Feb. 1 death a homicide. Charged is the baby's mother, Anna Sokotnyuk, 24."
The agony Ms. Sokotnyuk and her husband were put through becomes apparent in a story by reporter Jessica Leeder, which appeared in the Toronto Star on December 3, 2005, under the heading, "Husband can't visit wife in jail."
The story was accompanied by a courtroom artist's representation of Sokotnyuk bearing the caption, "Anna Sokotnyuk was in court for a bail hearing yesterday."
"The husband of a mother charged with killing their baby daughter says he has been blocked from visiting his wife since her arrest this week," the story began.
"Artem Sokotnyuk said yesterday he's angry he hasn't been able to visit his wife, Anna, 24, who has been in jail since she was arrested Wednesday and charged with killing her three-month-old daughter," it continued.
The arrest came after police received a new, detailed report from the coroner's office regarding head injuries sustained by the infant, said Acting Staff Insp. Brian Raybould.
Homicide detectives have been looking into the case for 10 months, after a February autopsy revealed the baby died from injuries that likely occurred when she was shaken or spun.
Raybould said the reason the arrest took so long is because "the coroner's office wants to ensure all of these cases are thoroughly and meticulously investigated."
A police spokesperson said it is customary for visitation rights of the recently arrested to be restricted.
Artem Sokotnyuk said he was caught off guard by the arrest.
"I hate these kinds of surprises," he said yesterday
during a brief interview.
Police began investigating the woman, a designer at the Russian Express Weekly newspaper, after she called 911 on Jan. 26 because her daughter had stopped breathing.
Artem Sokotnyuk was not present during his wife's brief appearance at a bail hearing yesterday.
Looking tired and dishevelled in a white winter coat, Anna remained expressionless when told she would remain in custody until Dec. 6, when she'll have another chance to post bail."
We learn from the Homicide detective that, "the arrest took so long is because "the coroner's office wants to ensure all of these cases are thoroughly and meticulously investigated."
This quote would certainly give the public an impression that the charge must be warranted because of the intensive ten month examination conducted by the Chief Coroner's Office.
However, we know now, that the Coroner's office got it wrong in 2005 - after the Office was well aware of the dangers of forensic pediatric pathology evidence for years because of the Charles Smith debacle.
Ms. Sokotnyuk and the public deserve some answers.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
JUSTICE GOUDGE'S FINDINGS: PART EIGHT; BABY X'S CASE;
Over the past eighteen months I have used this Blog to intensively report on developments relating to Dr. Charles Smith culminating with the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry.
I am now winding up this phase of the Blog - to be replaced eventually by periodic reporting of developments relating to Dr. Smith and related issues as they occur - with an examination of Justice Goudge's findings in the cases reviewed by the Inquiry.
I think it is important to take this closer look at the report in this Blog, because the mainstream media, which has done an admirable job in reporting the inquiry, have gone on to other stories.
Justice Goudge's findings relating to the various cases have been scattered throughout the report.
My approach is to weave together the findings relating to all of the principal actors - so we can get a fuller picture of Justice Goudge's findings as to their conduct;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of Justice Goudge's strongest criticism of the Deputy Coroner, Dr. Jim Cairns relates to the case of Baby X, in which he permitted Dr. Smith to improperly further a police investigation;
Justice Goudge found that in this case Cairns and Smith had attended case conferences with the police in April and May, 1996 and knew that Baby X's mother was a person of interest in the police investigation;
"Subsequently, Baby X's mother contacted Dr. Cairns to inquire about the results of the autopsy" Goudge reports.
"Dr. Cairns asked Dr. Smith to meet with Baby X's mother, and Dr. Smith agreed.
On September 4, 1996, because of their lawful surveillance of her home, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) intercepted a telephone conversation between Dr. Smith and Baby X's mother and learned that that Dr. Smith intended to meet with the mother at her home.
The OPP then told Dr. Smith that the police had installed listening devices in the home, which would likely intercept the scheduled conversation.
Although it is not clear when Dr. Cairns learned that the house was under surveillance, he certainly knew that fact before Dr Smith met with Baby X's mother.
Despite this knowledge, he did not object to Dr. Smith going forward with the meeting;
In short, Dr. Cairns permitted D. Smith to attend at a suspect's house and discuss the contents of the report of post-mortem examination with her while the police secretly recorded their conversation.
Dr. Smith met with the Barrie Police Service and the OPP before and after his meeting with Baby X's mother on September 5, 1996;
The police did not tell Dr. Smith what to do during his meeting with Baby X's mother, nor did they ask him to solicit any information from her.
Nonetheless, with Dr. Cairns approval, Dr. Smith improperly furthered a police investigation."
Justice Goudge concluded that, "Baby X's case is a clear example of a situation where Dr. Cairns failed to provide necessary oversight of Dr. Smith Instead, he permitted Dr. Smith to abandon his appropriate role as an expert scientist and to assist a police investigation improperly."
He noted that several of the forensic pathologists and coroners who testified at the Inquiry emphasized that it is inappropriate for a pathologist to meet with a person who is a suspect of an on-going police investigation - and that the effect of that inappropriate meeting was compounded because the conversation was being intercepted by the police.
"Dr. Cairns and D. Smith compromised the independence of their respective positions as Deputy Chief Coroner and expert witness," Goudge ruled.
"This case was a warning sign about D. Smith's failure to understand the appropriate role of a pathologist in a criminally suspicious case."
"Dr. Cairns dis not recognize the warning sign and, indeed, permitted the meeting to go ahead.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
I am now winding up this phase of the Blog - to be replaced eventually by periodic reporting of developments relating to Dr. Smith and related issues as they occur - with an examination of Justice Goudge's findings in the cases reviewed by the Inquiry.
I think it is important to take this closer look at the report in this Blog, because the mainstream media, which has done an admirable job in reporting the inquiry, have gone on to other stories.
Justice Goudge's findings relating to the various cases have been scattered throughout the report.
My approach is to weave together the findings relating to all of the principal actors - so we can get a fuller picture of Justice Goudge's findings as to their conduct;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of Justice Goudge's strongest criticism of the Deputy Coroner, Dr. Jim Cairns relates to the case of Baby X, in which he permitted Dr. Smith to improperly further a police investigation;
Justice Goudge found that in this case Cairns and Smith had attended case conferences with the police in April and May, 1996 and knew that Baby X's mother was a person of interest in the police investigation;
"Subsequently, Baby X's mother contacted Dr. Cairns to inquire about the results of the autopsy" Goudge reports.
"Dr. Cairns asked Dr. Smith to meet with Baby X's mother, and Dr. Smith agreed.
On September 4, 1996, because of their lawful surveillance of her home, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) intercepted a telephone conversation between Dr. Smith and Baby X's mother and learned that that Dr. Smith intended to meet with the mother at her home.
The OPP then told Dr. Smith that the police had installed listening devices in the home, which would likely intercept the scheduled conversation.
Although it is not clear when Dr. Cairns learned that the house was under surveillance, he certainly knew that fact before Dr Smith met with Baby X's mother.
Despite this knowledge, he did not object to Dr. Smith going forward with the meeting;
In short, Dr. Cairns permitted D. Smith to attend at a suspect's house and discuss the contents of the report of post-mortem examination with her while the police secretly recorded their conversation.
Dr. Smith met with the Barrie Police Service and the OPP before and after his meeting with Baby X's mother on September 5, 1996;
The police did not tell Dr. Smith what to do during his meeting with Baby X's mother, nor did they ask him to solicit any information from her.
Nonetheless, with Dr. Cairns approval, Dr. Smith improperly furthered a police investigation."
Justice Goudge concluded that, "Baby X's case is a clear example of a situation where Dr. Cairns failed to provide necessary oversight of Dr. Smith Instead, he permitted Dr. Smith to abandon his appropriate role as an expert scientist and to assist a police investigation improperly."
He noted that several of the forensic pathologists and coroners who testified at the Inquiry emphasized that it is inappropriate for a pathologist to meet with a person who is a suspect of an on-going police investigation - and that the effect of that inappropriate meeting was compounded because the conversation was being intercepted by the police.
"Dr. Cairns and D. Smith compromised the independence of their respective positions as Deputy Chief Coroner and expert witness," Goudge ruled.
"This case was a warning sign about D. Smith's failure to understand the appropriate role of a pathologist in a criminally suspicious case."
"Dr. Cairns dis not recognize the warning sign and, indeed, permitted the meeting to go ahead.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Friday, November 7, 2008
DEFENCE LAWYER PRAISES GOUDGE INQUIRY FOCUS ON CHILD HEAD INJURIES IN CASE WHERE MURDER CHARGE AGAINST MOTHER WITHDRAWN; TORONTO STAR;
Defence lawyer Rob Nuttall's views are set out in a story running in a story by Betsy Powell intoday's Toronto Star under the heading: "Mom's murder charge dropped."
"A veteran defence lawyer is crediting the work of the Goudge inquiry for a decision announced yesterday by the Crown to withdraw charges against his client, who was charged three years ago with the death of her infant daughter," the story begins;
"Prosecutor Donna Armstrong said in Superior Court that the Crown feels it has no reasonable prospect of convicting Anna Sokotnyuk of second-degree murder," the story continues.
"The 27-year-old woman said she is relieved her ordeal has ended.
Sokotnyuk was charged in 2005 – 10 months after police received a 911 call about an infant who had stopped breathing.
The Crown made its decision after an independent review of the case by experts in the wake of Justice Stephen Goudge's inquiry probing pediatric forensic pathology in Ontario. Armstrong said those experts "can't seem to agree" on the cause of Anastasia's death with any "degree of certainty."
Nuttall praised the provincial inquiry presided over by Justice Stephen Goudge for examining some of the questionable and "conflicting views" on child head injuries, particularly when there is no obvious trauma to a child's body."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
"A veteran defence lawyer is crediting the work of the Goudge inquiry for a decision announced yesterday by the Crown to withdraw charges against his client, who was charged three years ago with the death of her infant daughter," the story begins;
"Prosecutor Donna Armstrong said in Superior Court that the Crown feels it has no reasonable prospect of convicting Anna Sokotnyuk of second-degree murder," the story continues.
"The 27-year-old woman said she is relieved her ordeal has ended.
Sokotnyuk was charged in 2005 – 10 months after police received a 911 call about an infant who had stopped breathing.
The Crown made its decision after an independent review of the case by experts in the wake of Justice Stephen Goudge's inquiry probing pediatric forensic pathology in Ontario. Armstrong said those experts "can't seem to agree" on the cause of Anastasia's death with any "degree of certainty."
Nuttall praised the provincial inquiry presided over by Justice Stephen Goudge for examining some of the questionable and "conflicting views" on child head injuries, particularly when there is no obvious trauma to a child's body."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
JUSTICE GOUDGE'S FINDINGS; PART SEVEN; TYRELL'S CASE; SMITH;
Over the past eighteen months I have used this Blog to intensively report on developments relating to Dr. Charles Smith culminating with the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry.
I am now winding up this phase of the Blog - to be replaced eventually by periodic reporting of developments relating to Dr. Smith and related issues as they occur - with an examination of Justice Goudge's findings in the cases reviewed by the Inquiry.
I think it is important to take this closer look at the report in this Blog, because the mainstream media, which has done an admirable job in reporting the inquiry, have gone on to other stories.
Justice Goudge's findings relating to the various cases have been scattered throughout the report.
My approach is to weave together the findings relating to all of the principal actors - so we can get a fuller picture of Justice Goudge's findings as to their conduct;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An overview report prepared by Commission staff on Tyrell's case reads, in par, as follows;
Tyrell was born in Toronto on February 1, 1994;
Tyrell was the child of Janette and Garth;
Tyrell was almost four years old at the time of his death;
Criminal proceedings were initiated against Tyrell's caregiver, Maureen.
The criminal proceedings concluded on January 22, 2001, when the Crown stayed the second-degree murder charge against Maureen for the stated reason of preventing a miscarriage of justice
(Even though the Crown took the highly unusual move of withdrawing a second-degree murder charge in the face of opinions from highly respected experts which contradicted Dr. Smith's opinion, Justice Goudge notes that, "Dr. Cairns concluded that this was simply another one where reasonable experts could differ."
Justice Goudge's comment is particularly interesting in light of the fact that the charge against Maureen in Tyrell's case was stayed on January 22, 2001 - and the highly publicized withdrawal of the murder charge faced by Louise Reynolds in Sharon's case occurred merely three days later, on January 25, 2001;)
Surely, the timing of the two significant reverses to police prosecutors in cases involving Charles Smith should have give given Dr. Cairns significant pause.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure to disregard irrelevant and prejudicial information;
This is one of the cases where Justice Goudge found that Smith had allowed irrelevant or prejudicial information to affect his decision making in an individual case.
Justice Goudge was referring to the note Smith made in his autopsy report that Tyrell's mother had left him in Jamaica when he was young and that his father was in jail at the time, having killed a bystander during a shootout.
"If Dr. Smith relied on this information, he should not have done so," ruled Goudge.
"None of the information set out above should have been included ina final autopsy report because it leaves the impression that somehow it played a part in Dr. Smith's thinking;
Diagnosing head injury
Dr. Charles Smith's record in head injury cases - where he tended to find shaken baby syndrome - and Tyrell's case was no exception.
"Dr. Smith made serious errors in the diagnosis of head injury in several of the cases before me," Justice Goudge ruled.
"In some instances, his diagnosis, which today would be considered unreasonable, was acceptable given the knowledge at the time.
"In others. however, Dr. Smith's diagnosis was unreasonable then and would be unreasonable now.
More specifically, Tyrell's caregiver reported that he had been jumping on the couch, had slipped, and had fallen backwards, hitting his head on the marble coffee table or on the tiled floor.
Goudge said that although Smith rightly concluded that Tyrell had died of a head injury, "he failed to recognize that the pathology findings supported the position that Tyrell had suffered a contre coup brain injury, which is classically associated with a backward fall."
"Moreover, in 2000, when he testified for the Crown at the preliminary hearing of Tyrell's caregiver, Dr. Smith wrongly asserted that the caregiver's explanation could not account for Tyrell's injuries," Goudge added.
He went as far as telling the court that the literature suggested that children do not die from a fall of less than three or four storeys.
That was clearly wrong.
By 2000, there had already been a number of anecdotal reports of small household falls causing serious injury and even deaths in infants and children.
Dr. Smith's unequivocal opinion failed to reflect the state of the knowledge in 2000."
Use of default diagnosis;
Justice Goudge criticizes Smith for using default diagnosis in Tyrell's case - as he had also done in the several other cases;
Goudge says a default diagnosis is one that is assumed to be correct because the evidence does not exclude it.
"His reasoning is contrary to the evidence-based approach to forensic pathology," Goudge ruled.
Under an evidence-based framework, forensic pathologists begin from a position of objectivity, have an open mind, and consider all the possibilities before arriving at a decision.
They do not assume a diagnosis in the absence of another explanation and do not place the onus on others to locate contradictory evidence...."
The expert and evidence beyond his expertise:
During the course of the preliminary hearing Dr. Smith gave inappropriate evidence that was far removed from his expertise - such as his opinion that blunt force, shaking and abdominal injuries were more likely to be inflicted by men, whereas asphyxial deaths were more likely caused by women.
But Justice Goudge notes that Smith gave evidence that extended far beyond interpretation of pathological evidence in response to questions from the Court and from counsel - who both should have known better.
"Although experts must always recognize the limits of their expertise and stay within those limits, judges and counsel also play an important role in ensuring that those boundaries are respected.
In other words - my words - the judge and the lawyers did not do their job of protecting the accused and the criminal justice process;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
I am now winding up this phase of the Blog - to be replaced eventually by periodic reporting of developments relating to Dr. Smith and related issues as they occur - with an examination of Justice Goudge's findings in the cases reviewed by the Inquiry.
I think it is important to take this closer look at the report in this Blog, because the mainstream media, which has done an admirable job in reporting the inquiry, have gone on to other stories.
Justice Goudge's findings relating to the various cases have been scattered throughout the report.
My approach is to weave together the findings relating to all of the principal actors - so we can get a fuller picture of Justice Goudge's findings as to their conduct;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An overview report prepared by Commission staff on Tyrell's case reads, in par, as follows;
Tyrell was born in Toronto on February 1, 1994;
Tyrell was the child of Janette and Garth;
Tyrell was almost four years old at the time of his death;
Criminal proceedings were initiated against Tyrell's caregiver, Maureen.
The criminal proceedings concluded on January 22, 2001, when the Crown stayed the second-degree murder charge against Maureen for the stated reason of preventing a miscarriage of justice
(Even though the Crown took the highly unusual move of withdrawing a second-degree murder charge in the face of opinions from highly respected experts which contradicted Dr. Smith's opinion, Justice Goudge notes that, "Dr. Cairns concluded that this was simply another one where reasonable experts could differ."
Justice Goudge's comment is particularly interesting in light of the fact that the charge against Maureen in Tyrell's case was stayed on January 22, 2001 - and the highly publicized withdrawal of the murder charge faced by Louise Reynolds in Sharon's case occurred merely three days later, on January 25, 2001;)
Surely, the timing of the two significant reverses to police prosecutors in cases involving Charles Smith should have give given Dr. Cairns significant pause.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure to disregard irrelevant and prejudicial information;
This is one of the cases where Justice Goudge found that Smith had allowed irrelevant or prejudicial information to affect his decision making in an individual case.
Justice Goudge was referring to the note Smith made in his autopsy report that Tyrell's mother had left him in Jamaica when he was young and that his father was in jail at the time, having killed a bystander during a shootout.
"If Dr. Smith relied on this information, he should not have done so," ruled Goudge.
"None of the information set out above should have been included ina final autopsy report because it leaves the impression that somehow it played a part in Dr. Smith's thinking;
Diagnosing head injury
Dr. Charles Smith's record in head injury cases - where he tended to find shaken baby syndrome - and Tyrell's case was no exception.
"Dr. Smith made serious errors in the diagnosis of head injury in several of the cases before me," Justice Goudge ruled.
"In some instances, his diagnosis, which today would be considered unreasonable, was acceptable given the knowledge at the time.
"In others. however, Dr. Smith's diagnosis was unreasonable then and would be unreasonable now.
More specifically, Tyrell's caregiver reported that he had been jumping on the couch, had slipped, and had fallen backwards, hitting his head on the marble coffee table or on the tiled floor.
Goudge said that although Smith rightly concluded that Tyrell had died of a head injury, "he failed to recognize that the pathology findings supported the position that Tyrell had suffered a contre coup brain injury, which is classically associated with a backward fall."
"Moreover, in 2000, when he testified for the Crown at the preliminary hearing of Tyrell's caregiver, Dr. Smith wrongly asserted that the caregiver's explanation could not account for Tyrell's injuries," Goudge added.
He went as far as telling the court that the literature suggested that children do not die from a fall of less than three or four storeys.
That was clearly wrong.
By 2000, there had already been a number of anecdotal reports of small household falls causing serious injury and even deaths in infants and children.
Dr. Smith's unequivocal opinion failed to reflect the state of the knowledge in 2000."
Use of default diagnosis;
Justice Goudge criticizes Smith for using default diagnosis in Tyrell's case - as he had also done in the several other cases;
Goudge says a default diagnosis is one that is assumed to be correct because the evidence does not exclude it.
"His reasoning is contrary to the evidence-based approach to forensic pathology," Goudge ruled.
Under an evidence-based framework, forensic pathologists begin from a position of objectivity, have an open mind, and consider all the possibilities before arriving at a decision.
They do not assume a diagnosis in the absence of another explanation and do not place the onus on others to locate contradictory evidence...."
The expert and evidence beyond his expertise:
During the course of the preliminary hearing Dr. Smith gave inappropriate evidence that was far removed from his expertise - such as his opinion that blunt force, shaking and abdominal injuries were more likely to be inflicted by men, whereas asphyxial deaths were more likely caused by women.
But Justice Goudge notes that Smith gave evidence that extended far beyond interpretation of pathological evidence in response to questions from the Court and from counsel - who both should have known better.
"Although experts must always recognize the limits of their expertise and stay within those limits, judges and counsel also play an important role in ensuring that those boundaries are respected.
In other words - my words - the judge and the lawyers did not do their job of protecting the accused and the criminal justice process;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Thursday, November 6, 2008
AFTERMATH OF GOUDGE REPORT: MURDER CHARGE WITHDRAWN IN CASE OF MOTHER WHO'S THREE-MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER DIED AFTER A HEAD INJURY AND SEIZURE; CITYNEWS;
Echos of the The Goudge Report resonated in a Toronto courtroom yesterday when a second-degree murder charge was withdrawn against the deceased baby's mother;
The court proceeding was reported earlier today by CityNews in a story that ran under the headline, "Mom Of Dead Baby Walks Free After Charges Against Her Withdrawn In Court."
"When Anna Sokotnyuk walked out of a Toronto courtroom on Thursday morning, she inhaled her first real breath of truly fresh air in over three years," the story begins.
"That's because a cloud of suspicion that had been hanging over her since 2005 was finally swept away," it continues.
"Her troubles began when her 3-month-old daughter, Anastasia, suffered some kind of head injury and went into a seizure. The panicked mom called 911 but by the time paramedics arrived, the little girl was without vital signs. She died in hospital six days later and authorities accused the distraught woman of killing her.
But after the Goudge Report into cases handled by forensic expert Dr. Charles Smith brought flaws in the system into focus, a panel was asked to look into other instances where the evidence might be questionable. Experts examining the child's death decided they simply couldn't tell why the baby died.
And now Sokotnyuk can claim a small degree of vindication - she's the first person to have charges withdrawn after the review and is no longer facing accusations of second-degree murder.
The 27-year-old expresses a mixture of both grief and relief knowing the terrible accusations are now gone. "[It's been] four years of nightmare," she sighs. "It's over but I feel like I need some rest."
Her lawyer claims her life has turned into a nightmare. "She's gone through horror for the last three years," concurs Robert Nuttall. "To lose a 3-month-old child and then to be charged with its death ... is unimaginably horrific. And at the end of the day, the system worked."
Sokotnyuk may be the first to get off the hook for a crime she insists she never committed, but she almost certainly won't be the last. The Crown Attorney's office is currently reviewing 142 cases of parents who were convicted of their children's deaths because of the controversy surrounding shaken baby syndrome."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
The court proceeding was reported earlier today by CityNews in a story that ran under the headline, "Mom Of Dead Baby Walks Free After Charges Against Her Withdrawn In Court."
"When Anna Sokotnyuk walked out of a Toronto courtroom on Thursday morning, she inhaled her first real breath of truly fresh air in over three years," the story begins.
"That's because a cloud of suspicion that had been hanging over her since 2005 was finally swept away," it continues.
"Her troubles began when her 3-month-old daughter, Anastasia, suffered some kind of head injury and went into a seizure. The panicked mom called 911 but by the time paramedics arrived, the little girl was without vital signs. She died in hospital six days later and authorities accused the distraught woman of killing her.
But after the Goudge Report into cases handled by forensic expert Dr. Charles Smith brought flaws in the system into focus, a panel was asked to look into other instances where the evidence might be questionable. Experts examining the child's death decided they simply couldn't tell why the baby died.
And now Sokotnyuk can claim a small degree of vindication - she's the first person to have charges withdrawn after the review and is no longer facing accusations of second-degree murder.
The 27-year-old expresses a mixture of both grief and relief knowing the terrible accusations are now gone. "[It's been] four years of nightmare," she sighs. "It's over but I feel like I need some rest."
Her lawyer claims her life has turned into a nightmare. "She's gone through horror for the last three years," concurs Robert Nuttall. "To lose a 3-month-old child and then to be charged with its death ... is unimaginably horrific. And at the end of the day, the system worked."
Sokotnyuk may be the first to get off the hook for a crime she insists she never committed, but she almost certainly won't be the last. The Crown Attorney's office is currently reviewing 142 cases of parents who were convicted of their children's deaths because of the controversy surrounding shaken baby syndrome."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
JUSTICE GOUDGE'S FINDINGS; PART SIX; VALIN'S CASE; (1); SMITH;
Over the past eighteen months I have used this Blog to intensively report on developments relating to Dr. Charles Smith culminating with the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry.
I am now winding up this phase of the Blog - to be replaced eventually by periodic reporting of developments relating to Dr. Smith and related issues as they occur - with an examination of Justice Goudge's findings in the cases reviewed by the Inquiry.
I think it is important to take this closer look at the report in this Blog, because the mainstream media, which has done an admirable job in reporting the inquiry, have gone on to other stories.
Justice Goudge's findings relating to the various cases have been scattered throughout the report.
My approach is to weave together the findings relating to all of the principal actors - so we can get a fuller picture of Justice Goudge's findings as to their conduct;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An overview of Valin's case prepared by Inquiry staff reads, in part, as follows;
Valin died in June 1993, at the age of four, in Sault Ste. Marie,Ontario;
On the evening of June 26, 1993, Valin's parents left Valin and her brother in the care of their uncle, William Mullins-Johnson.
They did not check on her overnight.
The next morning, at approximately 7.00 a.m. Valin's mother found Valin in bed, face down and on her knees.
She called 911.
Ambualance attendants arrived at the scene and determined that Valin was already dead.
Following an autopsy conducted later that say, he police arrested and charger William Mullins-Johnson with first-degree murder and aggravated assault.
On September 21, 1994 a jury convicted Mr.Mullins-Johnson of first-degree murder.
He was sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility for parole for 25 years.
Mr. Mullins-Johnson appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
On Dec. 19, 1996, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Justice Stephen Borins dissented, which gave Mr.Mullins-Johnson the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada;
The Supreme Court heard and dismissed Mr. Mullins-Johnson's appeal on May 26, 1998.
(On) September 7, 2005, Mr. Mullins-Johnson filed an application for ministerial review...
On September 21, 2005, 11 years after his conviction, Mr. Mullins-Johnson was granted bail pending his application;
On July 17, 2007, the federal minister of justice granted Mr. Mullins-Johnspn's application for ministerial review and referred the case to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
On October 19, 2007, that Court allowed the appeal, quashed Mr. Mullins-Johnson's conviction for first-degree murder, and entered an acquittal;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Goudge describes the events in Valin's Case as being most relevant to the story of growing concerns which took place in 2003, and later, after Dr. Smith's removal from the roster for coroner's autopsies.
One of the most alarming issues in the case relates to Dr. Smith's inability, or refusal - whichever theory you might explain this best - to produce the tissue blocks and microscopic slides from Valin's autopsy. (Without them Mullins-Johnson would never be able to establish his innocence);
"Dr. Smith first denied any knowledge of the case, and then he was adamant that he did not have the materials," wrote Goudge..."Contrary to what Dr. Smith had told the Deputy Chief Coroner (DR. Cairns), it was clear that he had never returned the materials to Dr. Rasaiah."
Justice Goudge described the sequence of events relating to the quest for the missing materials as "disturbing."
"Dr. Smith received and ignored request after request for the autopsy materials from a case he had reviewed and in which a man was in prison for first-degree murder," he explained.
"The materials were found in his own office almost 18 months after the first unanswered request.
The case raises serious questions about the storage and retention of autopsy materials and, more important, about Dr. Smith's disregard for the needs of the criminal justice system."
Goudge makes clear that the subsequent retesting of the exhibits established that "there was nothing in the histological material to support the infliction of any anal trauma (which only Smith claimed to see and would ultimately convict Mullins-Johnson of first-degree murder) - and the panel of independent international experts agreed unanimously, as did Chief Pathologist Dr. Michael Pollanen, that:
0: Dr. Smith had misinterpreted post-mortem changes for injury;
0: the cause of Valin's death was undetermined (she probably choked on her vomit while sleeping), and
0: there was no evidence of sexual abuse;
Interaction between forensic pathology and the criminal justice system;
Justice Goudge sees Valin's case as an example of flawed pathology which can all too often lead to tragic outcomes in pediatric death cases - such as a parent, family member, or caregiver being wrongly entangled in the criminal justice system, and wrongfully convicted and incarcerated..."as happened to William Mullins-Johnson in Valin's case."
He adds that whether the flawed pathology plays a part in a wrongful conviction (Valin's case) or in a lowing a criminal to escape detection (Jenna's case) "justice is not served and public confidence in the legal system is diminished."
Dr. Smith's lack of experience - and its consequences in Valin's case;
Justice Goudge observes that Smith's lack of training and experience, and his failure to recognize his lack of experience, led to William Mullins-Johnson's wrongful conviction for first-degree murder and the more than twelve years he had to spend behind bars before he was finally exonerated;
I wouldn't let Dr. Smith off the hook so easily...
It's not a question of Dr. Smith's failure to recognize his lack of experience.
Dr. Smith used his position as head of the Ontario Forensic Pediatric Pathology Unit to take as many of the forensic cases as possible - especially the ones that would attract lots of publicity.
As Justice Goudge put it:
"It is true that few pathologists were trained in forensic pathology, and that, in several of these cases, other doctors made the same mistakes he did.
It is clear, however, that many pathologists without proper forensic training shied away altogether from criminally suspicious cases or were careful to obtain the assistance of those few who had the requisite knowledge in forensic pathology.
No other pathologists threw themselves into the challenging area of pediatric forensic pathology, untrained, Quite the way Dr. Smith did.
Moreover, Dr. Smith tended to work in isolation.
He did not readily seek advice from or consult with colleagues about his difficult cases.
Over the course of time, as we have seen, this behaviour exacted an unacceptable price in a sequence of cases."
This was a matter of ego, control and arrogance - in which he selfishly put himself before those he was expected to serve in the criminal justice system in order to enhance his own undeserved reputation.
Worse, his superiors in the Chief Coroner's Office never stood in the way - as long as it would enhance their reputation too.
For shame;
Use of default analysis;
Justice Goudge points out that Dr. Smith improperly proceeded by way of default analysis in Valin's case - as he had in Nicholas' case - by concluding that his post-mortem findings were the result of non-accidental injury that he regarded as credible,
More particularly, in Valin's case:
"Dr. Smith and a SCAN physician reviewed the autopsy photographs and wrote a joint consultation report, dated August 6, 1993.
In their report, they noted that Valin's anus was gaping with a large opening and that there appeared to be fissures inside.
They wrote: "In the absence of a history of severe constipation, these findings would be suggestive of anal penetration, likely forceful, by a round blunt object."
The SickKids doctors also noticed bruising to Valin's face and upper chest and concluded: In the absence of a reasonable explanation by history (the findings) indicate non-accidental trauma, including sexual abuse."
Cooperating with other experts;
Justice Goudge rejects Smith's explanation that he did not cooperate with attempts to locate the forensic materials in Valin's case so they could be reviewed by another pathologist "because he did not understand the importance of his cooperation because of naivety about the justice system."
Not so, says Goudge.
"He repeatedly portrayed himself publicly as a knowledgeable and experienced participant in that forum."
"Dr. Smith's actions in (Valin's) case represent one of the starkest examples of his complete disregard for reasonable requests made by Crown counsel and another pathologist," Goudge concluded.
"Given that I describe this unfortunate incident earlier, I will not repeat what I said there.
Suffice it to say that there was absolutely no justification for Dr. Smith's callous disregard fir the requests made by Dr. Rasaiah and Crown counsel."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
I am now winding up this phase of the Blog - to be replaced eventually by periodic reporting of developments relating to Dr. Smith and related issues as they occur - with an examination of Justice Goudge's findings in the cases reviewed by the Inquiry.
I think it is important to take this closer look at the report in this Blog, because the mainstream media, which has done an admirable job in reporting the inquiry, have gone on to other stories.
Justice Goudge's findings relating to the various cases have been scattered throughout the report.
My approach is to weave together the findings relating to all of the principal actors - so we can get a fuller picture of Justice Goudge's findings as to their conduct;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An overview of Valin's case prepared by Inquiry staff reads, in part, as follows;
Valin died in June 1993, at the age of four, in Sault Ste. Marie,Ontario;
On the evening of June 26, 1993, Valin's parents left Valin and her brother in the care of their uncle, William Mullins-Johnson.
They did not check on her overnight.
The next morning, at approximately 7.00 a.m. Valin's mother found Valin in bed, face down and on her knees.
She called 911.
Ambualance attendants arrived at the scene and determined that Valin was already dead.
Following an autopsy conducted later that say, he police arrested and charger William Mullins-Johnson with first-degree murder and aggravated assault.
On September 21, 1994 a jury convicted Mr.Mullins-Johnson of first-degree murder.
He was sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility for parole for 25 years.
Mr. Mullins-Johnson appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
On Dec. 19, 1996, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Justice Stephen Borins dissented, which gave Mr.Mullins-Johnson the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada;
The Supreme Court heard and dismissed Mr. Mullins-Johnson's appeal on May 26, 1998.
(On) September 7, 2005, Mr. Mullins-Johnson filed an application for ministerial review...
On September 21, 2005, 11 years after his conviction, Mr. Mullins-Johnson was granted bail pending his application;
On July 17, 2007, the federal minister of justice granted Mr. Mullins-Johnspn's application for ministerial review and referred the case to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
On October 19, 2007, that Court allowed the appeal, quashed Mr. Mullins-Johnson's conviction for first-degree murder, and entered an acquittal;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Goudge describes the events in Valin's Case as being most relevant to the story of growing concerns which took place in 2003, and later, after Dr. Smith's removal from the roster for coroner's autopsies.
One of the most alarming issues in the case relates to Dr. Smith's inability, or refusal - whichever theory you might explain this best - to produce the tissue blocks and microscopic slides from Valin's autopsy. (Without them Mullins-Johnson would never be able to establish his innocence);
"Dr. Smith first denied any knowledge of the case, and then he was adamant that he did not have the materials," wrote Goudge..."Contrary to what Dr. Smith had told the Deputy Chief Coroner (DR. Cairns), it was clear that he had never returned the materials to Dr. Rasaiah."
Justice Goudge described the sequence of events relating to the quest for the missing materials as "disturbing."
"Dr. Smith received and ignored request after request for the autopsy materials from a case he had reviewed and in which a man was in prison for first-degree murder," he explained.
"The materials were found in his own office almost 18 months after the first unanswered request.
The case raises serious questions about the storage and retention of autopsy materials and, more important, about Dr. Smith's disregard for the needs of the criminal justice system."
Goudge makes clear that the subsequent retesting of the exhibits established that "there was nothing in the histological material to support the infliction of any anal trauma (which only Smith claimed to see and would ultimately convict Mullins-Johnson of first-degree murder) - and the panel of independent international experts agreed unanimously, as did Chief Pathologist Dr. Michael Pollanen, that:
0: Dr. Smith had misinterpreted post-mortem changes for injury;
0: the cause of Valin's death was undetermined (she probably choked on her vomit while sleeping), and
0: there was no evidence of sexual abuse;
Interaction between forensic pathology and the criminal justice system;
Justice Goudge sees Valin's case as an example of flawed pathology which can all too often lead to tragic outcomes in pediatric death cases - such as a parent, family member, or caregiver being wrongly entangled in the criminal justice system, and wrongfully convicted and incarcerated..."as happened to William Mullins-Johnson in Valin's case."
He adds that whether the flawed pathology plays a part in a wrongful conviction (Valin's case) or in a lowing a criminal to escape detection (Jenna's case) "justice is not served and public confidence in the legal system is diminished."
Dr. Smith's lack of experience - and its consequences in Valin's case;
Justice Goudge observes that Smith's lack of training and experience, and his failure to recognize his lack of experience, led to William Mullins-Johnson's wrongful conviction for first-degree murder and the more than twelve years he had to spend behind bars before he was finally exonerated;
I wouldn't let Dr. Smith off the hook so easily...
It's not a question of Dr. Smith's failure to recognize his lack of experience.
Dr. Smith used his position as head of the Ontario Forensic Pediatric Pathology Unit to take as many of the forensic cases as possible - especially the ones that would attract lots of publicity.
As Justice Goudge put it:
"It is true that few pathologists were trained in forensic pathology, and that, in several of these cases, other doctors made the same mistakes he did.
It is clear, however, that many pathologists without proper forensic training shied away altogether from criminally suspicious cases or were careful to obtain the assistance of those few who had the requisite knowledge in forensic pathology.
No other pathologists threw themselves into the challenging area of pediatric forensic pathology, untrained, Quite the way Dr. Smith did.
Moreover, Dr. Smith tended to work in isolation.
He did not readily seek advice from or consult with colleagues about his difficult cases.
Over the course of time, as we have seen, this behaviour exacted an unacceptable price in a sequence of cases."
This was a matter of ego, control and arrogance - in which he selfishly put himself before those he was expected to serve in the criminal justice system in order to enhance his own undeserved reputation.
Worse, his superiors in the Chief Coroner's Office never stood in the way - as long as it would enhance their reputation too.
For shame;
Use of default analysis;
Justice Goudge points out that Dr. Smith improperly proceeded by way of default analysis in Valin's case - as he had in Nicholas' case - by concluding that his post-mortem findings were the result of non-accidental injury that he regarded as credible,
More particularly, in Valin's case:
"Dr. Smith and a SCAN physician reviewed the autopsy photographs and wrote a joint consultation report, dated August 6, 1993.
In their report, they noted that Valin's anus was gaping with a large opening and that there appeared to be fissures inside.
They wrote: "In the absence of a history of severe constipation, these findings would be suggestive of anal penetration, likely forceful, by a round blunt object."
The SickKids doctors also noticed bruising to Valin's face and upper chest and concluded: In the absence of a reasonable explanation by history (the findings) indicate non-accidental trauma, including sexual abuse."
Cooperating with other experts;
Justice Goudge rejects Smith's explanation that he did not cooperate with attempts to locate the forensic materials in Valin's case so they could be reviewed by another pathologist "because he did not understand the importance of his cooperation because of naivety about the justice system."
Not so, says Goudge.
"He repeatedly portrayed himself publicly as a knowledgeable and experienced participant in that forum."
"Dr. Smith's actions in (Valin's) case represent one of the starkest examples of his complete disregard for reasonable requests made by Crown counsel and another pathologist," Goudge concluded.
"Given that I describe this unfortunate incident earlier, I will not repeat what I said there.
Suffice it to say that there was absolutely no justification for Dr. Smith's callous disregard fir the requests made by Dr. Rasaiah and Crown counsel."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
JUSTICE GOUDGE'S FINDINGS: PART FIVE; ATHENA'S CASE; (1); SMITH;
Over the past eighteen months I have used this Blog to intensively report on developments relating to Dr. Charles Smith culminating with the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry.
I am now winding up this phase of the Blog - to be replaced eventually by periodic reporting of developments relating to Dr. Smith and related issues as they occur - with an examination of Justice Goudge's findings in the cases reviewed by the Inquiry.
I think it is important to take this closer look at the report in this Blog, because the mainstream media, which has done an admirable job in reporting the inquiry, have gone on to other stories.
Justice Goudge's findings relating to the various cases have been scattered throughout the report.
My approach is to weave together the findings relating to all of the principal actors - so we can get a fuller picture of Justice Goudge's findings as to their conduct;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Athena died in Toronto on March 6, 1998 at the age of three months;
Dr. Smith performed the autopsy the next day;
He waited six weeks before submitting samples taken from the autopsy to the C Ontario's Centre of Forensic Sciences for analysis;
The Centre in turn took five months to complete its report;
Dr. Smith produced his report of post-mortem examination one month after that, and Athena's father was charged with manslaughter;
There was thus a seven-and-a-half month delay between the autopsy and the production of Dr. Smith's report on October 26, 1998;
On June 23, 2003, Superior Court Justice Brian Trafford stayed the proceedings against Athena's parents - her mother had also been charged - on the basis that the overall delay violated their Charter right to be tried in a reasonable time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Goudge reported that Smith's delay in submitting the samples "was not the most troubling aspect of his conduct of the case."
"Many months later, in July 1999, Dr. Smith told the police and Crown Counsel that the liver injury took place within 12 hours of Athena's death.
Athena's parents had told the police that they were with Athena during the entire 24-hour period before her death.
In light of Dr. Smith's opinion on the timing of the liver injury, the police believed they had reasonable and probable grounds to charge both parents with second-degree murder.
But they wanted Dr. Smith's opinion in writing.
Shortly after the meeting, the police asked Dr. Smith to prepare an addendum to his initial report, outlining his opinion on the timing of Athena's injuries."
"Dr. Smith failed to produce the requested addendum," Goudge continued.
In the fall of 1999, an officer phoned Dr. Smith on numerous occasion, requesting the report, but he continued to delay.
In the winter of 2000, an officer and Crown counsel sent letters to Dr. Smith, formally requesting the report and stressing that it was urgently needed.
Still, Dr. Smith delayed.
Finally, in April 2000, on the very day that the police issued a subpoena for the production of his addendum, Dr. Smith produced a one and a half page letter outlining his opinion.
That was eight-and-a-half months after the initial request;
Justice Goudge notes that the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the Crown's appeal after finding "among other things" that the failings of Dr. Smith caused the matter to be delayed "for the better part of two years."
"Thus, the concerns with Dr. Smith's work were not limited to misdiagnosis and overstated opinions," Goudge concluded.
"They included a complete dereliction of his duties as an expert to assist the Chief Coroner's Office and serve the criminal justice system."
Justice Goudge rejected Smith's feeble explanation that he was not aware of his legal obligations to make timely disclosure, saying, "by 1998, Dr. Smith knew the importance of complying with requests from the police and Crown counsel for a written opinion."
"Although I accept Dr. Smith's evidence that he found it a burden to prepare a supplementary report, his failure to respond promptly to the requests made by the police and Crown counsel was inexcusable."
"As a professional, the pathologist has a duty to ensure that any reasonable requests from the police and the Crown are answered in a timely manner, regardless of how burdensome the requests may be."
Too bad Dr. Smith lacked the humanity to consider the unbearable burden his delays must have imposed on Athena's bereaved parents.
The expert's attacks on his colleagues;
In a section of his report called "The expert's attacks on his colleagues" Justice Goudge criticizes Smith ofr "his unprofessional and unwarranted criticism of professionals."
This misconduct is particularly noticeable in Athena's case, where, during the preliminary hearing in November 2001, counsel questioned him on his opinion of several experts, including Dr. James (Rex) Ferris, a forensic pathologist.
"When asked if he respected Dr. Ferris' work, Dr. Smith testified that he did not respect Dr. Ferris' opinions in pediatric forensic pathology and did not know anyone in the field who did," wrote Goudge.
"According to Dr. Smith, Dr. Ferris did not have any special expertise in the area and his opinions were often "misleading"; Dr. Smith had never seen one that was close to reasonable."
In response to Smith's explanations that he had answered the questions truthfully, though uncharitably and unkindly, Goudge ruled: "In my view, Dr. Smith's comments about Dr. Ferris were not only uncharitable and unkind but also untrue."
Were I the Commissioner I don't think I could ever have been so constrained;
For Dr. Smith, a dishonest and unprincipled expert witness, to attack a real forensic pathologist and consummate professional such as Dr. Rex Ferris, is utterly disgusting - especially when he is under oath and trying to convict an accused person for the Crown;
End of rant!
End of post!
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
I am now winding up this phase of the Blog - to be replaced eventually by periodic reporting of developments relating to Dr. Smith and related issues as they occur - with an examination of Justice Goudge's findings in the cases reviewed by the Inquiry.
I think it is important to take this closer look at the report in this Blog, because the mainstream media, which has done an admirable job in reporting the inquiry, have gone on to other stories.
Justice Goudge's findings relating to the various cases have been scattered throughout the report.
My approach is to weave together the findings relating to all of the principal actors - so we can get a fuller picture of Justice Goudge's findings as to their conduct;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Athena died in Toronto on March 6, 1998 at the age of three months;
Dr. Smith performed the autopsy the next day;
He waited six weeks before submitting samples taken from the autopsy to the C Ontario's Centre of Forensic Sciences for analysis;
The Centre in turn took five months to complete its report;
Dr. Smith produced his report of post-mortem examination one month after that, and Athena's father was charged with manslaughter;
There was thus a seven-and-a-half month delay between the autopsy and the production of Dr. Smith's report on October 26, 1998;
On June 23, 2003, Superior Court Justice Brian Trafford stayed the proceedings against Athena's parents - her mother had also been charged - on the basis that the overall delay violated their Charter right to be tried in a reasonable time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Goudge reported that Smith's delay in submitting the samples "was not the most troubling aspect of his conduct of the case."
"Many months later, in July 1999, Dr. Smith told the police and Crown Counsel that the liver injury took place within 12 hours of Athena's death.
Athena's parents had told the police that they were with Athena during the entire 24-hour period before her death.
In light of Dr. Smith's opinion on the timing of the liver injury, the police believed they had reasonable and probable grounds to charge both parents with second-degree murder.
But they wanted Dr. Smith's opinion in writing.
Shortly after the meeting, the police asked Dr. Smith to prepare an addendum to his initial report, outlining his opinion on the timing of Athena's injuries."
"Dr. Smith failed to produce the requested addendum," Goudge continued.
In the fall of 1999, an officer phoned Dr. Smith on numerous occasion, requesting the report, but he continued to delay.
In the winter of 2000, an officer and Crown counsel sent letters to Dr. Smith, formally requesting the report and stressing that it was urgently needed.
Still, Dr. Smith delayed.
Finally, in April 2000, on the very day that the police issued a subpoena for the production of his addendum, Dr. Smith produced a one and a half page letter outlining his opinion.
That was eight-and-a-half months after the initial request;
Justice Goudge notes that the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the Crown's appeal after finding "among other things" that the failings of Dr. Smith caused the matter to be delayed "for the better part of two years."
"Thus, the concerns with Dr. Smith's work were not limited to misdiagnosis and overstated opinions," Goudge concluded.
"They included a complete dereliction of his duties as an expert to assist the Chief Coroner's Office and serve the criminal justice system."
Justice Goudge rejected Smith's feeble explanation that he was not aware of his legal obligations to make timely disclosure, saying, "by 1998, Dr. Smith knew the importance of complying with requests from the police and Crown counsel for a written opinion."
"Although I accept Dr. Smith's evidence that he found it a burden to prepare a supplementary report, his failure to respond promptly to the requests made by the police and Crown counsel was inexcusable."
"As a professional, the pathologist has a duty to ensure that any reasonable requests from the police and the Crown are answered in a timely manner, regardless of how burdensome the requests may be."
Too bad Dr. Smith lacked the humanity to consider the unbearable burden his delays must have imposed on Athena's bereaved parents.
The expert's attacks on his colleagues;
In a section of his report called "The expert's attacks on his colleagues" Justice Goudge criticizes Smith ofr "his unprofessional and unwarranted criticism of professionals."
This misconduct is particularly noticeable in Athena's case, where, during the preliminary hearing in November 2001, counsel questioned him on his opinion of several experts, including Dr. James (Rex) Ferris, a forensic pathologist.
"When asked if he respected Dr. Ferris' work, Dr. Smith testified that he did not respect Dr. Ferris' opinions in pediatric forensic pathology and did not know anyone in the field who did," wrote Goudge.
"According to Dr. Smith, Dr. Ferris did not have any special expertise in the area and his opinions were often "misleading"; Dr. Smith had never seen one that was close to reasonable."
In response to Smith's explanations that he had answered the questions truthfully, though uncharitably and unkindly, Goudge ruled: "In my view, Dr. Smith's comments about Dr. Ferris were not only uncharitable and unkind but also untrue."
Were I the Commissioner I don't think I could ever have been so constrained;
For Dr. Smith, a dishonest and unprincipled expert witness, to attack a real forensic pathologist and consummate professional such as Dr. Rex Ferris, is utterly disgusting - especially when he is under oath and trying to convict an accused person for the Crown;
End of rant!
End of post!
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
