JUSTICE GOUDGE'S FINDINGS; PART THREE; JENNA'S CASE (3): THE COLLEGE;

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 Jenna's case prepared by Goudge Inquiry staff tells us that:

Jenna was born in Peterborough, Ontario on April 21, 1995 to Randy and Brenda Waudby. Jenna died on January 22, 1997, at the age of 21-months in Peterborough; Mrs. Waudby was charged with second-degree murder on Sept. 18 1997. The criminal proceeding concluded on June 15, 1999, when the charge was withdrawn. The local Children's Aid Society apprehended Ms. Waudby's older child, Justine, on the day of Jenna's death and placed her in temporary foster care. She remained in foster care until January 27, 1997, when she moved in with Tom and Kim Waudby, her maternal aunt and uncle. She remained there until March 27, 1997, at which time she was again placed in foster care. She was ordered returned to Ms. Waudby's care on May 2, 1997, pursuant to an Order of Justice A.P.Ingram and remained in her care until Sept. 18, 1997, the day of Ms. Waudby's arrest. She was later re-apprehended on the date of Ms. Waudby's arrest. The Children's Aid Society also apprehended a second child, M.W. born after Jenna's death, and placed him with his father. On July 23, 1999, subsequent to the withdrawal of Ms. Waudby's murder charge, Justine was ordered returned to her mother's care. That same day, access was also granted to M.W. who would continue to reside with his father. The Children's Aid Society appealed the decision. On August 13, 1999, the appeal was dismissed. On Dec. 28, 2006, the youth who was babysitting Jenna the night she died was charged with second-degree murder. On December 14, 2006, J.D. pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The criminal proceeding concluded on March 1, 2007, when he was sentenced as a youth to 22 months incarceration followed by 11 months of community supervision;

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

Buried toward the back of Volume Two of the Goudge report are some findings relating to the College of Physicians and Surgeons that were largely ignored in the aftermath of the report's release.

They relate to steps taken by the College after its then Registrar, Dr John Carlisle was informed by former Deputy Chief Coroner Dr. Jim Cairns in April, 2002, about Dr. Smith's admissions to him of misconduct relating to the hair he seized, without testing, in Jenna's case.

Having received such disturbing information - which could indicate criminality on Smith's part - one would expect that Carlisle would have have passed this information on to his officials who were investigating the complaints against Smith.

But Justice Goudge tells us that Dr. Carlisle merely responded by writing a memo to file and sending a memo to the investigator which did not relate any details from his conversation with Cairns or from his detailed memo to file.

Carlisle's memo to file indicated that he had the conversation with Cairns, and that Cairns had told him:

0: He had not conducted a rape kit examination;

0: He had not taken any of the samples or specimen that would ordinarily be associated with such an examination;

0: He had found what he believed to be "a hair."

0: He had collected the hair and placed it in a sealed envelope, which he kept in his possession since the time of the investigation;

0: He had not revealed the existence of the hair to anyone;

0: He had not submitted it for analysis;

0: He had not given it to the police;

One can easily imagine how different the outcomes of the complaints would have been if Dr. Carlisle had passed this information on to his staff investigators - so they would be fully apprised and could do their job effectively.

At this point I expected Justice Goudge's voice to have rung out in well justified anger at the frustration of the accountability process and the lost opportunity to do something about Dr. Smith.

Instead, he says he is satisfied that such a transgression will not happen again. In Justice Goudge's words:

"When asked about the April 10, 2002, memo to file at the Inquiry, Dr. Rocco Gerace, Current Registrar, testified, " I would not consider the practice (of writing a memo that would not form part of a file) to be advisable. In fact that practice would not occur at the present time." He went on to describe the current approach to the receipt of information:

"We have a practice at the College that if information comes to any member of the staff about a member, that the person providing that information is told up front that the information will be acted upon.

There are no confidential documents that are not acted on. So, if a conversation of this sort were to have occurred today, I would send a note to the relevant individuals outlining the content of that conversation;"

Says Justice Goudge: "I agree with the College's current approach."

To this humble Blogster, so much about the College's failure to rein in Dr. Smith remains unsaid.

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;