"THIS IS THE FIRST TIME A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE HAS DECLARED THAT CHARLES SMITH INTENTIONALLY MISLED THE COURT TO HELP SECURE CONVICTIONS," SAID DEFENCE LAWYER PAULA ROCHMAN, WHO REPRESENTED ANISA TROTTA, WHO HAD HER CHARGES IN THE DEATH OF HER SON STAYED EARLIER THIS MONTH.
HER HUSBAND, MARCO TROTTA, WAS FOUND GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER AND ASSAULT CAUSING BODILY HARM IN THE MAY 1993 DEATH OF THE EIGHT-MONTH-OLD BABY.
"THE GOUDGE INQUIRY FOUND THAT MISTAKES WERE MADE BUT DIDN'T MAKE THE FINDING THESE MISTAKES WERE MADE INTENTIONALLY," ROCHMAN SAID.
REPORTER SAM PAZZANO; THE TORONTO SUN;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"THE (SUPREME COURT OF CANADA) 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 JOHNSON - WHICH WE NOW KNOW TO BE AN ALLEGED CRIME THAT NEVER OCCURRED.
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 CHARLES SMITH BLOG; DECEMBER 08, 2007;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Toronto Sun reports that a Superior Court Judge has ruled that Dr. Charles Smith intentionally misled the court to get homicide convictions against the parents of abused child Paolo Trotta.
The story could not be published at an earlier time because of a publication ban.
This is said to be the first time a court has ruled that Smith's "mistakes" were intentionaL.
"Disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith intentionally misled the court to get homicide convictions against the parents of abused child Paolo Trotta, a judge ruled in a motion that had been covered by a publication ban," the story by reporter Sam Pazzano, which ran earlier today under the heading, "Pathologist won convictions despite 'medical evidence to the contrary,' began.
""This is the first time a Superior Court judge has declared that Charles Smith intentionally misled the court to help secure convictions," said defence lawyer Paula Rochman, who represented Anisa Trotta, who had her charges in the death of her son stayed earlier this month," the story continued.
Her husband, Marco Trotta, was found guilty of manslaughter and assault causing bodily harm in the May 1993 death of the eight-month-old baby.
""The Goudge inquiry found that mistakes were made but didn't make the finding these mistakes were made intentionally," Rochman said.
BAN LIFTED
The publication ban on Justice Alexander Sosna's pre-trial finding against Smith was lifted after the father was found guilty.
The father, now 40, was convicted of second-degree murder in 1998 but those convictions were quashed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
It ordered new trials for both Trottas, because of the flawed testimony of Smith.
Marco was sentenced to time served (nine years) plus a year probation while his 36-year-old wife served three years out of a five-year sentence for criminal negligence.
The couple live in Peel region.
"Dr. Smith's discredited conduct and evidence cannot be viewed in the isolated prism of the Trotta case," stated Sosna in a judgment obtained by the Sun.
"Similar discredited and flawed medical findings were made by Dr. Smith, both before and after the Trotta case ... and subsequently in a number of pediatric death prosecutions, some of which have been determined to be unlawful convictions.
"Tragically, Dr. Smith's flawed evidence in all these cases mirrors his discredited evidence in the Trotta case.
"Therefore, contrary to the Crown's position, Dr. Smith's evidence in the Trotta case was not an anomaly, but consistent with the history of securing convictions in suspicious pediatric deaths, notwithstanding medical evidence to the contrary."
Two forensic pathologists, Dr. Michael Pollanen and Dr. Simon Avis, chief medical examiner for Newfoundland, dismissed Smith's findings in the Trotta case.
HEAD INJURY
Smith found that Paolo died because of a head injury or asphyxiation and Avis "found his diagnosis of manual strangulation to be irresponsible," Sosna stated.
"To examine Paolo Trotta's skull to see the fracture and to opine that the fracture is from 10 minutes to utmost two days old, simply boggles my mind," Avis testified.
"I am at a loss why an acute fracture was even a consideration in determining the cause of death in this case."
Pollanen found that the cause of Paolo's death was "unascertained."
Paolo's litany of injuries confirmed he "was an abused and battered child," said Crown attorney Paul Murray at Trotta's sentencing three weeks ago."
"During his short 81/2 months of life, Paolo Trotta suffered more injuries than most people suffer in their lifetime," he said."
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/09/25/11108061-sun.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CHARELES SMITH BLOG: December 8, 2007;
"ESSENTIALLY THE FRESH EVIDENCE ...DISCREDITS THE EVIDENCE GIVEN AT TRIAL BY DOCTOR CHARLES SMITH."
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA JUSTICE MORRIS FISH;
The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the havoc caused by Dr. Charles Smith on Canada's criminal justice system.
(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.)
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 Johnson - 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.
(For an account of key forensic evidence misplaced by Dr. Smith in the Trotta case, see previous posting (October);Trotta: Another Smith case involving misplaced evidence.)
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."
The ball is now in the prosecutor's court as they digest the Supreme Court decision as the determine what, if any of the charges, they will bring to trial - now that their prime witness (whose evidence was declared by the Supreme Court to be inter-twined with all of the charges) has been discredited by the Nation's highest court.
Stay tune for developments."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
