PUBLISHER'S NOTE: In view of the Attorney General of Ontario's decision to support Sherry Sherret's acquittal at an up-coming hearing set for December 7, 2009, I am re-running a four part series on "Joshua's Case."
Part One ran on Monday, November 19, 2007, under the heading "Goudge Inquiry; The Joshua Case: Part One; How Smith Caused Havoc By Failing To Deliver A Crucial Forensic Report;"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"DR. SMITH IS VERY QUICK TO CONDEMN OTHER PATHOLOGISTS WHO MISS THINGS DURING THE POST MORTEM;"
PROSECUTOR SHEILA WALSH; IN A LETTER TO A COLLEAGUE PROSECUTING SHARON'S MOTHER;
"The "Joshua" case involves a woman charged with first degree murder after Dr. Charles Smith came up with a diagnosis of "Asphyxia" in his autopsy report - and later informed the prosecutor, (Ms. Sheila Walsh), that he had detected a "skull fracture."
This Blog detailed the havoc caused in the Kporwodu and Veno case when Dr. Smith failed to produce urgently required forensic reports to anxious police and prosecutors. (See previous posting: (Kporwodu and Veno: Judge "shocked" by Smith's delay in producing post-mortem report.")
Now we learn - from a letter included in the "Overview Report" prepared for the Inquiry by Commission staff - that Smith's failure to provide an essential report caused similar havoc in Joshua's case.
The letter is from prosecutor Walsh to a colleague named Ed Bradley who was prosecuting Sharon's mother at the time.
"Dr. Smith initially prepared an autopsy report which said there was no injury to the baby's skull," Walsh said in her letter.
"He then later called to say that upon re=examination of the autopsy slides, he discovered a skull fracture.
Again, I requested a written report concerning this fracture, and again he would not provide it.
(We were not depending on Dr. Smith to prove the cause of death, but rather to rule out certain things.)
The presence of the skull fracture was, of course, extremely important to the case,
Again, I never did get a report about this.
Dr. Smith is very quick to condemn other pathologists who miss things during the post mortem.
Of course, this opened the door for the defence to say he could have missed other things.
Walsh eventually agreed to allow Sherry Sherret, (Joshua's mother) to plead guilty to infanticide. (More about that plea in a future posting);
She tells Bradley that, "while there were a number of considerations that went into that decision (to agree to the plea), one significant one was my experience with Dr. Smith."
This horror story gets even worse - when we learn from the external examiners reviewing Dr. Smith's work that Dr. Smith's opinion was terribly flawed;
In short:
No evidence to support a diagnosis of asphyxia;
No evidence to support Dr. Smith's observation of a skull fracture;
No definitive cause of death revealed by the autopsy findings;
Nothing but a possibility, suggested by the position in which Joshua's body was found, that he had accidentally suffocated while sleeping;"
NEXT POST: Part Two: Goudge inquiry: Joshua's case; Yet another example of Dr. Charles Randal Smith losing important forensic exhibits in a murder case;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Is The Age of Progressive Prosecutors Over?
23 hours ago