"One question that cries out for an answer is how do you compensate the innocent mother's - like Louise Reynold's and Sherry Sherrett - whose remaining children were seized from them when they were charged on the basis of Dr. Charles Smith's flawed opinions and then put up for adoption by the state? (And how do you compensate the other innocent mother's such as Brenda Waudby and Liane Thibeault, who were put through the horror of having their not-yet-born children apprehended by the State?)
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: The inquiry focused largely on the flawed work of Dr. Smith — formerly the province's chief pediatric pathologist and a self-styled member of the prosecution team — whose "errors" led to innocent people being branded as child murderers. The 1,000-page report by Justice Stephen Goudge slammed Dr. Smith, along with Ontario's former chief coroner and his deputy, for their roles in wrongful prosecutions and asked the province to consider compensation. The provincial coroner's office found evidence of errors in 20 of 45 autopsies Dr. Smith did over a 10-year period starting in the early 1990s. Thirteen resulted in criminal charges. William Mullins-Johnson, who was among those cases, spent 12 years in prison for the rape and murder of his four-year-old niece, whose death was later attributed to natural causes. In another case, Dr. Smith concluded a mother had stabbed her seven-year-old girl to death when it turned out to have been a dog mauling. The inquiry heard that Dr. Smith's failings included hanging on to crucial evidence, "losing" evidence which showed his opinion was wrong and may have assisted the accused person, mistating evidence, chronic tardiness, and the catastrophic misinterpretation of findings. The cases, along with other heart-rending stories of wrongful prosecutions based in part on Smith's testimony, also raised a host of issues about the pathology system and the reliance of the courts on expert evidence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I was very pleased about the recently announced $4.25 million compensation the Ontario government has awarded to William Mullins-Johnson. (Except to add that if it were up to me I would award him twice as much, and even that would not properly compensate him for the horror he and his family were put through by the Government and its agents in our name); One question that cries out for an answer is how do you compensate the innocent mother's - like Louise Reynold's and Sherry Sherrett - whose remaining children were seized from them when they were charged on the basis of Dr. Charles Smith's flawed opinions and then put up for adoption by the state? (And how do you compensate the other innocent mother's such as Brenda Waudby and Liane Thibeault, who were put through the horror of having their not-yet-born children apprehended by the state.) These things happened to these mothers on top of the horror of being wrongly branded as child-killers by the state and by the media, while trying at the same time to bear the grief and loss of a child. I am concerned that existing compensation systems for wrongful convictions are far too narrowly focused on the term of incarceration the wrongly convicted person has experienced - as contrasted with the loss of another child forever as a result of the State's horrific error, which I believe constitutes nothing less than a life-sentence experienced day after day. In my view, compensation for the latter should therefore be at least at the same level as the compensation awarded for lengthy wrongful imprisonment. There is something else going on here. The evidence at the Goudge Inquiry into many of Dr. Smith's cases established that Dr. Smith tended to pick on single women who did not fit into his view of the wholesome Christian family unit. I am also concerned that the Ontario government will re-victimize these women by branding them as bad mothers who, according to Smith's logic, would not have lost their child unless they were bad mothers anyway - and therefore don't deserve to be generously compensated for the brutal treatment they received at the hands of the State and its agents. How fair is that? How cruel?
HAROLD LEVY: PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com
