"Waudby went into the interrogation without having eaten. She states that she wasn't given any food. She was also denied her medication, Lorazepam, which she took each morning and night.
"They convinced me if I didn't give a statement that I would not be released. I was so scared by being remanded into custody than to leave a false statement. I was convinced by them that it would look better coming from me than it would coming from them."
The assumption of child abuse, without a confession or substantial proof, was enough to taint Waudby as a bad and negligent mother.
Waudby states she was well aware that any criminal trial she would get wouldn't take place into well into 2000.
By then, Justine would have been in foster care beyond the statutory time line and the CAS indicated they would seek to make Justine a Crown ward.
Waudby states that she felt she had no choice but to enter the plea."
REPORTER SARAH DEATH; PETERBOROUGH EXAMINER;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: It is clear from the evidence called at the Goudge inquiry that Brenda Waudby - an utterly innocent individual who's baby daughter had been murdered by her babysitter - had been required to plead guilty to a charge of child abuse under provincial legislation before the Crown would withdraw the the second-degree murder charge on the basis of medical opinions which showed she could not possibly have committed the crime. It is also clear that Dr. Charles Smith's opinion that there were injuries which preceded the attack on Baby Jenna - which led to her being wrongfully charged with murder - was also the basis for the provincial charge, along with what the police claimed to be a confession. Instead of receiving the sympathy and compassion she deserved as a grieving mother whose baby daughter had been murdered, Ms. Waudby, a grieving mother, was herself charged with the horrific crime and not surprisingly became a pariah in her community. Brenda Waudby has been given a raw deal by Ontario's criminal justice system. We can only hope that the Court will give her the opportunity to strike the plea that she felt compelled to make in the circumstances, allow her to call the fresh evidence which she says clears her of this offence, and go the rest of the distance necessary to clear her name. Ms. Waudby explains why she has brought her application in an affidavit which can be found at:
juliekirkpatrick.com;
Click on "cases", click on "application record" and then scroll down to "affidavit."
This affidavit - replete with allegations of a coerced confession - is one of the most disturbing court documents which i have ever seen in my lengthy career career as a criminal lawyer and journalist.
I encourage all of our readers around the world to read it - and to follow this case closely.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE 2: The Peterborough Examiner has run the following apology in connection with an editing error related to a headline: "A headline in the Saturday, Nov. 27 front page of our newspaper, The Peterborough Examiner and in earlier website reports, is incorrect due to an editing error. Brenda Waudby was never charged with sexual assault or any assault involving any sexual connotation. The Examiner apologizes for the error."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Brenda Waudby's years of struggle to clear her name is the subject of a lengthy television documentary likely airing in the New Year," the Peterborough Examiner story begins.
"The documentary, prepared by Julian Sher, will air on Global Television," the story continues.
"Sher said he wasn't at liberty to discuss details of the documentary because he was discussing the documentary's final details with the national network.
Waudby, originally charged with murdering her own daughter, Jenna Mellor, in 1997 has been fighting to clear her name for more than a decade.
A murder charge against her was withdrawn; Jenna's babysitter, 14 at the time of the killing, pleaded guilty to manslaughter in December 2006 after being arrested as an adult. He was also charged with sexual assault, but the Crown withdrew that charge.
Now Waudby is fighting to have her own conviction of child abuse withdrawn.
Waudby pleaded guilty to that charge in June 1999. She has applied for an appeal extension with the court, which, if received, would give her a chance to formerly appeal the conviction.
In a sworn affidavit filed with Superior Court, Waudby alleges she was bullied by the Crown attorney, police and the Kawartha-Haliburton Children's Aid Society into falsely confessing to abusing Jenna.
"I am not a perfect mother, and I have had some great challenges in my life, but I have loved all my children deeply and I did not beat Jenna before she died," Waudby states in her affidavit.
Waudby was charged with Jenna's death based on the erroneous findings of pathologist Dr. Charles Smith.
In his report, Smith not only wrongly pinpointed the time of Jenna's injuries at 24 to 48 hours before her death, but also stated that there were "older rib injuries" predating Jenna's death by five to seven days.
The affidavit states that the pathological evidence doesn't support Smith's findings and that Smith himself later retracted that statement.
"I cannot continue to be labelled as a convicted child abuser. I am grateful for the fact that I have not had to live as a mother wrongfully convicted of murder, but the fact is that I should never have been in a situation where I had to choose a substitute label in order to preserve my family."
"It causes me great pain every time I am characterized as a child abuser, a child beater and a mother who made a terrible mistake. I am none of these things, save and except for the last, and that mistake was leaving my daughter with a babysitter who sexually assaulted and killed her in my home, while his mother was upstairs."
It also takes issue with Smith's assertion that no sexual abuse occurred during Jenna's final hours.
Waudby's affidavit references several nurses, doctors and police officers that noticed trauma to Jenna's body and a pubic hair located near her vaginal area.
Jenna's body was taken to Civic Hospital after she was taken from Waudby's home.
The affidavit states two doctors noted possible sexual trauma to Jenna, while several nurses noticed a hair protruding from her lower area.
Several city police officers apparently either saw the hair, or were informed about its existence, the affidavit states. It also notes that some officers noted signs of sexual assault on Jenna's body.
The affidavit states that police zeroed in on Waudby as the prime suspect.
"During the eight months between Jenna's death and my arrest I was subjected to aggressive police tactics, undercover surveillance and wiretap surveil-l ance, co-ordinated at times between the police and the CAS and explicitly designed to obtained a confession from me," Waudby states.
An undercover officer, Maya Schlegel, befriended Waudby to obtain a confession from her, she states, eventually winning an award for extracting a "confession" from Waudby when she didn't.
Waudby states she adamantly denied hurting Jenna.
She admits to smoking a small amount of marijuana before putting Jenna and her other daughter to bed the night before Jenna's death and that Jenna woke up later that night crying.
"I reacted badly by yelling at her to go to sleep, spanking her diaper and putting her in the her crib."
The affidavit refers to notes prepared by Schlegel, with Waudby expressing concern that police, after several lengthy interrogations, might have her believing something happened when it didn't.
Schlegel's notes suggest that the undercover officer asked Waudby if she suffers from memory lapses.
Between the police interrogations, and the suggestions by her "friend," Waudby states that she began to wonder if she was suffering from memory lapses and couldn't remember an eight-hour time period where Smith said Jenna was injured.
"Between July 7, 1997 and September 18, 1997, the focus of the police investigation was clearly to convince me that I had caused harm to Jenna during a 'blackout period' and to obtain a confession which would 'substantiate a pattern of past abuse' involving older rib injury," Waudby states.
On Sept. 18, 1997, Waudby was arrested, in front of her daughter Justine, and charged with second-degree murder.
She was brought to the police station, taken into an interview room and was told police had no doubt that she was responsible for Jenna's death.
"They told me that I was a good mother who made a mistake, got frustrated and lost control of my emotions. They told me that I had to admit to myself and everyone else that I had made a terrible mistake and that if I did my family would understand and support me."
Police told her Smith's report showed, beyond any doubt, Jenna's injuries were received in Waudby's care.
"I told police that Jenna had been crying incessantly and that I did experience what I described as "flashbacks." I now realize I was remembering and replaying images of the photographs shown to me by Det. Const. Dan Lemay on April 28, 1997, against the memory of putting Jenna to bed on the night of Jan. 20, 1997."
The affidavit states police repeatedly asked Waudby to remember what happened that night, suggesting she had made a terrible mistake, or even simply lost control and began swinging her arms, striking Jenna's torso.
"Det. Const. Lemay told me that Justine was going to be in foster care and if I gave them a second statement they would ensure that I would be released that day so that I could try to get her back in my care. They talked to me about the difference between murder and manslaughter and the importance of co-operating with police when you've made an 'emotional spur of the moment' mistake.
"I was told that if I gave a second statement that con-firmed what they had discussed, then it would explain to my parents and family what had happened, and they would understand and support me."
Waudby went into the interrogation without having eaten. She states that she wasn't given any food. She was also denied her medication, Lorazepam, which she took each morning and night.
"They convinced me if I didn't give a statement that I would not be released. I was so scared by being remanded into custody than to leave a false statement. I was convinced by them that it would look better coming from me than it would coming from them."
The assumption of child abuse, without a confession or substantial proof, was enough to taint Waudby as a bad and negligent mother.
Waudby states she was well aware that any criminal trial she would get wouldn't take place into well into 2000.
By then, Justine would have been in foster care beyond the statutory time line and the CAS indicated they would seek to make Justine a Crown ward.
Waudby states that she felt she had no choice but to enter the plea.
In court, on the day of Waudby's plea, her lawyer, James Hauraney, would not confirm that the facts read aloud were substantially correct when asked.
"We are prepared to accept the explanation," he replied.
Waudby got two year's probation.
The CAS immediately started using the proceeding against her, Waudby states, in an attempt to keep Justine, and her newborn son, away from her.
Justine was eventually returned to her, though the CAS appealed that decision.
A CAS worker would tell a family court judge that Waudby had confessed to hitting Jenna in a statement to police, the affidavit states, though this was wrong.
No one at the CAS was available for comment.
The Examiner has been seeking a copy of the affidavit since Waudby's lawyer, Julie Kirkpatrick, initiated the process in October.
The Ministry of the Attorney General's office repeatedly denied The Examiner's request, stating the document couldn't be released because it dealt with issues normally addressed in family court.
The matter will be addressed in court Dec. 9."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2865575
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://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
