"THE APPLICANT IS A LIKELY VICTIM OF A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. DR. SMITH PLAYED AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN HER TRIAL AND PRESENTED SEEMINGLY CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO THE JURY THAT KENNETH WAS THE VICTIM OF A HOMICIDE, THROUGH STRANGULATION OR SMOTHERING. IT IS NOW APPARENT THAT THERE WAS NO SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION FOR THESE CRITICAL FINDINGS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE FOR HER CASE TO BE RECONSIDERED BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION."
FROM TAMMY MARQUARDT'S "FACTUM": (A DOCUMENT FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN SUPPORT OF HER APPLICATION TO HAVE HER SECOND-DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION SENT BACK TO THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL FOR CONSIDERATION OF FRESH EVIDENCE);
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Like Bill Mullins-Johnson, Sherry Sherret, two women who cannot be identified by name and Dinesh Kumar - all victims of Dr. Charles Smith who have been acquitted by the province's highest court often years after their conviction - Tammy Marquardt will be asking the Ontario Court of Appeal to clear her name. (At least five other similar appeals are pending). Ms. Marquardt's appeal is set for Thursday February 10, 2011. In anticipation of this important date I am running a retrospective of 14 posts which ran previously on this Blog.
HAROLD LEVY: PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 9, 2009
TAMMY MARQUARDT; (4); STILL BEHIND BARS; ANOTHER MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE ATTRIBUTED TO DR. CHARLES SMITH; APPLICATION TO SUPREME COURT; SECTION TWO;
BACKGROUND:
TAMMY MARQUARDT STILL LANGUISHES BEHIND BARS IN SPITE OF NUMEROUS FORENSIC OPINIONS THAT THE NOW DISCREDITED DR. CHARLES SMITH'S EVIDENCE WAS TERRIBLY WRONG; MS. MARQUARDT IS THE ONLY ONE OF DR. SMITH'S VICTIMS STILL BEHIND BARS - HAVING SERVED 13 YEARS OF HER LIFE-SENTENCE FOR SECOND-DEGREE MURDER OF HER SON (2 1/2 YEAR-OLD SON KENNETH); SHE IS ASKING THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA TO SEND HER CONVICTION BACK TO THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL FOR CONSIDERATION OF FRESH EVIDENCE. THE "FACTUM" SHE HAS FILED WILL ALLOW OUR READERS TO FOLLOW UP-COMING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CASE, INCLUDING MS. MARQUARDT'S BAIL APPLICATION WHICH IS SET FOR MARCH 12TH; TAMMY MARQUARDT - AND WILL PROVIDE INSIGHTS INTO A TYPICAL SMITH "ASPHYXIATION" CASE. BECAUSE OF ITS LENGTH, I AM PUBLISHING THE DOCUMENT CONSECUTIVELY IN TWO PARTS; THE FIRST PART PROVIDES A FACTUAL SETTING; THE SECOND SETS OUT THE "FRESH EVIDENCE" CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLYING HER APPLICATION TO CANADA'S HIGHEST COURT; MS. MARQUARDT IS BEING ASSISTED BY THE ASSOCIATION IN DEFENCE OF THE WRONGLY CONVICTED WHICH HAS ALREADY HELPED OBTAIN FREEDOM AND VINDICATION FOR SEVERAL OF DR. SMITH'S VICTIMS AND HAS PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE IN THE GOUDGE INQUIRY INTO ONTARIO'S PEDIATRIC FORENSIC PATHOLOGY SYSTEM;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The factum continues with the following description of the fresh evidence considerations in the case, beginning with a terse description of the "points in issue." (Readers are referred to some fascinating notes appended at the end of the "factum" following the list of authorities);
34.
Events have transpired in recent years that demonstrate Dr. Charles Smith regularly provided incorrect opinions as to the cause of death in suspicious death cases (see, for example, R. v. Trotta, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 453, R. v. Mullins-Johnson (2008), 228 C.C.C. (3d) 505 (Ont.C.A.) (and the Goudge Inquiry Report) . As regards the Applicant’s specific case, and Dr. Smith’s opinion that asphyxia was the cause of Kenneth’s death, these opinions have now been refuted by a total of six pathologists. Their opinions constitute admissible fresh evidence that meets the Palmer tests. Accordingly, the Applicant’s conviction should be remanded to the Court of Appeal for review to determine whether her second degree murder conviction should be set aside on the ground that it constitutes a miscarriage of justice.
PART III
THE FRESH EVIDENCE AND THE LAW
Introduction
35.
Commencing in 1999, public concerns over Dr. Smith’s work began to develop and, by 2005, reached a crescendo. On November 1, 2005, the Chief Coroner for the Province of Ontario announced a review of criminally suspicious and homicide cases, dating back to 1991, in which Dr. Smith had performed an autopsy or provided an opinion. Forty- five cases were subsequently identified and reviewed by a panel of internationally recognized forensic pathologists, namely:
● Professor Pekka Saukko, a Professor of Forensic Medicine at the University of Turku in Finland;
● Dr. John Butt, a forensic pathologist in British Columbia;
● Professor Christopher Milroy, a consultant forensic pathologist to the British Home Office;
● Professor Helen Whitwell, a Professor of Forensic Pathology at the University of Sheffield in England; and
● Professor Jack Crane, the State Pathologist for Northern Ireland.
The results of the review were released on April 19, 2007. The Chief Coroner reported that, in 20 of the 45 cases, the reviewers disagreed with the opinions of Dr. Smith. The Applicant’s case was one of these 20 cases. Dr. Saukko was the primary reviewer of her case, and his opinions were supported by his four colleagues. More recently, Dr. Avis, the Chief Medical Examiner for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, provided a complete report on the case. The expert evidence on the case is now unanimous: the cause of Kenneth’s death is undetermined, and included within the potential causes of death are a number of natural causes including a seizure disorder.
A. Dr. Saukko’s Review of Kenneth’s Case in 2006-2008
36.
Pursuant to the Chief Coroner’s review, Dr. Saukko prepared a point-form report on Kenneth’s autopsy on December 14, 2006. In it, he concluded:
There is not sufficient evidence for the diagnosis of asphyxia to be made. It cannot be based only on petechial hemorrhages of thymus, pulmonary pleura and epicardium which are non-specific findings. The cause of death should be given as unascertained. Not apparent from records whether toxicology was performed.
In October, 2007, Dr. Saukko prepared a full medico-legal report on Kenneth’s death at the request of the Goudge Inquiry and subsequently testified about his findings at the Inquiry in 2008. According to Dr. Saukko, Dr. Smith’s work on the case, and his autopsy report, were deficient, his determination on the cause of death was in error, and his testimony at the Applicant’s preliminary inquiry and trial was unprofessional and misleading. Dr. Saukko’s opinions on the Applicant’s case were adopted in full, and unanimously, by the other four reviewing pathologists when they gave their evidence at the Goudge Inquiry.
37.
According to Dr. Saukko, Dr. Smith’s diagnosis of asphyxia was without scientific foundation. His findings were not indicative of a homicidal death. He wrote:
Dr. Smith’s testimony at the preliminary hearing is the first time to learn about his reasoning as to the cause and mechanism of death. The testimony is very contradictory, unscientific and confusing. His diagnosis of “asphyxia”, without giving the mechanism by which it has been thought to have caused the death, is based solely on the occurrence of petechiae in thymus, lungs and epicardium. Findings which are generally known to be non-specific but which according to Dr. Smith are significant and “…sufficient to make a diagnosis of asphyxia.”
After observing that Dr. Smith had not completely ruled out death by seizure, Dr. Saukko concluded:
It is illogical and completely against scientific evidence based reasoning to give any cause of death if there is one or several causes that cannot be reasonably ruled out and, in such a case, the death has to be classified accordingly as unascertained.
Dr. Saukko reiterated that “petechial hemorrhages of the thymus and the serous membranes such as pleura or pericardium are non-specific”, i.e. there were possible causes for the condition that were not indicative of homicide.
38.
Dr. Saukko’s concerns in the case were heightened by the harvesting of several of Kenneth’s organs prior to autopsy. He wrote:
When one or more whole organs or organ systems have not been investigated it means that possible pathology within these organs has not been excluded leaving more room for uncertainty and speculation and diminishing the value of the autopsy. This is neither in the interest of the defendant nor the general public as objective and professional cause of death investigation is a prerequisite for a fair criminal investigation and trial and one of the cornerstones of trust in any judiciary.
He further concluded:
Therefore, as a rule, the cause of death cannot be reliably established without a complete autopsy with ancillary investigations such as complete histological examination of all major organs, microbiology, virology and full toxicological investigation.
As Dr. Saukko observed, there had been no examination of several major organs and no post-mortem toxicology investigation had been undertaken in the case.
B. Dr. Simon Avis’s Review of Kenneth’s Case
39.
Dr. Simon Avis is the Chief Medical Examiner for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Applicant requested that he provide an opinion on the case. In his nine page report, dated October 30, 2008, Dr. Avis disagrees with Dr. Smith’s post-mortem report that Kenneth died from “asphyxia”, and criticizes substantial portions of his trial testimony. Dr. Avis concludes his report by saying:
The cause of death should be presented as Undetermined
The manner of death should be presented as Undetermined
A seizure disorder cannot be excluded as a cause of death.
MCAD or a related metabolic error cannot be excluded as a cause of death.
A cardiac conduction defect cannot be excluded as a cause of death.
There is no evidence in the pathology to support a finding of “asphyxia”, whether by neck compression or suffocation. (original emphasis).
The Goudge Inquiry
40.
On April 25, 2007, the Province of Ontario established a Commission of Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario. The Commission’s Terms of Reference established it as a systemic review of pediatric forensic pathology in the Province. In fulfilling this task, the Commissioner considered it necessary to examine Dr. Smith’s work in criminally suspicious cases which had begun in 1981 and concluded in 2001. A year before Kenneth’s death, Dr. Smith became the first director of the Ontario Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit (OPFPU). Yet, as the Commissioner noted in his report, Dr. Smith “has neither formal forensic pathology training nor board certification in that field”. In short, he was a pediatric pathologist, not a forensic pathologist.
Goudge Report, Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario, pp. 44-47, 116-119
41.
It can be fairly stated that the Commissioner was highly critical of Dr. Smith’s work from a number of perspectives. He catalogued a litany of errors that Dr. Smith made in individual cases, from providing erroneous opinions as to cause of death, mishandling exhibits, misinterpreting post-mortem artefacts as pre-mortem injuries, failing to provide reports in a timely fashion, becoming an advocate for the Crown’s case, overstating his expertise and giving imbalanced evidence. The Commissioner then said:
Finally, Dr. Smith did not always testify with the candour required of an expert witness. In some cases, he made false and misleading statements to the court.
After giving two examples of this, the Commissioner continued:
These examples are troubling. It goes without saying that an expert witness giving evidence under oath should do so with complete candour and honesty. False and misleading statements should form no part of an expert witness’s evidence.
The Commissioner further noted that Dr. Smith “actively misled those who might have engaged in meaningful oversight of his work”. He concluded his remarks by saying:
Dr. Smith was adamant that his failings were never intentional. I simply cannot accept such a sweeping attempt to escape moral responsibility. The most obvious examples of conduct that belies Dr. Smith’s assertion were his attempts to frustrate oversight that I have reviewed. At those moments when the need for accountability and oversight might have become even more apparent to those in a position to do something about it, Dr. Smith was not above using deception to attempt to throw them off the trail.
Dr. Smith is a complex, multi-dimensional person. The terrible irony is that, in some ways, the negative attributes I have described were compounded by positive qualities. He was willing to take on difficult pediatric cases that his colleagues were not anxious to do. He has a sense of responsibility that led him to cooperate with the work of this Inquiry. In his evidence, he admitted many of his shortcomings that the evidence had laid bare. And, albeit much too late, he owned up to a great deal. In addition, the evidence is clear that others found him engaging. Support staff liked working with him, and many people found him a charismatic and effective speaker. As we now know, although he did so on the basis of terribly deficient training and fundamentally flawed practices, he appeared to be completely assured, and often, in circumstances where the science could not provide certainty. These sorts of qualities not only increased the risk he posed as an expert in the criminal justice system but tended to build an unwarranted trust in already lax overseers.
Such an expert can do much damage without effective oversight by those who must provide it and constant vigilance on the part of the participants in the criminal justice system who can protect the system against flawed expert evidence. None of that happened here. The challenge is to ensure that history does not repeat itself.
Goudge Report (supra), Chapter 8, “Dr. Smith and the Practice of Pediatric Forensic Pathology”
42.
The Commissioner spent some time dealing with the diagnosis of “asphyxia” as a cause of death. He criticized its use as a diagnosis. He noted Dr. Smith’s regular use of the term as a cause of death. He observed that the very kind of findings recorded by Dr. Smith in Kenneth’s case were non-specific:
...there is a problem with the basis on which asphyxia is diagnosed. Diagnostic criteria that were commonly used for establishing asphyxia – petechial hemorrhages in the thoracic viscera, congestion and edema of the lungs, cyanosis of the fingernails, and cerebral edema – are in fact non-specific findings. In other words, these findings can appear on a body for a variety of reasons, including, but in no way limited to, asphyxia. They are meaningless without more evidence and cannot properly be said to be diagnostic of asphyxia.
As early as 1974, forensic pathology textbooks were referring to those criteria as “obsolete”, in recognition of the fact that they were non-specific and therefore non-diagnostic. As a result, in the 1980s and 1990s, forensic pathologists should have been aware that certain findings, such as intrathoracic petechiae and congestion of the lungs, were non-specific and were insufficient on their own to substantiate the diagnosis of asphyxia.
The Commissioner considered Dr. Smith’s findings in nine cases (one of them being Kenneth’s):
Nonetheless, Dr. Smith determined that asphyxia was the cause of death in nine of the 18 cases the Commission examined in detail. In several others, he found that there was an asphyxial component to the death, but that it was not the cause of death. At the Inquiry, Dr. Smith testified that he was aware that certain findings, like petechial hemorrhages in the thoracic viscera, were non-specific and therefore not diagnostic of asphyxia. As a result, he said he diagnosed asphyxia only when he observed these non-specific findings at autopsy and when there was some other evidence to suggest an asphyxial mechanism of death. The latter took two forms: specific pathology findings, or a history suggesting asphyxia.
I have reviewed all nine cases and find that Dr. Smith adopted the approach he described in some cases, but not others. In some instances, he appeared to do exactly the opposite – he diagnosed asphyxia based solely on the presence of non-specific findings.
Goudge Report (supra) at pp. 148-152
43.
Later in his report, the Commissioner returned to the “asphyxia” issue. He wrote:
It is clear that a pathologist’s opinion about the cause of death, if it is not carefully expressed, can be a major source of misunderstanding. The best example that emerged from the Inquiry was the use of the term “asphyxia”. Dr. Smith opined that asphyxia was the cause of death for a number of the cases under review. Asphyxia, based on its Greek root, literally translates as “stopping of the pulse”. However, the evidence at this Inquiry demonstrated that the term has commonly been used to mean simply that the deceased stopped breathing or was deprived of oxygen. It has also been used frequently to denote mechanical asphyxia through the intervention of a third party. The latter meaning is radically different from the former, in that it generally implies non-accidental injury. One of the problems identified at the Inquiry was that Dr. Smith used the term “asphyxia” in inconsistent ways. At times he used it in its more inculpatory sense as indicating mechanical asphyxia through the intervention of a third party. At other times he used it in its more benign sense, although this distinction would not always be apparent to the police and others who received the opinions. The situation was compounded by Dr. Smith’s testimony. He sometimes explained what asphyxia meant in ways that were, at best, confusing and nearly incomprehensible. The varied meanings that can be given to the term asphyxia not only invite caution in its use but present a compelling argument to avoid its use altogether, if confusion and misunderstanding are to be avoided.
One of the Commissioner’s Recommendations reads as follows:
Recommendation 85
a) The use of the term “asphyxia” should be avoided as an articulated cause of death. If it must be used to describe the mechanism of death, it should be elaborated on to avoid confusion.
b) Forensic pathologists in Ontario should be educated as to the dangers associated with the term “asphyxia” and, under the auspices of the Chief Forensic Pathologist, reach a common understanding as to when it should and should not be used.
c) More generally, forensic pathologists should be careful to express their opinions in terms that are not susceptible to varied meanings, but that do elucidate the issues addressed by the opinions.
Goudge Report (supra) Recommendation 85 at pp. 408-410
1.
The Commissioner directly alluded to Kenneth’s case in his report on several occasions. He wrote:
● At the Inquiry, Dr. Smith denied that he ever allowed irrelevant or prejudicial information to affect his decision making in an individual case. It is clear, however, that in a number of cases he recorded irrelevant social history in his reports. For instance, in Kenneth’s case, Dr. Smith recorded in the Sick Kids final autopsy report that Kenneth’s mother’s husband, who was not Kenneth’s father, was not present when Kenneth’s body was found because he was with his girlfriend, who was giving birth to his baby. The reason he was not there has no relevance to the pathology, but hints at an adverse moral judgment.
. . . . .
● The evidence also shows that rather than candidly admitting the reasons for his delay [in producing reports], Dr. Smith unfortunately also often blamed others for his own failings. In Kenneth’s case, Dr. Smith produced his report of post-mortem examination in April 1994, six months after the autopsy. In September 1994, he testified at the preliminary hearing in the case. Defence counsel questioned him about that six month delay. Dr. Smith told the court that the main reason for the delay was a lack of administrative support at Sick Kids. He said, “thanks to the government cutbacks, I no longer have a secretary, so I have to actually type my own reports, and any report that gets out is because I have sat there at eight o’clock at night typing it myself.” He testified that “I have to do all the work myself.”
This explanation was simply not true. Dr. Smith never lost an assistant due to “government cutbacks” or otherwise. At no time was he required to type his post-mortem reports himself. Throughout the 1990s, he had administrative assistants available to him. They were diligent and more than willing to do the work assigned to them. In fact, Dr. Smith preferred to type his own reports.
. . . . .
● Dr. Smith also from time to time used language in his testimony that was loose and unscientific. Certain inappropriate expressions are found throughout his testimony. The language of “betting” is one of them. In Kenneth’s case, Dr. Smith testified that suffocation can occur without leaving any marks and that, if he were a “betting man”, he would say that suffocation was a better explanation for Kenneth’s death than manual or ligature strangulation.
The Commissioner wrote of “the dangers in delivering a preliminary opinion”:
● Once again, the evidence at the Inquiry is instructive. In Kenneth’s case, at the conclusion of the autopsy, Dr. Smith told police that there was nothing that would indicate an obvious cause of death, but he nonetheless characterized the cause of death as suffocation by obstruction of the airways. Kenneth’s mother was arrested several weeks thereafter, almost five months before Dr. Smith issued his post-mortem report, which included no such characterization. Dr. Pekka Saukko, who reviewed the case, testified that suffocation was not a reasonable conclusion (tentative or otherwise), as there was no pathology to substantiate it.
Goudge Report (supra) at pp. 39, 131, 170, 182-3, 188, 393, 396
2.
The Commissioner conducted a roundtable to discuss how to address potential wrongful convictions arising from Dr. Smith’s work. Ms. Mary Nethery, a director in the Ministry’s Criminal Law Division, was a member of the roundtable. She spoke of the Ministry’s desire to expedite cases in which there was potential fresh evidence, “for example, evidence from eminent forensic pathologists presented at this Inquiry, that pathology evidence at trial was faulty, or potentially that the science has changed.” She went on to say:
So we would be willing to set up an expedited process for dealing with the extension of time to appeal. We would work with the Defence Bar, and the Ontario Court of Appeal to develop that process.
We expect that the process would apply to most of the cases. It may be sort of a group application based on some of the evidence that’s been presented here.
So in order to expedite things ... should there be an extension of the process for time to appeal, the real issues would be the merits of the case argued in the Court of Appeal. And [we] would expend our time and energy on that issue, I think both from the defence and the Crown’s side.
Most of the Dr. Smith cases of potential wrongful conviction arose as a result of guilty pleas at trial, usually to lesser and included offences, in which there was no subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal. As a consequence, in three cases, applications for extensions of time to appeal have already been granted by that Court, and others are pending. The Applicant’s case differs in that her case went to trial and she unsuccessfully appealed her conviction. Sometime after Ms. Nethery’s testimony at the Inquiry, the Ministry directly addressed the Applicant’s circumstances and advised counsel that it may consent to a section 43(1.1) Supreme Court Act application, and to an extension of time to file the application.
Goudge Report (supra) at pp. 515-6
Conclusion
3.
The Applicant is a likely victim of a miscarriage of justice. Dr. Smith played an important role in her trial and presented seemingly convincing evidence to the jury that Kenneth was the victim of a homicide, through strangulation or smothering. It is now apparent that there was no scientific foundation for these critical findings. In these circumstances, it is in the interests of justice for her case to be reconsidered by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal is an appropriate court for this purpose because it did not have the opportunity to consider the fresh evidence when it heard the Applicant’s appeal in 1998 – thus, if a section 696.1 ministerial review application were to be brought, the Minister would be asked to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. It is submitted that the route proposed is a sensible, efficient and speedy alternative to a ministerial review application, and this Court is asked to refer the case to the Court of Appeal accordingly.
See R. v. Hinse, [1994] 64 QAC 53 (C.A.), reversed [1997] 1 S.C.R. 3
R. v. Hinse, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 596
See also R. v. Balafrej (2005), 197 C.C.C. (3d) 88 (Que.C.A.)
Supreme Court of Canada: Bulletin of Proceedings (15 April 2005),
online: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/bulletin/2005/05-04-15-bul.wpd/05-04-15-bul.wpd.pdf at p. 552
PART IV
4.
No costs were awarded in the lower courts and therefore the Applicant does not seek costs of this application.
PART V
ORDER REQUESTED
5.
It is respectfully requested that the application for an extension of time be granted, the application allowed and the case referred to the Court of Appeal for review.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this27th day of January, 2009____________________
JAMES LOCKYER
Counsel for the Applicant
AUTHORITIES
Canada (Minister of Justice) v. Karas, [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 88.
R. v. Hinse, [1994] 64 QAC 53 (C.A.), reversed [1997] 1 S.C.R. 3
R. v. Hinse, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 596
See also R. v. Balafrej (2005), 197 C.C.C. (3d) 88 (Que.C.A.)
Supreme Court of Canada: Bulletin of Proceedings (15 April 2005),
online: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/bulletin/2005/05-04-15-bul.wpd/05-04-15-bul.wpd.pdf at p. 552
1 Rick Marquardt was at Scarborough General Hospital that afternoon. He had gone there to be with his ex-girlfriend, who was about to give birth to their baby.
At trial, the Crown hypothesized that the Applicant was angry with Rick Marquardt for attending the birth and took out her frustration on Kenneth. P.C. Terry’s evidence did not support the Crown’s theory. He testified that when he took a statement from the Applicant at the Oshawa General, she was calm and seemed unperturbed by Rick Marquardt’s attendance at the birth of his previous girlfriend’s baby.
2 Defence counsel had consulted Dr. Fred Jaffe on the case in 1994. He advised that he was unable to assist since he was retiring. In a letter dated June 19, 1994, Dr. Jaffe wrote to defence counsel:
I think I suggested to you that a paediatric pathologist would be most effective in advising you in the above matter. However, it is a fact of life that, here in Toronto, all paediatric pathologists are associated with the Hospital for Sick Children and are, thus, colleagues of Dr. Smith.
In a memorandum to the file, defence counsel wrote: Dr. Jaffe “…made some interesting observations about the preliminary hearing evidence. He believes that Dr. Smith has handed [the defence] a chance of acquittal with his equivocal testimony.”
On the advice of Dr. Jaffe, the defence then consulted Dr. Chitra Rao, a pathologist who regularly conducted autopsies in suspicious death cases in Hamilton, Ontario. She was not a pediatric forensic pathologist. She did not provide a report to the defence but the defence file contains a memorandum outlining her opinion. She considered Dr. Smith’s post mortem report to be thorough and she disbelieved the Applicant’s explanation of the events on October 9th, 1993. Further, she did not believe that Kenneth was epileptic because two EEG tests carried out in his lifetime had not revealed any brain abnormalities. She further told counsel that the petechial hemorrhages of the thymus, pulmonary plueura and epicardium suggested asphyxia but were not conclusive of it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2009/03/tammy-marquardt-still-behind-bars_09.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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;
