"“Here is another case where Mr. Smith did a lot of damage,” said the woman's lawyer, James Lockyer, outside the courtroom. “An 18-year-old girl went through an awful experience giving birth alone in the bathroom.”
A publication ban remains on the name and hometown of the woman, who now lives in western Canada and was not in the Ontario courtroom. The baby has only been known as Baby F.
Smith had determined the baby died from asphyxia, the result of infanticide. His findings were discredited at an inquiry two years ago.
Her lawyer had originally been reluctant to challenge Smith because he was considered “the guru in determining the causes of child deaths (and) was the premier pediatric pathologist for Ontario and likely Canada,” her factums stated.
The teenager pleaded guilty to infanticide in 1998 before the same judge, Roland Harris."
REPORTER ALLISON CROSS; THE TORONTO STAR;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: The Goudge inquiry focused largely on the flawed work of Charles 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. (He has since been thrown out of the medical profession in Ontario);
The 1,000-page report by Justice Stephen Goudge slammed 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 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, 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 Smith's failings included "losing" evidence which showed his opinion was wrong, misstating 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."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A woman convicted of infanticide on the basis of testimony from now-disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith has finally been cleared," the Toronto Star story by reporter Allison Cross published earlier today under the heading, "Infanticide charge dropped in another case of discredited pathologist," begins.
"On Wednesday, the Crown withdrew charges against, and Judge Roland Harris exonerated, the woman, who was 18 when her newborn died in 1996," the story continues.
"“Here is another case where Mr. Smith did a lot of damage,” said the woman's lawyer, James Lockyer, outside the courtroom. “An 18-year-old girl went through an awful experience giving birth alone in the bathroom.”
A publication ban remains on the name and hometown of the woman, who now lives in western Canada and was not in the Ontario courtroom. The baby has only been known as Baby F.
Smith had determined the baby died from asphyxia, the result of infanticide. His findings were discredited at an inquiry two years ago.
Her lawyer had originally been reluctant to challenge Smith because he was considered “the guru in determining the causes of child deaths (and) was the premier pediatric pathologist for Ontario and likely Canada,” her factums stated.
The teenager pleaded guilty to infanticide in 1998 before the same judge, Roland Harris.
She was later pardoned, “but I had no memory of what was being alleged and in my head never believed for a moment that I had intentionally done anything to cause my baby’s death,” she said in her affidavit.
Last October, the Ontario Court of Appeal quashed the convictions against mother of Baby F and the mother of Baby M, another infant who died shortly after birth. Baby M’s mother was also convicted based in Smith’s work.
Baby F’s mother had said she was unaware she was pregnant that day in 1996 when she gave birth to a baby in the bathroom of her home.
Her parents, who took her to hospital after a massive loss of blood, found the baby in a plastic bag in their daughter’s bedroom closet.
The woman's father was in court and said, via Lockyer, he “wouldn't want any family to go through what his went through.”
The father left the courthouse crying and said he planned to contact his daughter immediately.
“I love these cases,” said Lockyer. “I hate seeing people punished for crimes they didn't do.”"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/951019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORE BACKGROUND: TORONTO STAR REPORTER THERESA BOYLE'S STORY PUBLISHED ON OCTOBER 19, 2010 UNDER THE HEADING, "CROWN URGING INFANTICIDE CONVICTIONS BE QUASHED."
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/10/dr-charles-smith-crown-to-conceed-that.html
"Two women who say they felt pressured to plead guilty to killing their infants are victims of miscarriages of justice, Crown prosecutors have conceded," the Toronto Star story by reporter Theresa Boyle published on October 19, 2010 begins, under the heading, "Crown urging infanticide convictions be quashed."
"The Crown will ask the Ontario Court of Appeal on Wednesday to quash the convictions, acknowledging they were based on flawed evidence from the infamously inept pathologist Dr. Charles Smith," the story continues.
"In its factum, the Crown says it will seek new trials for the pair.
The tragic cases involved young women who have always maintained they were unaware they were even pregnant when they gave birth to babies in the bathrooms of their homes.
Both women were subsequently diagnosed by psychiatrists as suffering from acute distress disorder during their traumatic deliveries, of which they have only hazy memories. There are questions as to whether the babies were even born alive and causes of death remain undetermined.
The pair cannot be named because of publication bans. One woman, identified only as the mother of baby M, was 21 when she gave birth in her Toronto-area home in 1992. The other, identified as the mother of baby F, is from outside Toronto and was 18 when she gave birth in 1996.
Baby M’s mother says she had no idea she was pregnant because she had lost weight prior to the delivery and her periods had always been irregular. The college student thought she was having regular menstrual cramps when labour pains started.
“She was shocked to see a head coming out,” according to court documents. “She described feeling like her insides were coming out. She was in a state of shock.”
Her parents arrived home to find the body of a baby boy in the toilet. Their daughter was lying on the bathroom floor in a pool of blood.
Smith conducted an autopsy and determined the baby died from asphyxia and was the victim of infanticide, findings which were discredited by a panel of expert pathologists who testified at a public inquiry more than two years ago.
The baby’s mother was charged with second-degree murder but ended up pleading guilty to the lesser office of manslaughter, something she says she felt forced to do.
“For nineteen months, she had been told that the Crown was seeking a sentence of up to six years imprisonment. She knew that the Crown’s pathologist, Dr. Smith, had given the opinion that she had intentionally killed her baby. She did not think her denials would be believed,” her factum states.
The evening before baby F was born, the infant’s mother, then a high-school student, cancelled plans to play hockey with friends because she had cramps. She thought she was having a bowel movement when she gave birth to a baby girl. She put the baby in a plastic bag in her bedroom closet.
Smith reviewed the case and again determined the baby died from asphyxia, the result of infanticide. Again, his findings were discredited at the inquiry.
“Dr. Smith’s reputation is now in tatters. His opinion no longer commands respect . . . In 2008, the Goudge Report drew damning conclusions about his work, his ethics and his honesty,” her factum states.
But at the time, the woman’s lawyer was reluctant to challenge Smith because he was considered “the guru in determining the causes of child deaths (and) was the premier pediatric pathologist for Ontario and likely Canada,” her factums states.
She pleaded guilty to infanticide and subsequently received a pardon.
“I felt like I really did not have a choice. I could not remember what really happened and was faced with police and pathologists who seemed sure that my baby’s death was infanticide . . . .
“But I had no memory of what was being alleged and in my head never believed for a moment that I had intentionally done anything to cause my baby’s death,” she states in her affidavit.
In requesting new trials for the pair, the Crown argues in its factum that cases could be made that the mother of baby F aborted the fetus herself and that the mother of baby M drowned her baby in the toilet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
