"It astounds me that the British authorities have taken Morrison's assault on the British justice system so much more seriously than their Canadian counterparts. Morrison was investigated, prosecuted and sentenced to jail for five years for his pretence - even though he was merely a private investigator who held himself as capable of doing forensic technical work which included suspicious death cases. By contrast, Smith has not faced any criminal charges even though he was a pathologist who testified for the prosecution in dozens of cases and was therefore giving his opinion and testifying in court as a trusted representative of the Crown."
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Gene Morrison and Charles Smith had many things in common - but one stands out. They both managed to bamboozle people in their respective justice systems, including judges, prosecutors, police and even defence lawyers, into believing that they were genuine forensic experts. Morrison purported to be a forensic expert in the areas of handwriting, drugs, lie detection, toxicology, facial mapping and forensic dentistry, who had earned his qualifications through who a BSc in forensic psychology, an MSc in forensic investigation, and a PhD in criminology. which he purchased from Rochville University, an online website offering 'life experience degrees'. Smith misrepresented himself as a qualified forensic pathologist (while staring down those who dared to disagree with him) even though he had no professional qualifications in the area, no specialized training to speak of as a forensic pathologist, and had never been trained or mentored by a genuine forensic pathologist. He would later admit to the independent Goudge inquiry into many of his cases that his knowledge of forensic pathology was "woefully inadequate," that his training was "minimal," that he was basically ''self-taught", and that he was "profoundly ignorant" of the role of expert witnesses and the way in which the criminal justice system works. (Not true. He wrote impressive articles on the role of experts, and lectured to homicide officers on issues involving the criminal justice system); Smith made recently made the specific admission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario: "Dr. Smith exaggerated his experience, or conversely, failed to disclose his lack of experience in the area of forensic pathology. Dr. Smith offered opinions outside of his area of expertise. Dr. Smith gave evidence that was unbalanced, overly dogmatic or failed to acknowledge uncertainty or controversy, and which was speculative, unsubstantiated and not based on pathology findings;" In spite of his admission of his training being being "woefully inadequate" and "self-taught" and his above admission to the College, Smith's evidence from the witness box brimmed with confidence, certainty, experience, and a sense of deep knowledge of his field. One major difference: Morrison was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to prison for five years for his fraud upon the justice system; Charles Smith remains untouched. I have published this series of posts on Gene Morrison without editorial comment (not an easy task) so that our readers could make up their own minds about whether Smith should be prosecuted. I promised to publish my personal views at the end of the series. So here we go. It's my turn now.
PUBLISHER'S VIEWS: I have found a significant number of similarities between Morrison and Smith, as follows:
0: Both men had no compunction about deceiving the public and its agencies. Morrison claimed to have several impressive degrees supporting his forensic expertise - all of which had been purchased, none of which had been earned. (It has been written that both men were "experts" in conning the public); Smith was found to have concealed from the medical College in Saskatchewan the fact that he had been under investigation by the medical College in Toronto. He also mislead the Ontario College (the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons) during their investigation of him.) Indeed, Smith made this detailed admission of fact at the recent hearing that led to his being struck from the College Register for incompetence and professional misconduct: "Dr. Smith failed to respond to inquiries from regulating bodies, including the CPSO, with the candor expected of a member regarding his involvement in certain of the cases under investigation. This lack of candor prevented the regulating bodies from exercising the degree of oversight that might otherwise have been exercised."
0: Both men were well-documented liars. Morrison, who was described by the judge at his sentencing hearing in 2007 as "an inveterate and compulsive liar," indulged in a fantasy when the police asked him about his professional training during the course of their investigation. As one of the newspaper stories in the series indicated, Morrison insisted he’d been trained as a handwriting expert by two leading Czech experts, a “Professor Pavel Dedic” and a female colleague. "As the trial began, the police discovered the pair in surprisingly humble circumstances three hours outside Prague. Neither had any forensic knowledge – the woman, Kveta, had been his au pair, and Pavel Dedic was her husband, a chimney sweep. Confronted by this in court, Morrison ad-libbed that the couple were a cover – he’d really been trained by a Mr X he’d met on a train. He couldn’t name Mr X because he worked for the Czech Defence Ministry. He offered to take the judge into the corridor and whisper the name in his ear. The judge explained to the self-styled “expert witness” that this isn’t how things are done in court." The judge who jailed Morrison for five years because of his fraud on the justice system called Morrison an "inveterate and compulsive liar." Smith admitted during the independent Goudge Inquiry that he had lied under oath about supposedly being told by a judge who had earlier rejected his opinion and that of the Hospital for Sick Children that he really accepted their evidence. (In fact, Smith created a whole fantasy around this supposed incident.) As Justice Goudge noted in his report: Misrepresentations about Justice Dunn: "As early as 1992, Dr. Smith responded to concerns about his conduct in Amber’s case with a story that was simply false. Dr. Smith and several other physicians from SickKids testified at the trial of Amber’s babysitter, S.M. On July 25, 1991, the trial judge, Justice Dunn, acquitted the babysitter. In his reasons for judgment, Justice Dunn was highly critical of Dr. Smith and the other SickKids physicians. Specifically, Justice Dunn criticized Dr. Smith for his lack of objectivity, skill, and familiarity with the most recent literature. Shortly after the acquittal, S.M.’s father, D.M., filed a complaint with the CPSO regarding the conduct of Dr. Smith and several other SickKids physicians who testified at the trial. On May 4, 1992, Dr. Smith sent a written response to the CPSO in which he stated that he “remained as convinced as ever” that Amber had suffered a non-accidental head injury. In addition, he wrote, “on two occasions during my week of testimony, the Judge, Patrick Dunn, discussed my evidence with me at length. He repeatedly indicated to me that he believed [S.M.] to be guilty,and that he believed the opinions provided by [the SickKids doctors] and me. ”At the Inquiry, Dr. Smith admitted that his statement to the CPSO about justice Dunn was not true. He acknowledged that at no time during the trial did Justice Dunn discuss the evidence with him, indicate that he believed S.M. to be guilty, or say that he believed the evidence of Dr. Smith and the other SickKids physicians. However, Dr. Smith said that he did speak with Justice Dunn twice during the course of the trial. First, he and Justice Dunn were seated together on an airplane returning to Toronto from Timmins on a Friday after Dr. Smith’s testimony. During that conversation, he said that he and Justice Dunn discussed the backgrounds of the SickKids physicians who testified at the trial, as well as a well-known and unrelated case involving nurse Susan Nelles at SickKids. Second, the following Sunday afternoon, Dr. Smith and Justice Dunn happened to be on the same flight returning to Timmins from Toronto, but were not seated side by side. On this occasion, Dr. Smith acknowledged at the Inquiry that they simply exchanged pleasantries at the airport. Justice Dunn provided an affidavit for the Inquiry on December 19, 2007, the contents of which Dr. Smith did not dispute. It was thus unnecessary for Justice Dunn to attend the Inquiry to give evidence. In his affidavit, Justice Dunn wrote that, although he and Dr. Smith were on the same flight during the trial, they simply exchanged pleasantries and did not discuss the case. While he did not have a specific recollection of his conversation with Dr. Smith, Justice Dunn swore: “I am certain that I did not discuss the merits of the case or the evidence with Dr. Smith. I may have commented on the Susan Nelles case because I understood Dr. Smith had some involvement in that case.” According to Justice Dunn, “[a]t no point during the course of the trial did I discuss Dr. Smith’s evidence with him or indicate to Dr. Smith that I believed [S.M.] to be guilty. I also did not indicate to Dr. Smith that I believed the opinions provided by [the SickKids doctors], as alleged in Dr. Smith’s letter to the CPSO.........I reject Dr. Smith’s explanation. Dr. Smith admitted at the Inquiry that Justice Dunn never discussed with him the evidence of any of the experts who testified at the trial. In fact, they did not discuss anything related to Amber’s case at all, with the possible exception of some conversation about the SickKids witnesses who testified at the trial. In my view, there was nothing for Dr. Smith to misinterpret in the fashion he claims he did. Instead, I find Dr. Smith’s statement to the CPSO that Justice Dunn “repeatedly indicated” to him that Amber’s babysitter was guilty entirely self-serving and intended to mislead. I find that the explanation he provided at the Inquiry was an attempt to defend the indefensible: that he had fabricated the content of a conversation with the trial judge. Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident......
0: Both men masqueraded as senior forensic scientists for lengthy periods of time during which they dressed the part. Morrison with his fluorescent jacket marked "Forensic Investigator" and his black suit and dark shirt. A British commentator noted that, "He seemed a British version of one of the characters from the American TV show CSI." Smith in his trademark British cut suit a la the classical British cultivated expert witness.
0: Both men enhanced their appearance as revered experts with suggestive titles: Morrison bolstered his reputation as Director of his self-styled "Criminal and Forensic Investigations Bureau." Smith wrapped himself in the impressive title of "Director of the Ontario Forensic Pediatric Pathology Unit," a title which suggested an expertise in forensic pediatric pathology which Smith simply did not have - but which he could easily exploit to make himself appear impressive. Morrison had abandoned his nickname of "Rocky" in favour of the more suitable "Anthony Gene Morrison," and Smith, known to his associates as "Charles" as part of "Charles Randal Smith" had moved far away from the Randy by which he was known as a high school student. The semantics worked well as both men came to be referred to with descriptors such as "eminent", "leading", and "renowned," all of which helped create the illusion of their stellar stature in the forensic arena.
0: Both men had the knack of making powerful impressions on people to the extent that when wrongdoing was suggested others tended to give them the benefit of the doubt - instead of investigating further. The longer they successfully carried out their con of the justice system the less people who knew them were likely to accept the possibility that they could do something wrong.
0: Morrison and Smith also shared bizarre work habits as represented by reports that Morrison would invite people connected with a case to his office where he would keep them waiting for hours, while Smith would procrastinate for months or longer before before delivering his reports and had a notorious reputation for failing to return calls to police, prosecutors and other officials in the justice system. (Their occasionally weird behaviour was cloaked by the widely held perception that scientists are "eccentric.")
0: Both men displayed dishonesty in their professional reports: Morrison by using genuine experts and then cutting and pasting their reports so it appeared as if he had done the work and the opinions were his own (and submitting inflated bills in the process); He also would cut-and-paste old reports together and change details claiming the analysis was new. Smith by claiming he had had consultations with other experts who supported his opinions when it turned out at the Goudge Inquiry that there was no record of the consultations in the files - and these consultants had no recollection of being involved in the case.
0: Both men had bizarre cluttered offices. Morrison's office has been described as containing piles of papers, like those in his house..."a chaotic mound that would take an ever-growing team of detectives almost three years to entangle." (Police officers observed that "strewn everywhere" in the house and the office were papers, case notes, invoices and "a number of religious tracts.") One officer described the journey through Morrison's office "as akin to a voyage through Morrison's mind." Smith's office at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto was extremely disturbing as is evident from a post I published during the Goudge Inquiry relating to a search of Smith's office conducted by an official of the Chief Coroner's Office.
"Lastly, Zwolakowski describes a grizzly find she made after the audit had been conducted and it was finally possible to get a grip on the contents of Dr. Smith's office," I reported.
""Ms. Zwolakowski found several unusual items in Dr. Smith’s office," her witness statement says," my report continued.
"For example, she discovered containers that once contained human wet tissue, but whose contents were now dried out because the formalin had evaporated.
"In addition, Ms. Zwolakowski located a Tupperware container that appeared to contain the rib cage of an infant".
Ms. Zwolakowski found this to be unusual."
Unusual?
It goes without saying that wet tissue has to be carefully protected in controlled temperatures so that it will not became degraded;
But it is the apparent anonymous rib-cage of an infant that tears my heart out.
No tags;
No protection - other than a tupperware container;
No recognition that this was once a child - somebody's child.
I don't like what this tells me about Dr. Smith;
In retrospect, it tells me that something far greater - and more dangerous - than the mere "sloppiness" of a busy man touted by his defenders, is at play."
0: Both men held themselves out as church-going individuals. Smith, for example, placed the following information on his CV - the document that was filed with the Court on the hearing to determine if Smith would be permitted to testify as an expert witness and would ultimately find its way into the jury room: "Member of Board of Elders of Bayview Glen Church. 1981;" "Member of Board of Directors of Missionary Health Institute, 1982." This information had utterly no bearing on his work as a pathologist which was to provide objective, factual information and an objective opinion to the Court. Morrison also held himself out as a church-going individual.
0: Both men used unorthodox supposedly scientific detection techniques to bolster their opinions. Morrison, who held himself out as a polygraph expert, was caught using a basic voice-stress analyser that real experts described as akin to a toy. (Rather than a genuine lie detector employing the usual sweat and pulse detectors. His test question to a metal firm secretary was, "will you go out with me?" Morrison wired the secretary's thumb to the voice-stress test - a rather bizarre procedure since thumbs don't talk. Smith, for example, took an unorthodox approach in his investigation of a 3-year-old girl named Kassandra who died on December 15, 1987 - an approach which allowed the police to charge Kassandra's step-mother Maria Shepherd to be charged with murder. Smith reported that he had found a "donut-shaped" hemorrhage on Kassandra's scalp during the post-mortem examination; After observing the shape of the injury, he told the police to search Kassandra's home for rounded items such as a knob on a cupboard or something with a distinctive geometric shape that could have either a flat surface or a ring-shaped feature. The police took a woman's wrist-watch from Kassandra's home to Dr. Smith, who found it to be a good match for the injury. Maria was charged with murder on the basis of Smith's opinion which Justice Stephen Goudge would later described as being based on "superficial analysis" and an "improper, inaccurate, and misleading interpretation of the evidence." (Sadly, facing a life-sentence if convicted of murder as was likely given Smith's preeminence as a witness, Shepherd pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to two years less a day in jail.) At the preliminary hearing, Dr. Smith told the court that the configuration of the wristwatch was consistent with the configuration of the area of hemorrhage...It was therefor reasonable to conclude that the watch was responsible for the fatal blow to Kassandra's head. But Justice Goudge finds that "the method of interpretation was wrong" after noting that two of the independent experts testified at the Inquiry that Dr. Smith's overlay of the watch on to the scalp contusion was an incorrect and misleading approach to the interpretation of that wound. Justice Goudge also noted that although overlaying an object on to an injury might be useful in some circumstances - for example, where there is a patterned object and an external injury - it was in the deep tissues of the scalp, rather than the surface - and the presence of thick hair and scalp tissues altered the appearance of the injury, "making such a technique useless." "According to Dr. Pollanen, Dr. Smith's interpretation was really "a pseudoscientific wound-weapon matching analysis," wrote Goudge. "In this case, all that could be said from the scalp injury was that there was an impact of some sort. To suggest that a particular object caused the injury was misleading. Dr. Smith's suggestion to the police, made on superficial analysis, led to an improper, inaccurate, and misleading interpretation of the evidence. The suggestion should not have been given at all." Smith also based his opinions on controversial notions such as "shaking-baby syndrome" without indicating to the Court that the notion was "controversial" or allowing for the possibility that there were other explanations for the death. Worse, he often resorted to "unscientific" so-called evidence in his efforts to buttress his opinions and send innocent people like Maria Shepherd to prison.
0: Both men faced allegations of abusing their office. In the United Kingdom, police alleged that Morrison used his prestigious position as a forensics expert to convince the girls he was convicted of sexually assaulting that no one would believe them if they told anyone. In Canada, Smith was accused of using his position in a bid to talk his way out of a speeding ticket. As Justice Goudge reported: "On November 18, 2002, Inspector J.J. (Jim) Szarka of the OPP wrote to Dr. Young stating that one of his officers from the Cobourg office of the Northumberland OPP had stopped Dr. Smith for speeding on November 9, 2002. According to the officer, Dr. Smith became angry when he was issued a ticket and said, “Do you know who I am? I am the Head of Pediatric Forensic Pathology for this province.” After asking what location the officer worked out of, Dr. Smith reportedly said, “Next time Cobourg needs forensics on a child they won’t get one from our office.” The officer then asked Dr. Smith if he was going to deny Cobourg his services and put an investigation of a child death at risk because of a speeding ticket, to which Dr. Smith reportedly replied yes. Inspector Szarka noted the obvious seriousness of the matter and asked for Dr. Young’s reply. Dr. Young discussed the matter with Dr. Smith. Dr. Young told the Inquiry that
he had informed Dr. Smith that his conduct had been wrong and that he owed the police an apology. On December 23, 2002, Dr. Young wrote to Inspector Szarka, indicating that he had reviewed the complaint with Dr. Smith and stating, “Without agreeing to the accuracy of the description of what took place, [Dr. Smith] sincerely regrets any suggestion or impression that services would not be available.” Dr. Young also noted that the provision of services was never in jeopardy. Dr. Young testified at the Inquiry that he did not perceive that the allegation by the OPP raised the prospect that Dr. Smith was misusing his title as director of the OPFPU. This reaction is difficult to fathom, especially in light of the fact that, by then, Dr. Young said that he already had concerns about Dr. Smith’s integrity and judgment arising from Jenna’s case. Dr. Smith remained as director of the OPFPU for more than a year and a half after this disturbing incident. Dr. Young could not yet bring himself to remove Dr. Smith."
PUBLISHER'S VIEW: THE DIFFERENCES;
It astounds me that the British authorities have taken Morrison's assault on the British justice system so much more seriously than their Canadian counterparts. Morrison was investigated, prosecuted and sentenced to jail for five years for his pretence even though he was merely a private investigator who held himself as capable of doing forensic technical work which included suspicious death cases. By contrast, Smith has not faced any criminal charges even though he was a pathologist who testified for the prosecution in dozens of cases and was therefore giving his opinion and testifying in court as a trusted representative of the Crown. Moreover, his very presence on a case was, in some instances, sufficient to pressure innocent people into pleading guilty to lesser offences. He admitted lying about his conversations with Judge Dunn. He admitted having the pubic hair-like object he had seized during the autopsy on Baby Jenna with him in the courtroom at Brenda Waudby's preliminary hearing while at the same time purporting not to have any knowledge of it; He "lost" the forensic exhibits in the Mullins-Johnson case - resulting in William Mullins-Johnson's bid for freedom being delayed by several years (these exhibits mysteriously reappeared in his office at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto); He coloured his evidence to ensure the Crown would win its case. And the list goes on and on. Yet, unlike Gene Morrison, he remains free, beyond accountability in the criminal courts. This would appear to give a green light to any other Crown "expert" witnesses such as pathologists who choose to follow in his path. This is indeed a sad statement about the administration of Justice in Ontario.
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://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
