"We also learn that the day after the withdrawal, Kingston Police Chief Bill Closs said, in a letter to Chief Coroner Dr. James Young, that he wanted to share some of the notes he made in preparation for a radio interview.
One of those notes describe Dr. Smith as, "a doctor who had the courage to at least try and who offered an opinion, and somehow the process of how we use so-called experts allowed unchallenged, differing opinions to beat up on this pathologist."
"After what this doctor has been through, why would others ever want to put themselves through that?"
Chief Closs concluded that, "Dr. Smith is a well-respected doctor who was assisting the police and the Coroner's office in very complex and tragic investigations, and it would appear that the current processes in place do not afford experts such as Dr. Smith the protection and support they so very well deserve."
THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: In light of the settlement reached in Louise Reynold's lawsuit against the Ontario Government, the former Dr. Charles Smith and another party, as revealed recently on The Charles Smith Blog, I am running a retrospective of several posts illuminating her case. This post deals with the manner in which the Kingston Police Force continued to defend Charles Smith - even after the murder charge was withdrawn. As previously noted, it was a pleasure to report that Louise Reynolds has concluded a settlement with Charles Smith, the Government of Ontario and one other party - in spite of Smith's unsuccessful assault on the lawsuit in the courts. The settlement will put to rest the Kingston police force's ugly attempt to conceal its inept, bungled investigation by continuing to blame Reynolds - even after it was made patently clear that Sharon had been killed by a pit bull. Louise Reynolds suffered horribly as a result of the bungled investigation and the oppressive prosecution. But she showed enormous courage and dignity throughout and, assisted brilliantly by Toronto lawyer Peter Wardle, went on to defeat Smith's procedural attack on her lawsuit which, if successful, would have prevented any of his victims from adding him to their lawsuits. Wardle told this Blog that Louise Reynolds is "very pleased that the lawsuit is ended". This is good news - especially since it has taken Reynolds more than a decade to bring Dr. Smith and the Ontario government to account in the civil courts. I hope that it will help her to look forward and get on with her life.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: The prosecution of Louise Reynolds for the second-degree murder of her seven-year-old daughter Sharon, was Canada's very own "Dingo" case, and involved none other than Dr. Charles Smith. Smith stubbornly held on to his opinion that Sharon had died after receiving eighty-one knife and scissors wounds - in spite of the clear signs - that should have been evident to a real forensic pathologist that Sharon had been savaged by a Pit Bull in the basement of the family home. As Justice Stephen Goudge noted in the report of his public inquiry, Smith tended "to mislead the court" by overstating his knowledge in a particular area, rather than acknowledging the limits to his expertise. "When Dr. Smith performed the post-mortem examination in Sharon's cases, he had little experience with either stab wounds or dog bites. He had only seen one or two cases of each kind. At the preliminary hearing, however, Dr. Smith left the impression that he had significant experience with both. Dr. Smith told the court: "I've seen dog wounds, I've seen coyote wounds, I've seen wolf wounds. I recently went to the archipelago of islands owned by another country up near the North Pole and had occasion to study osteology and look at patterns of wounding from polar bears. His attempt to so exaggerate his abilities disguised his lack of relevant expertise." Smith's unscientific, utterly ignorant opinion, placed Louise Reynolds in a hell in which she was wrongly arrested as a murderer in her small city, imprisoned, and experiencing the horror of having her other children seized from her by the authorities. Similarly, Lindy Chamberlain, a bereaved mother, was branded as a killer and placed in her own hell, as a result of the Crown's forensic authorities who were oh so certain about their faulty opinions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Kingston police were angry and bewildered when prosecutors dropped the murder charge against Sharon's mother on January 25, 2001," the post begins, under the heading, Kingston Police Defended Dr. Charles Smith After Murder Charge Withdrawn;
"The highly emotional inside story of the withdrawal is told in the "Overview Report" on the case prepared by Commission staff," the post continues.
"We learn, for example, that the police made clear to the Crown prosecutors at a meeting held on January 15, 2001 - ten days before the charge was withdrawn - that they disagreed with the decision to withdraw the charge.
A conversation between the force and prosecutor Jim Stewart and Murray Segal, Director of Crowns for Ontario, regarding the pending withdrawal is summed up in the following police notes:
0: Police speak to both Jim Stewart and then Director of Crown's for Ontario Murray Segal;
0: Both indicate numerous times - not a reflection of police - very good, detailed investigation - mistakes out of our control;
0: As Mr. Segal put it - we just have to be careful what we say - you know the potential for lawsuits;
0: Both Segal and Stewart claim to be very sympathetic to our situation - but they can't prove their case - all the rest of the evidence doesn't matter if you can't prove causation;
We also learn that the day after the withdrawal, Kingston Police Chief Bill Closs said, in a letter to Chief Coroner Dr. James Young, that he wanted to share some of the notes he made in preparation for a radio interview.
One of those notes describe Dr. Smith as, "a doctor who had the courage to at least try and who offered an opinion, and somehow the process of how we use so-called experts allowed unchallenged, differing opinions to beat up on this pathologist."
"After what this doctor has been through, why would others ever want to put themselves through that?"
Chief Closs concluded that, "Dr. Smith is a well-respected doctor who was assisting the police and the Coroner's office in very complex and tragic investigations, and it would appear that the current processes in place do not afford experts such as Dr. Smith the protection and support they so very well deserve."
Closs later wrote former Chief Coroner, Dr. Barry McLellan, that, "(At) the time the trial was halted, the officers were of the opinion that the decision to halt the trial reflected the wishes of the Crown Attorney and Coroner's offices, at the expense of the Kingston police.""
"In other words, the perception was left that the decision to halt the trial was based upon a desire to protect the Coroner's office because Dr. Smith's loss of a piece of evidence and subsequent change in opinion given at the preliminary hearing..."
In a subsequent letter, Closs told McLellan that, "The investigating officers were not included in the decision to withdraw the charge and believed at the time that the real purpose was to protect the government."
With all due respect to the Kingston force, Sharon's case tells us why decisions to withdraw charges must be left to prosecutors - and not to police officers who laid the charge and thereby have, or may be perceived as having, a vested interest in the continuation of the prosecution.
But the immense power of Dr. Charles Smith over other people - including skeptical police officers - is illustrated by the fact that the Kingston police still were in awe of him - even after his findings had been so thoroughly eviscerated by legions of other experts."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2007/11/goudge-inquiry-sharons-case-part-three.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.
