"Dr. Smith had performed the autopsy.
The pathologist was made aware that there was a dog with something red on it observed at the scene.
No paw prints were observed anywhere near the body.
While there was still the issue of whether the the dog could have been involved, the police were notified at this point in time that both Dr. Smith and Dr. Wood appeared unequivocal in their opinions that the wounds on the body were not dog bites.
Indeed , Dr. Smith went further and stated they were stab wounds."
PROSECUTOR BRUCE GRIFFITH TO THE COURT ON WITHDRAWAL OF THE MURDER CHARGE;
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 presents prosecutor Bruce Griffith's explanation to the court as to why the murder charge was being dropped. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"On January 25, 2001 - almost four years after Sharon's tragic death - Prosecutor Bruce Griffith withdrew the second-degree murder charge facing Sharon's mother in a Kingston, Ontario courtroom," the post began.
"Griffith told Justice Helen MacLeod that his comments in withdrawing the charge were in the public interest, "and the public has a right to know," the post continued.
"The Charles Smith blog is therefore presenting Griffith's address to the court in it's entirety.
"Your honour as you are aware this case is set to proceed to trial on February. 12, but the Crown has requested this earlier court date. as there have been a number of developments in the Crown's evidence on this particular charge," Griffith began.
"As a result the Crown would like to address the Court with the understanding that the comments to be made are stated in the public interest snd the public has a right to know.
On June 12, 1997, the body of 7-year-old (Sharon) was located by the police in the basement of her home in the City of Kingston.
The body was covered by over 80 (eighty) wounds.
It was determined that a pit bull dog had been present in the basement.
The Kingston police had initially become involved because the child was reported missing.
Once the body was located, they commenced a very comprehensive investigation interviewing in excess of ninety (90) witnesses.
The accused before the court was the mother of the child.
As a result of information received through the various witnesses she became the prime suspect in the death as the investigation continued.
In the meantime, the post-mortem examination of the deceased child had taken place and a number of items retrieved at the scene were sent for expert examination.
It was after receiving verbal reports from Dr. Charles Smith, a pathologist specializing in pediatric pathology from Sick Children's Hospital in Toronto, and Dr. Robert Wood, a forensic ondontologist with expertise in bite marks who had consulted with Dr. Smith, that the child's death was considered to be a homicide.
Dr. Smith had performed the autopsy.
The pathologist was made aware that there was a dog with something red on it observed at the scene.
No paw prints were observed anywhere near the body.
While there was still the issue of whether the the dog could have been involved, the police were notified at this point in time that both Dr. Smith and Dr. Wood appeared unequivocal in their opinions that the wounds on the body were not dog bites.
Indeed , Dr. Smith went further and stated they were stab wounds.
The alleged stab wounds in conjunction with other evidence gathered provided the police with reasonable and probable grounds to charge the accused with murder;
In the Crown’s view, the Kingston police had conducted a thorough and comprehensive investigation of the evidence available and relied on this expert’s opinion as to the cause of death of the child.
There was also a report from the Centre of Forensic Sciences indicating that a transfer mark on a white T-shirt worn by the child appeared to be from a sharp-edged instrument.
After receiving the opinions of Dr. Smith and Dr. Wood, the Crown was eventually presented with short one-page reports from Dr. Ferris, a pathologist, and Dr. Dorion, an ondontologist, both retained by the defence.
Both doctors were of the view that the wounds were due to dog bites.
In accordance with the law a preliminary hearing was held.
It lasted for four days in April, 1988, and a total of ten days in the months of August and September 1998.
The Crown had proceeded to the preliminary hearing with an apparent provable case comprised of a combination of circumstantial, expert, and supporting evidence.
As a result of the evidence called at the hearing a judge committed the accused to trial on a charge of murder.
A substantial portion of the Crown’s case was presented at this hearing.
Dr. Smith’s evidence became a central focus of those court proceedings.
Dr. Smith testified that in his opinion the child died due to blood loss from stab wounds probably caused by a pair of scissors and certainly not dog bites.
His evidence was clear and unequivocal in that regard.
The testimony was pivotal to the whole case as other Crown evidence took on a significant importance in the context of the child's death being caused by stab wounds.
After Crown and police discussion with the Office of the Chief Coroner the Crown made an application for an Order to have the child's body exhumed.
The Court granted such an order.
It was at this time that the new defence counsel came forward with an appropriate proposal for bail.
Due to the delay that would be caused by the exhumation and the second examination of the remains of the child, the Crown felt it was in the best interest of the administration of justice that ail should be granted, and the Crown, therefore, agreed to bail.
Dr. David Chiasson, the Chief Forensic Pathologist For Ontario conducted the second
post-mortem, which took place on July 13, 1999.
Also present at this procedure were Dr. Ferris, Dr. Dorion, Dr. Smith and Dr. Wood.
After the second post-mortem examination, Dr. Smith and Dr. Wood provided the Crown with amended reports.
In his report Dr. Smith stated there were marks consistent with dog bites but nevertheless still held the opinion there were significant wounds that were not consistent with dog bites.
Dr. Wood’s view was consistent with Dr. Smith’s.
In the Crown's view, at this point in time, a reasonable prospect of conviction continued to exist with the reduced number of stab wounds on the basis of the scientific evidence and the other Crown evidence available.
It was relevant that Dr. Smith had personally conducted the main autopsy, when the entrance wounds and the surrounding skin were still intact.
Dr. Smith was the only expert who had the opportunity to to examine the deceased child before any significant degradation of the body had taken place.
The state of the remains had deteriorated in the intervening two years to the extent that the second autopsy was primarily an examination of marks on the skeletal remains.
However, in the last few months there have been a number of new and significant developments that have resulted in the Crown requesting that this case be listed for court today.
Mr. Bradley, the Senior Crown Attorney assigned to this prosecution, met with Dr. Ferris,the expert retained by (Sharon's mother's) counsel, in Vancouver on August 8, 2000.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss some of the Doctor's conclusions on the case.
Dr. Ferris advised Mr. Bradley that in addition to the one-page report that the Crown had been given, there was in existence a five-page report prepared by him that the Crown would have to obtain from defence counsel.
On October 3, 2000, defence counsel did, in fact, provide the detailed report of Dr. Ferris to the Crown.
An application by the Crown had been made in April, 2000, for disclosure of all reports of expert witnesses retained by the defence.
Once the defence decided to voluntarily provide the specific report it was reviewed by the Crown in assessing the totality of the evidence.
On Wednesday, November 10, 2000, a new report was received from Keith Kelder of the Centre of Forensic Sciences.
In his report, and in subsequent conversation with the Crown's Office, Mr. Kelder raised the possibility of explanations (other than cutting instruments or weapons) for straight-edged transfer patterns on material found at the scene.
Furthermore, his report of November 2000 excluded all cutting instruments submitted in the case by the police.
These items had been seized from the child's residence.
In the meantime, the Office of the Chief Coroner had determined that the leading North American expert in tool mark Department of Pathology, was available and willing to examine the skeletal remains and the cutting instruments seized by police.
In conjunction with the Crown, the police and the Chief Coroner's office, it was arranged for a police officer to take directly the skeletal remains of the young child to Dr. Symes' laboratory at the University of Tennessee for examination.
Subsequently, On December 11, 2000, the Crown received a report from Dr. Symes.
Dr. Symes' opinion, as revealed in his report and in subsequent conversation, is that the visible marks on the skeletal remains were caused by dog bites, except for eight or nine marks on the skull.
Of these markings, six or seven were described as incisions on the skull and were, in Dr Symes' opinion, caused by a scalpel or a very sharp knife.
Dr. Symes examined all of the cutting instruments seized by the police and he excluded all of them as being the cause of the marks on the skull.
The remaining marks on the skull were a couple of scrape marks that he said were less likely to be caused by a scalpel.
Dr. Symes could not eliminate a dull scalpel or thin edged knife.
Once again, Dr. Symes clearly eliminated scissors or any other of the cutting instruments seized by police.
As a result of the new information from Dr. Symes, Mr. Bradley then spoke to Dr. Charles Smith in early January, 2001;
Dr. Smith's original position had been unequivocal; none of the wounds were dog bites;
He testified to this effect at the preliminary hearing.
After the second post-mortem he changed his opinion to indicate that some of the wounds were dog bites and some were not dog bites.
When he was presented with the new information from Dr. Symes, Dr. Smith then stated he deferred to the opinions of the other experts.
Dr. Smith now says that there is a possibility that even these other questionable wounds could possibly have been caused by dog bites.
Mr. Bradley, out of an abundance of caution, reconfirmed Dr. Smith’s assessment of the key injuries to the deceased child in a telephone conversation with him on Jan. 15, 2001;
The onus is on the Crown in every criminal prosecution to prove all of the essential elements of the offence.
In this particular charge the cause of death is a very important fact to be determined.
The Crown's case is dependent on clear evidence that at least some of the injuries were stab wounds that contributed to the young girl's death.
After a careful review of the state of the evidence presently available we are of the view that the Crown no longer has proof that this death was caused by stab wounds and, therefore, no longer has a reasonable prospect of conviction.
Therefore we are duty bound to withdraw this charge and we are consequently asking the court that the indictment be endorsed, “Charge withdrawn at the request of the Crown.""
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2007/11/goudge-inquiry-sharons-case-part-four.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
