"On Dr. Smith's forensic awareness:
"The nature of the injuries present should have indicated to Dr. Smith the true cause of the injuries of Sharon even without knowledge that a dog had been involved;"
A most notable quote from Dr. Milroy's testimony to the Inquiry - (a warning that there could be grave consequences if somebody is charged based on erroneous evidence);
"People may react in a variety of methods including killing themselves in the face of a serious charge. If you're doing it on the basis that there's no really positive evidence, the consequences can be very serious.""
REPORT OF DR. CHRIS MILROY;
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 independent examiner Dr. Chris Milroy's critique of Smith's autopsy report. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These notable quotes are from the expanded medico-legal report prepared by Dr. Chris Milroy in Sharon's case:
On the autopsy report prepared by Dr. Charles Smith:
"Although there was a detailed description of injuries, they have been misinterpreted."
On the ondontological opinion obtained in the case:
"An ondontological opinion opinion was obtained in this case,which supported Dr. Smith;
Subsequent anthropological investigations showed evidence of a canine attack;
"The anthropological investigations would not have been necessary if the correct diagnosis had been made at the first post-mortem examination";
On Dr. Smith's testimony:
"The testimony was based on the interpretation of the injuries present.
The explanation that a pair of scissors was the likely implement was equally erroneous;
The testimony would suggest that Dr/ Smith had not seen the many stab wounds as there are comments that contradict experience and literature...
Emotive, unbalanced and prejudicial language is used when Dr. Smith states that the wounds are no more dog bites than bear bites;"
On Dr. Smith's failure to conduct a visit to the "scene" of Sharon's death;
"In view of the unusual nature of the case, I would have requested a scene visit, either with the body in situ or after my autopsy;"
On Dr. Smith's documentation of his work:
"When knives, scissors or other exhibits are shown to a pathologist, the pathologist should record the fact in statement form;
On Dr. Smith's forensic awareness:
"The nature of the injuries present should have indicated to Dr. Smith the true cause of the injuries of Sharon even without knowledge that a dog had been involved;"
A most notable quote from Dr. Milroy's testimony to the Inquiry - (a warning that there could be grave consequences if somebody is charged based on erroneous evidence);
"People may react in a variety of methods including killing themselves in the face of a serious charge. If you're doing it on the basis that there's no really positive evidence, the consequences can be very serious."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2007/11/goudge-inquiry-sharons-case-part-one.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;
