"In an interview at the time, Smith told me had worked on 11 cases of infanticide. It was only “the tip of the iceberg”, he added. He said some women were healthy enough that they could hide a pregnancy, deliver a baby unassisted by a doctor or nurse, and dispose of the child as if nothing had happened.
But if Smith was publicly declaring years ago that the dead babies he examined represented only a fraction of the true number of cases of infanticide, then his comments should have sounded a warning to someone.
Shouldn’t the cops, Crown attorneys, other medical professionals and, yes, the journalists reporting on these cases have wondered whether the doctor’s medical and scientific objectivity was becoming shaky? Was he becoming an avenging angel and setting out on a crusade to find somebody guilty of something?"
CAMERON E. JOHNSTON; QMI AGENCY; Cameron E. Johnston is a London freelance writer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 hanging on to crucial evidence, "losing" evidence which showed his opinion was wrong and may have assisted the accused person, mistating 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."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences offers a smorgasbord of gory, geeky science, perfect for fans of the TV program CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," the column published by QMI Agency on April 1, 2011 under the heading, "Atrocity of Smith a justice lesson for all," begins.
"Criminologists can hone their skills at reconstructing faces with silly putty when all they have to start with is a skull. Workshops demonstrating how to interpret blood spatter patterns are a regular feature," the column continues.
"It’s fascinating stuff; not always pleasant, but very interesting nonetheless.
It was at this meeting, several years ago, that I met Charles Smith. He’s the disgraced pathologist from Toronto, whose “expert testimony” — much of it false and concocted — helped to send more than a dozen people to prison for murder in which the victims were small children.
Last month, Smith was stripped of his licence to practise medicine. Now, the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General has announced that charges will be stayed against a woman who, on the basis of Smith’s testimony, was convicted of killing her one-day old infant, known as “Baby F”.
When I met Smith, he was talking to an audience of forensic scientists about infanticide. His presentation included cases where babies were born into toilets, or wrapped in green garbage bags and tossed into dumpsters as soon as they were born. In the case of Baby F, the young mother claimed she didn’t know she was pregnant, and that the baby was born dead.
In an interview at the time, Smith told me had worked on 11 cases of infanticide. It was only “the tip of the iceberg”, he added. He said some women were healthy enough that they could hide a pregnancy, deliver a baby unassisted by a doctor or nurse, and dispose of the child as if nothing had happened.
But if Smith was publicly declaring years ago that the dead babies he examined represented only a fraction of the true number of cases of infanticide, then his comments should have sounded a warning to someone.
Shouldn’t the cops, Crown attorneys, other medical professionals and, yes, the journalists reporting on these cases have wondered whether the doctor’s medical and scientific objectivity was becoming shaky? Was he becoming an avenging angel and setting out on a crusade to find somebody guilty of something?
Smith was a persuasive and eloquent speaker. He was extremely credible on the witness stand. Also, the graphic images he presented — the ones he allowed me to copy at the meeting — were horrendously chilling.
Few lawyers challenged Smith’s interpretations of what the pictures revealed. The entire justice system heard his testimony from the witness stand and believed him, just as I believed him when he told me that 11 dead babies were just “the tip of the iceberg”.
In the pre-CSI era, few people other than forensic scientists had much knowledge about how the evidence was gathered or interpreted.
Ultimately, a commission of inquiry headed by a justice from the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded Smith twisted, distorted, and in some cases, falsified the facts until they suited his medical opinions.
Moreover, the judge noted there was very little oversight from Smith’s professional colleagues. Nobody was looking over his shoulder to make sure the work he did was legitimate — or competent.
The government has paid out
$5.5 million so far to the innocent men and women who went to prison based on Smith’s testimony, but this is a cheap apology. No amount of money is sufficient compensation for what these people endured.
In fact, each time the verdict is overturned in yet another one of Smith’s cases, maybe somebody should be saying, “I was taken in. I guess I shouldn’t have been so trusting.”"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The column can be found at:
http://www.lfpress.com/comment/2011/04/01/17843221.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://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com
