"Asked for a second opinion, Smith overruled the original autopsy report that determined Dustin had died of pneumonia, saying it should be “filed in the garbage can.” And even though the baby’s brain had decomposed because it wasn’t stored properly, the former chief pathologist still concluded Dustin had died from vigorous shaking because the autopsy had found bleeding behind his eyes and around his brain.
Brant was charged with manslaughter.
Like others in his predicament, Brant was told he was up against Smith, the “God” of his profession, and with his criminal record, his chances at trial were slim. Though he always maintained his innocence, he reluctantly agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of aggravated assault.
Much has changed since Brant’s conviction: Smith has been stripped of his medical licence, his reputation is in tatters and many experts now say “shaken baby syndrome” doesn’t even exist."
REPORTER MICHELLE MANDEL: THE TORONTO SUN;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TORONTO - On November 17, 1992, Richard Brant bumped into his cousin on a Belleville street and lifted the rain hood on his baby’s carriage to proudly show off his nine-week-old son, Dustin," the Toeonto Sun story by reporter Michelle Mandel published earlier today under the heading, "Another Charles Smith tale of horror," begins.
"But to his horror, his baby lay lifeless in the stroller with red foam around his nose," the story continues.
"What followed for the young father were almost two decades of tragedy with a conviction for aggravated assault, a six-month jail sentence and years under a cloud of guilt thanks to the now discredited Charles Smith and his fashionable diagnosis of “shaken baby syndrome.”
On Wednesday, the 38-year-old Moncton man will appear before the Ontario Court of Appeal and ask his conviction be quashed and his innocence reaffirmed just as dozens of shaken baby cases around the world have been overturned.
“I did not cause Dustin’s death or assault him in any way, and pled guilty because I felt I had no other realistic option,” Brant states in his affidavit filed with fresh evidence by his lawyer James Lockyer. “I entered my plea because I feared the consequences of flawed pathology. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have done so. I ask the Court to take the burden of having harmed him from my shoulders.”
Asked for a second opinion, Smith overruled the original autopsy report that determined Dustin had died of pneumonia, saying it should be “filed in the garbage can.” And even though the baby’s brain had decomposed because it wasn’t stored properly, the former chief pathologist still concluded Dustin had died from vigorous shaking because the autopsy had found bleeding behind his eyes and around his brain.
Brant was charged with manslaughter.
Like others in his predicament, Brant was told he was up against Smith, the “God” of his profession, and with his criminal record, his chances at trial were slim. Though he always maintained his innocence, he reluctantly agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of aggravated assault.
Much has changed since Brant’s conviction: Smith has been stripped of his medical licence, his reputation is in tatters and many experts now say “shaken baby syndrome” doesn’t even exist.
SBS first made headlines in 1997 with the involuntary manslaughter conviction of British nanny Louise Woodward. According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, SBS has a “classic triad” of signs: bleeding between the brain and skull, bleeding behind the eyes and brain swelling resulting from a baby’s fragile brain being bounced back and forth inside their skull. For years, the presence of all three led to the automatic assumption of foul play.
Over the last decade, though, there’s been a growing split in the scientific community about SBS, with some calling it a “sham” diagnosis. Brant’s appeal lists four neuropathologists and one biomechanical engineer challenging the historical claim that the triad amounts to virtual proof that shaking was the cause of death.
The British court of appeal no longer accepts that the three SBS symptoms automatically means a non-accidental head injury. In Ontario, the Attorney General ordered a review in 2008 of all SBS convictions and last month an expert panel identified four as possible miscarriages of justice.
It’s widely thought Brant is one of them.
“Experts in biomechanical engineering have challenged the ‘science’ and, using an evidence-based approach, demonstrated that a human being having the strength to shake a baby and cause fatal subdural haemorrhage is an unlikely occurrence,” notes Lockyer in his factum.
Dustin’s death was one of 45 cases by Smith re-examined by the Goudge Inquiry. Dr. Helen Whitwell, one of five pathologists who conducted the review, said a cause of death shouldn’t have been determined because the baby’s brain wasn’t preserved properly but believed Dustin’s pneumonia may have been “material” to the baby’s death.
As for Smith’s diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome, she said, “This was a controversial area in 1994 and remains so today.”
In their filing with the court, the Crown acknowledges changing science has meant Brant’s conviction should no longer stand. “Fresh evidence establishes that the plea should be set aside as a miscarriage of justice.”
If the appeal court agrees, that 20-year burden on Brant’s shoulders will finally be lifted at last."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/29/another-charles-smith-tale-of-horror
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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