"When Dustin died, the neuropathologist who first examined him ruled his death was natural, the result of a respiratory blockage caused by pneumonia. But Smith, considered at the time "the king" of child death investigators in North America, insisted the attending doctor had erred and concluded Dustin's death was due to shaken baby syndrome. Brant now insists he took the Crown's plea offer of six months for aggravated assault because of Smith's reputation. But now that Smith -- who was the subject of a public inquiry last year and a review by an international panel of pathologists has been discredited, Brant, rightly, wants his 14-year-old conviction overturned.
He deserves at least that."
THE NATIONAL POST EDITORIAL BOARD; (WRITTEN BY KELLY MCPARTLAND);
REMINDER: Julian Sher's documentary on Brenda Waudby - "A Mother's Ordeal" - will be aired on Global TV on Friday May 6, 2011 at 10PM (9PM Manitoba/Sask.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: (GLOBE AND MAIL); Richard Brant was convicted of aggravated assault in 1995 for the death of his two-month-old son, Dustin. Mr. Brant was taking Dustin for a walk when he noticed red foam around the baby’s nose. Dustin died two days later, on Nov. 18, 1992. (Then) Dr. Smith (but since struck from the register of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) concluded Dustin had been shaken to death, despite the fact that the baby’s brain had rotted away after morgue staff mistakenly left it in a container of water. His findings contradicted the findings of a neuropathologist who had examined the child’s brain and concluded he had likely died of pneumonia. Mr. Brant said he felt compelled to plead guilty to aggravated assault to avoid a possible manslaughter conviction. He conceded he had accidentally jostled Dustin during a physical struggle with his wife. In January, 2009, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted Mr. Brant permission to reopen the case and fight his conviction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Richard Brant may be no angel, but that is no reason he should continue to be known as a baby-killer. Brant, who is currently serving out the end of a robbery conviction at a halfway house in New Brunswick, was granted an extraordinary appeal on Tuesday of his 1995 conviction for killing his two-month-old son Dustin in 1992," the National Post editorial published on January 12, 2009 under the heading, "Charles Smith's legacy" begins.
"His is yet another case of a life ruined by the fraudulent testimony of disgraced Ontario pathologist Charles Smith," the editorial continues.
"When Dustin died, the neuropathologist who first examined him ruled his death was natural, the result of a respiratory blockage caused by pneumonia. But Smith, considered at the time "the king" of child death investigators in North America, insisted the attending doctor had erred and concluded Dustin's death was due to shaken baby syndrome. Brant now insists he took the Crown's plea offer of six months for aggravated assault because of Smith's reputation. But now that Smith -- who was the subject of a public inquiry last year and a review by an international panel of pathologists has been discredited, Brant, rightly, wants his 14-year-old conviction overturned.
He deserves at least that.
There is no way to compensate Smith's legal victims in any adequate fashion. Their lives have been ruined by his incompetent quackery.
Consider, for instance, the case of William Mullins-Johnson of Sault Ste. Marie, who spent 12 years in prison for the sexual assault and first-degree murder of his four-year-old niece Valin in 1994 -- a crime he did not commit. Smith insisted there were signs of strangulation on Valin's body and that Mr. Mullins-Johnson was the most likely culprit. Yet after the pathology experts had reviewed his case, Mr. Mullins-Johnson was acquitted of both charges in 2007.
At last year's inquiry into Smith's misconduct, Mr. Mullins-Johnson stated that the pathologist's actions "destroyed my family, my brother's relationship with me and my niece that's still left and my nephew that's still living." These relationships can never be put back the way they were before Smith wrongfully and negligently concluded a trusted uncle had assaulted and murdered his tiny niece. Nor can the hellish years Mr. Mullins-Johnson spent in prison ever be returned to him. (An investigation by John Chipman of CBC Radio's The Current, aired this week, shows that the man's life is still a mess: He has fallen in with drugs, and is having difficulty with personal relationships.)
Nor are Smith's victims the only Canadians to spend long terms in prisons for crimes they did not commit.
There are, of course, famous cases such as that of David Milgaard, who spent 23 years in prison for a rape and murder he did not commit, and Donald Marshall, who was imprisoned for life for murdering Sandy Seale in 1971, a crime he always insisted he was innocent of, and for which he was acquitted in 1983. Thomas Sophonow, Guy Paul Morin, Steven Truscott, James Driskell and others have all spent years behind bars or living with the stigma of crimes they did not commit because there is no effective method within our system to deal with wrongful convictions.
We are not implying that our court system generates miscarriages of justice as a matter of routine, nor that police officers, pathologists or Crown prosecutors set out to convict innocent people. But even scattered instances of wrongful conviction are grounds for societal soul-searching: It is an unconscionable abuse of a citizen's right to freedom to send him to jail when he is innocent of wrongdoing. The infringement is especially egregious because it cannot be remedied: There is no way to give someone time back that has been taken from him.
Ottawa and the provinces should consider an independent public body that can review complaints of wrongful conviction and recommend meritorious cases to provincial appeal courts. The U. K. has such a body, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which in its 14-year history has received more than 11,000 applications for review and referred just 395--fewer than 4% -- to an appellant court. These numbers show that a panel could be structured in such a way that the truly guilty are not permitted to clog up the court system.
The advantage of such a review commission is that is takes the task of deciding who may have a legitimate grievance away from busy Cabinet ministers in charge of the justice system, and delivers it to experts with the time and resources to review them thoroughly. Several royal commissions and inquiries in Canada have recommended such a body be formed. The case of Dr. Charles Smith serves to reinforce why one is essential."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The editorial can be found at:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/12/national-post-editorial-board-charles-smith-s-legacy.aspx
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 found 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;
Labor’s 30 pieces of voting silver
12 hours ago
