"One expert, a pathologist, "overstepped her bounds" when she said Caylee's death "was definitely a homicide," said Fairgrieve.
Canadian scientific experts are generally more "conservative" in report writing and testimony. "We do not go out on a limb to make a claim," he said.
That pathologist testified she knew Caylee's death was a homicide because in all the accidents she knew of, people called to say there was an accident.
But there was no data to back that up, said Fairgrieve."
REPORTER CAROL MULLIGAN; THE SUDBURY STAR;
A backgrounder on this high profile Florida case can be found on Wikipedia at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Caylee_Anthony
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The story quotes Dr. Scott Fairgrieve as saying that Canadian scientific experts are generally more "conservative" in report writing and testimony. "We do not go out on a limb to make a claim." I agree with this very general statement if, in fact, he is speaking of true committed forensic experts, who respect their own limitations and understand their roles in the criminal justice system. But the Charles Smith experience in Canada has taught us that the neutrality and honesty of a scientific expert cannot be taken for granted in the courtroom - and there can be some immense and disturbing exceptions to the general rule - such as the former Dr. Charles Randal Smith. A second point. Some critics of the Anthony jury argue that the jurors should have paid more heed to emerging scientific forensic techniques advanced by the prosecution. I cannot understand how anyone could trust "emerging science" as a basis on which any accused person, let alone Casey Anthony, can have their life wrested away by the State. (We have seen the horrific errors that have been caused by what was regarded as developed science - as evidenced by the 2009 report of the U.S. National Academy of Science which found that most forensic "sciences" are inexact at best.) What can we do after the emerging science has been tested and evaluated over time as required by the scientific method and it was found to be wrong? It's quite likely that the jurors on the Anthony case asked themselves that very same question - and we know what their answer was. I couldn't agree more. At times when public passions run so high against anyone - such as the widespread rage against Casey Anthony - it is all the more important that the safeguards in our criminal justice system kick in. And one of these safeguards should be a protection from half-baked science.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A Sudbury forensic scientist called by the defence in the Casey Anthony murder trial in Florida has emailed her lead lawyer, Jose Baez, congratulating him for doing what he set out to do," the Sudbury Star story by reporter Carol Mulligan published earlier today under the heading, "Professor happy mother acquitted," begins.
"Dr. Scott Fairgrieve wrote Baez this week to commend him for convincing a jury to acquit the 25-year-old woman of the 2008 murder of her daughter, Caylee, who was almost three years old when she died," the story continues.
"The forensic anthropologist, Laurentian University professor and father of one puts emotion aside and sticks to scientific evidence and fact when testifying.
So did the jury in deliberating evidence in the six-week trial, Fairgrieve said Thursday.
"I feel it was understandable," he said of the not-guilty verdict rendered Tuesday. (The jury did convict Anthony on four misdemeanour charges of lying to police.)
"I thought the jury did a very good job ... from what I could tell, they actually followed the judge's instructions very carefully," said Fairgrieve.
Thursday, Anthony was sentenced to the maximum four years for lying to investigators, but with credit for time served, she is scheduled to be released July 13. She was fined $1,000 on each of the four counts.
Fairgrieve has been called to testify for both the defence and the Crown or prosecution, in Canada and the United States.
"The jury in this case, from all accounts said (to the prosecution), 'Listen, you did not prove the case. You did not connect all the dots.' And from my knowledge of the case and what I saw, that's right," said Fairgrieve.
The Sudbury scientist was contacted by Baez in October 2008, when the toddler was missing, but her body hadn't yet been found.
He has had many conversations with Baez during the months and testified via computer on the use of cadaver search dogs.
He testified they are "an excellent tool to use, however, at best they are what we would refer to as a non-specific test."
Cadaver dogs can give signs their handlers interpret as positive signals, but that does not mean "there was definitely a dead body there," he said.
In the Anthony case, handlers testified their dogs "indicated" there, specifically the trunk of a car, "therefore there was a dead body there -- even though there was nothing found, no DNA, no remains of any type, nothing."
The biggest problem with the trial, said Fairgrieve, was the amount of media attention it generated.
"In particular, I don't mind pointing fingers at Nancy Grace."
The lawyer turned television personality "brought this to the forefront of the general public and kept feeding and kept feeding it, and feeding it and feeding it," said Fairgrieve from his office at Laurentian University.
He slammed Grace, who refers to Casey Anthony as the Tot Mom, for complaining that Anthony is going to make "lots of money" from this case.
If Anthony does, "(Grace) has herself to blame," said Fairgrieve. "Headline News has made a huge amount of money out of this and (Grace) has as well as a result."
Fairgrieve didn't profit from the trial and his testimony, refusing to accept any money for the hours of work he put into the case.
He and other forensic scientists, including Dr. Henry Lee of O.J. Simpson trial fame, acted as consultants to Baez and his legal team.
Fairgrieve said he advised Baez on issues so the lawyer could prepare his line of questioning of the scientific experts the prosecution called.
One expert, a pathologist, "overstepped her bounds" when she said Caylee's death "was definitely a homicide," said Fairgrieve.
Canadian scientific experts are generally more "conservative" in report writing and testimony. "We do not go out on a limb to make a claim," he said.
That pathologist testified she knew Caylee's death was a homicide because in all the accidents she knew of, people called to say there was an accident.
But there was no data to back that up, said Fairgrieve.
He saw the pathology report for the toddler and "basically there was no cause of death," he said.
In an interview with ABC's Barbara Walters on Wednesday evening, Baez said the little girl had drowned in the family swimming pool.
Fairgrieve is glad to live in Canada, away from the media and public frenzy around the trial in the U.S.
He said his sister lives in Texas and told him death threats were levelled against Fairgrieve in some online blogs.
Fairgrieve testified in person at a similar homicide trial in Wisconsin years ago and it never had the "profile" the Anthony case had in Florida.
"Nancy Grace didn't find out about it, I suppose," he said."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3205480
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
