"Clay Powell, now a defence lawyer in London, Ont., prosecuted Salmon for the Crown in 1971. Last night he told the Star he supports Salmon’s application to have his conviction set aside.
“Had the opinions of (the three pathologists) been available to me in 1971, this case would never have gone to trial,” Powell said, adding he always had a “nagging doubt” Salmon even struck the victim, let alone caused her death.
“Perhaps I failed in my role as Crown counsel. If I did, please extend my sincere apology to Mr. Salmon. In view of the new opinions, and my nagging doubt, I honestly do not feel he caused the death of Lorraine Maxine Ditchfield.........
Ditchfield’s left eye and temple were bruised, suggesting the impact was to that side of her head. But it was actually the right side of her brain that was injured.
That’s known as a “contre-coup” brain contusion, a classic sign of falling, said Dr. David Ramsay, a neuropathologist at the University of Western Ontario, one of three experts who recently examined the evidence.
Dr. Peter Markesteyn, a forensic pathologist in Winnipeg, and Dr. Michael Shkrum, a forensic pathologist at University Hospital in London, Ont., also say the evidence points to death from natural causes."
LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER TRACEY TYLER; THE TORONTO STAR;
PHOTO: VINCE TALOTTA; TORONTO STAR;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Forty years ago an Ontario jury heard that Maxine Ditchfield died from a blow to the head, a case backed up by expert medical testimony and the victim’s 8-year-old son," the Toronto Star story by Legal Affairs reporter Tracey Tyler published on July 4, 2011 under the heading, "‘I wasn’t guilty’ New evidence suggests man didn’t kill wife in 1970," begins.
"All these years later, three pathologists have taken fresh look at the evidence and concluded the 28-year-old mother of three was not a homicide victim but died of a stroke. Even the prosecutor at the trial agrees with them," the story continues.
"The stroke was likely brought on, they say, by a series of falls at her Woodstock, Ont. home and in the kitchen of a nearby farmhouse after a night of heavy drinking.
The new opinions were filed Monday with Canada’s justice minister on behalf of John (Jack) Salmon, 71, Ditchfield’s former common-law partner, who was convicted of manslaughter in 1971 in connection with her death.
Salmon says that every day since then he has carried the shame of a crime he didn’t commit.
“I wasn’t guilty,” he told the Star. “I loved her at the time and I still have a soft spot in my heart for her.”
Salmon is asking Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to declare his conviction a miscarriage of justice and to order a new trial so he can present the fresh evidence to a court to clear his name.
Salmon, a grandfather living in Orillia, where he owns and manages property, said it’s a difficult step at his age.
A few years ago, he contacted Toronto lawyer James Lockyer, inspired in part by Steven Truscott’s battle to clear his name in a notorious murder case in rural Ontario in the 1950s.
“He fought for years and years and years and years and years and it looked like he was going nowhere,” said Salmon.
Salmon was sentenced to 10 years in prison after a two-week trial in Woodstock, where he and Ditchfield had met in 1967.
Clay Powell, now a defence lawyer in London, Ont., prosecuted Salmon for the Crown in 1971. Last night he told the Star he supports Salmon’s application to have his conviction set aside.
“Had the opinions of (the three pathologists) been available to me in 1971, this case would never have gone to trial,” Powell said, adding he always had a “nagging doubt” Salmon even struck the victim, let alone caused her death.
“Perhaps I failed in my role as Crown counsel. If I did, please extend my sincere apology to Mr. Salmon. In view of the new opinions, and my nagging doubt, I honestly do not feel he caused the death of Lorraine Maxine Ditchfield.”
In 1970, Salmon was a welder and had recently separated from his wife, who moved to British Columbia with their three children. Ditchfield, who worked part-time as a dog groomer, also had three young children and had recently separated from her husband.
On the night of Saturday, Sept. 19, they dropped off her children at the home of friends Don and Mary Claydon and headed to a local hotel, where they spent much of the night drinking.
They later returned to the Claydons’ home and continued drinking around the kitchen table. Donald Claydon later told police that at one point he looked down and saw Ditchfield on the floor.
The Crown’s case was that Salmon struck Ditchfield in the head, causing her to fall to the ground, and assaulted her again after they got back home early Sunday morning.
The prosecution relied in part on testimony from Ditchfield’s eldest son, Michael Mclean, who was sleeping on the Claydons’ couch. He told the jury he woke up to the sounds of his mother and Salmon “screaming” outside.
He also testified he saw Salmon knock his mother to the kitchen floor.
However, Lockyer’s brief contends that other evidence shows it was impossible to see into that part of the kitchen from where the boy had been sitting.
Ditchfield’s left eye and temple were bruised, suggesting the impact was to that side of her head. But it was actually the right side of her brain that was injured.
That’s known as a “contre-coup” brain contusion, a classic sign of falling, said Dr. David Ramsay, a neuropathologist at the University of Western Ontario, one of three experts who recently examined the evidence.
Dr. Peter Markesteyn, a forensic pathologist in Winnipeg, and Dr. Michael Shkrum, a forensic pathologist at University Hospital in London, Ont., also say the evidence points to death from natural causes.
It’s now up to the federal justice department’s convictions review group to read through these reports and decide whether to hire its own pathologist or neuropathologist to examine the evidence."
The story can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1019550--i-wasn-t-guilty-new-evidence-suggests-man-didn-t-kill-wife-in-1970
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;
