"Justice Goudge reports that Dr. Smith also misinterpreted artifact's in Joshua's case - Just as he had in Valin's case and Nicholas' case.
In Joshua's case, for example, Dr. Smith performed the post-mortem examination and found a microscopic hemorrhage in the connective tissues of Joshua's neck.
Dr. Smith concluded that the cause of death was asphyxia,and testified at the preliminary hearing in the case that the hemorrhage was a "worrying" finding, suggesting that Joshua was suffocated.
"That diagnosis was wrong" says Justice Goudge.
"The experts who examined the microscopic slides determined that the hemorrhage was likely caused during dissection at the autopsy.
It likely was a post-mortem artifact and was therefore unrelated to Joshua's cause of death.""
THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG; NOVEMBER 24, 2009;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I recently reported that Sherry Sherret has received a $450,000 settlement for the nightmare she was put through by by the former Doctor Charles Smith, the police, prosecutors and the Court - and I indicated that I find the settlement grossly inadequate. To help our readers make up their own minds I am running a retrospective of posts previously published on this Blog on Sherry Sherret's case. Our readers are invited to send their comments on the settlement to me at: hlevy15@gmail.com for possible inclusion on the site.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post ran as follows:
"Over the past eighteen months I have used this Blog to intensively report on developments relating to Dr. Charles Smith culminating with the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry.
I am now winding up this phase of the Blog - to be replaced eventually by periodic reporting of developments relating to Dr. Smith and related issues as they occur - with an examination of Justice Goudge's findings in the cases reviewed by the Inquiry.
I think it is important to take this closer look at the report in this Blog, because the mainstream media, which has done an admirable job in reporting the inquiry, have gone on to other stories.
Justice Goudge's findings relating to the various cases have been scattered throughout the report.
My approach is to weave together the findings relating to all of the principal actors - so we can get a fuller picture of Justice Goudge's findings as to their conduct;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure to disregard irrelevant and prejudicial information;
"It is equally clear that the pathologist must disregard irrelevant and prejudicial information," says Justice Goudge. "Good science demands no less."
In Joshua's case, Justice Goudge faults Dr. Smith for recording in the final autopsy report that Joshua's mother was married, but did not officially live with her husband so she could continue to collect welfare.
"None of this information is at all relevant to pathology," he says..."None of the information set out above should have been included in a final autopsy report because it leaves the impression that it somehow played a part in Dr. Smith's thinking."
Preserving autopsy records:
Justice Goudge was extremely troubled by Dr. Smith's loss of exhibits in criminal case.
This is also true of Joshua's case, where he finds that Smith was asked to provide for the defence the microscopic slides and X-Rays relating to the case before the preliminary hearing.
"D. Smith failed to deliver the material requested," he says.
"In fact he lost the slides for some time, although he eventually found them.
The X-Rays, however, were lost and never found."
Misinterpreting artifact's:
Justice Goudge reports that Dr. Smith also misinterpreted artifact's in Joshua's case - Just as he had in Valin's case and Nicholas' case.
In Joshua's case, for example, Dr. Smith performed the post-mortem examination and found a microscopic hemorrhage in the connective tissues of Joshua's neck.
Dr. Smith concluded that the cause of death was asphyxia,and testified at the preliminary hearing in the case that the hemorrhage was a "worrying" finding, suggesting that Joshua was suffocated.
"That diagnosis was wrong" says Justice Goudge.
"The experts who examined the microscopic slides determined that the hemorrhage was likely caused during dissection at the autopsy.
It likely was a post-mortem artifact and was therefore unrelated to Joshua's cause of death."
Delay:
Charles Smith got caught in a lie relating to delay in the context of Joshua's case;
In March 1996, he told a police officer that he had completed his final post-mortem report, was waiting for it to be typed, but was typing the report himself at home at night because he had no administrative assistant and was the only pathologist on schedule for the next few days.
"This was untrue," says Goudge.
"Dr. Smith had access to an administrative assistant, and the 1996 schedule for pathologists showed that Dr. Smith was not the only pathologist on rotation for the few days following his conversation Sergeant MacLellan,
Despite this, when Sergeant MacLellan advised that he needed the report by the following Tuesday because court proceedings were scheduled for Wednesday, Dr. Smith responded that he did not think the report would be ready y then."
Ongoing communication with the police;
Justice Goudge heard evidence that at a meeting with police on February 8, 1996, Dr. Smith, when asked, said that he believed Sherry Sherret had killed Joshua.
"He said that mothers who kill their babies share certain characteristics," said Goudge.
"For example, they usually talk about it ahead of time, or they might be involved in relationship fights or custody battles, as a result of which they may be trying to get back at the baby's father."
But Justice Goudge concluded that Smith's remarks about the characteristics of mothers who kill their children were also inappropriate, since they were beyond his expertise.
"To say that he believed that Ms. Sherret killed her son on the basis of "hallmark characteristics" was inappropriate," said Goudge.
"He had no expertise to say so."
The speculating expert:
Justice Goudge ruled that Dr. Smith should not have offered opinions that were "speculative, unsubstantiated, and not based on the pathology findings" as he did in his evidence at the preliminary hearing in Joshua's case when he said he was "highly suspicious" that Joshua had been suffocated - even though there was no pathological evidence to support the opinion."
"I find it hard to accept Dr. Smith's explanation that he did not know that he ought not speculate," said Goudge. Pathologists provide pathology opinions. I do not see how pathologists can believe that, when there is no pathology evidence, it is open to them to speculate on what could have happened."
This humble Bloggist is quite confident that Dr. Smith was well aware that he should not give speculative evidence in court.
Whether it was based on pathological evidence or not, it certainly was an excellent way to make sure the accused parent or caregiver was convicted.
The expert and casual language;
Dr. Smith's propensity from time to time to use language that was loose and unscientific shone through in Joshua's case where he testified that, if he were a "betting man" he would say that Joshua's death was non-accidental.
It sounds like another sure-fire trick to get a conviction to me - and reinforces my belief that one has to stretch and contrive in order to convict an Innocent person.
What else would you expect from a supposedly neutral person who saw himself as a member of the prosecution team?
Cooperating with other experts:
Justice Goudge notes that court proceedings had to be postponed because Smith did to requests to locate and forward autopsy materials from Joshua's case to another pathologist for review.
This was typical of Smith.
The last thing he would ever have wanted was to have his work reviewed by another set of eyes (a truly expert set of eyes) - especially someone hired by the defence who may not have bought into his mystique.
Indeed, virtually all of his delays, could be interpreted as efforts to avoid countability - rather than the lack of training that he claimed."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2009/11/sherry-sherrett-justice-goudges.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 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;
