"At issue are three interviews conducted as part of the Goudge Inquiry, which looked into the conduct of disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith. Smith's testimony led to Waudby being charged with the death of her toddler, Jenna Mellor, in 1997 — charges that were later dropped.
Jenna's babysitter, a young offender was later convicted in the child's death.
Smith was later discredited after the inquiry, with numerous incidents of professional misconduct and erroneous findings discovered.
But Waudby's appeal is based on a different case, one with evidence that came to light during the inquiry. She entered a plea of guilt in 1999, admitting child abuse"
REPORTER KENNEDY GORDON; THE PETERBOROUGH EXAMINER;
----------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S VIEW: It is clear from the evidence called at the Goudge inquiry that Brenda Waudby - an utterly innocent individual who's baby daughter had been murdered by her babysitter - had been required to plead guilty to a charge of child abuse under provincial legislation before the Crown would withdraw the the second-degree murder charge on the basis of medical opinions which showed she could not possibly have committed the crime. It is also clear that Dr. Charles Smith's opinion that there were injuries which preceded the attack on Baby Jenna - which led to her being wrongfully charged with murder - was also the basis for the provincial charge, along with what the police claimed to be a confession. Instead of receiving the sympathy and compassion she deserved as a grieving mother whose baby daughter had been murdered, Ms. Waudby, a grieving mother, was herself charged with the horrific crime and not surprisingly became a pariah in her community. Brenda Waudby has been given a raw deal by Ontario's criminal justice system. We can only hope that the Court will strike the plea that she felt compelled to make in the circumstances, allow her to call the fresh evidence which she says clears her of this offence, and go the rest of the distance necessary to fully clear her name.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG.
----------------------------------------------------------
"There are documents out there that prove her innocence, says a Peterborough woman convicted of child abuse in 1999. But nobody's allowed to see them," the Peterborough Examiner story by reporter Kennedy Gordon, published earlier today under the heading, "Waudby's appeal moved to Newmarket," begins.
"Brenda Waudby's long slog through the appeals process continues, as her lawyer and the Crown made a brief appearance in Superior Court in Peterborough Wednesday and jointly asked for a one-week adjournment," the story continues.
"At issue are three interviews conducted as part of the Goudge Inquiry, which looked into the conduct of disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith. Smith's testimony led to Waudby being charged with the death of her toddler, Jenna Mellor, in 1997 — charges that were later dropped.
Jenna's babysitter, a young offender was later convicted in the child's death.
Smith was later discredited after the inquiry, with numerous incidents of professional misconduct and erroneous findings discovered.
But Waudby's appeal is based on a different case, one with evidence that came to light during the inquiry. She entered a plea of guilt in 1999, admitting child abuse.
Later, she claimed she was coerced into the plea, and in the wake of the inquiry, learned of the interviews and launched her appeal.
The three interviews are protected by a ban on certain elements of the inquiry, meaning Waudby, bound by an undertaking, can't enter them as evidence.
She was in court Wednesday.
Waudby's lawyer, Julie Kirkpatrick, said this stage of the process involves lifting a ban on the release of the documents so the appeal can move forward.
She's asking for an order lifting the ban, and agreed with Crown Alison Wheeler that another week is needed to ensure the Crown can talk to the witnesses involved if and when the appeal moves forward.
The discussion was held as part of the judicial pre-trial process, which is conducted in private in the judge's chambers before being resolved in open court.
"It was explained to me why it was important to have a case conference," said Madam Justice Michelle Fuerst.
She will continue to manage the case.
"What this will entail is having counsel appear before me more often than not in Newmarket," she told court.
After the hearing, Wheeler told The Examiner she hadn't seen the documents, which she called interview summaries, and the appeal can't move forward until she does.
Some evidence from the inquiry was kept private, she said.
"Some parts (of the Goudge inquiry) didn't become part of the public eye," she said."
The story can be found at:http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3339226
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;
