Susan Nelles: (Part 6); Demeanour evidence. Prosecutors tried to use it against her - and failed. Excerpt from a cross-examination.

PUBLISHER'S VIEW: I am pleased to have the opportunity to devote some space to a newly published book: "The Nurses Are Innocent: The Digoxin Poisoning Fallacy," by Gavin Hamilton M.D. The title refers to the investigation of the deaths of babies at the Hospital for Sick Children in 1980 and 1981 for which a nurse named Susan Nelles was charged with murder. (My first free-lance story for the Toronto Star described Ms. Nelle's discharge at her preliminary hearing). I later wrote in the Star about the public inquiry in which Justice Samuel Grange found that babies had been murdered in spite of testimony which shredded the validity of digoxin tests conducted by Ontario's Centre for Forensic Sciences and raised a significant doubt as to whether any babies had been murdered. Now Dr. Hamilton, a retired radiologist, has, at least in my mind, provided the real reason for the deaths of the unfortunate babies at the renowned hospital: A toxin found in natural rubber which is technically like digoxin, which was used in disposable plastic syringes and intravenous devices. As the late Dr. Peter Macklem, the above noted witness at the Grange Inquiry, says in his preface to this book: "What can be learned from this black stain on Canada's judicial system? One lesson certainly stands out: We cannot ever again allow a group of unqualified amateur diagnosticians to make life and death decisions about such important matters as potential serial murders." Dr. Macklem's comments have me thinking about the so-called arson experts in Texas who concluded with such compelling certainty that Cameron Todd Willingham had set the fire which killed his family - and were proven to have been so terribly, terribly wrong. (Willingham, an innocent man, was executed in Texas). Dr. Hamilton also has a tantalizing theory that a certain now-disgraced pathologist named Charles Smith may have been responsible for turning the tragic deaths into murders. He points out that "In 1980 - which was at the beginning of what was to become known as the digoxin baby poisoning epidemic period, he was hired by the Hospital for Sick Children as an anatomic pathologist - with an expressed keen interest in performing autopsies on children who had died suddenly." This book can be purchased through Amazon at:

http://www.amazon.ca/Nurses-Are-Innocent-Digoxin-Poisoning/dp/1459700570

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog

 PUBLISHER'S NOTE: How do prosecutors attempt to prove guilt in cases such as the prosecution of Susan Nelles where there is the evidence of scientists on one hand - and an accused person who has utterly no motive, for whom the alleged crimes would be totally out of character? All too often they attempt to establish guilt through so-called "demeanour" evidence. The Nelles case fits this picture. Prosecutors attempted to establish at the preliminary hearing through the testimony of a Dr. Fowler that Nelles, who he barely knew, demonstrated a "very strange expression." Judge David Vanek declined to find that this evidence raised an inference of guilt, as he ruled:

"On Sunday, March 22nd, at about 5am. Dr. Fowler testified that he did not see Nelles that morning until he was about to leave the hospital; and that as he was leaving he saw Nelles sitting at one end of the desks in the nurses’ station apparently writing up the final report in Cook’s medical chart. He said he knew she had been involved with Pacsai and had given the digoxin before and was anxious to see what she looked like at this time. He glanced in her direction and said that she had a very strange expression on her face and no sign at all of grief. He said he thought this was very strange that this would be her appearance at a time such a terrible thing had happened. With respect, while it appears that Dr. Fowler went to school with Nelles’ father many years ago and may have had some isolated transactions with him since, he barely knew Susan Nelles, if at all; he knew nothing about her emotional range, her reaction to stress, or her manner of expressing her grief. I am unable to find any evidence of guilt from what a doctor thought from a passing glance was “a very strange expression” on the face of a young woman he barely knew, who had suffered a most harrowing experience, and was engaged in the very emotionally disturbing duty she was bound to perform of writing up the final death note as part of her other difficult duties on the occasion of the death of a baby in her care."

A report on Vanek's decision can be found on the Networked Knowledge site at:

http://netk.net.au/Canada/Morin39.asp

Defence lawyer Austin Cooper did a superb job of establishing the inadequacy of this evidence in his cross-examination of Dr. Fowler. He includes a portion of his cross-examination in an article published in Edward Greenspan's Counsel for the Defence"The Defence of Innocence." (See link for the entire article - it's fascinating - below.)

GIST OF CROSS-EXAMINATION:

• Now, as to Susan Nelles, was she a close friend of yours?
• No.
• Did you ever visit her house?
• Never.
• Or her apartment?
• Never.
• Has she ever visited your house?
• Never.
• I think you said you knew her for one year?
• Just because she was on the ward.
• On the ward?
• Her brother is a resident on the ward and I knew her father.
• Have you ever had lunch with her?
• Never.
• Or coffee?
• Never.
• Or dinner?
• Never.
• Ever had a sort of meaningful conversation with her about anything other than whether a baby has or hasn't had its medication or has turned blue?
• Never.
• Okay, so you never worked a twelve-hour shift in her company?
• Never.
• Did you ever see her since her arrest on March 25 other than around the court or whatever?
• No, I've never seen her since then.
• Did you ever see her grieving after a relative had died?
• I have never seen her grieving because I don't know her. I've never seen.
• Did you ever see her upset, ever?
• Never.
• Ever see her cry?
• No.
• Did you ever see her angry?
• No.
• Did you ever see her depressed or elated?
• No.
• Did you ever see her sad or shocked?
• No.
• Well, I'm going to suggest that you really don't know much about the lady's emotional range. You'll agree with that?
• I've seen many nurses who are looking after sick patients, and her reaction, again, was very unusual.
• Well, I didn't ask you that. I asked you, I suggest that you don't know much about her emotional range?
• No.
• You just don't know much about it?
• No, except that it's unusual, under the circumstances, for a person to have that reaction.
• Okay. Well, a number of witnesses here have described Susan Nelles as being a cheerful person. Do you know her well enough to even know about that?
• No.
• She's easy to get along with; Do you know her well enough to even know that?
• No. I don't work with her.
• You don't work with her. She's conscientious and eager. You don't know that, I guess?
• No, I don't know that.........

THE ENTIRE ARTICLE - INCLUDING THE REST OF THIS PORTION OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION - CAN BE FOUND AT:

http://www.criminal-lawyers.ca/criminal-defence-news/the-defence-of-innocence-1990
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;