Thursday, June 28, 2012

Brenda Waudby: (6): Two lines in the prosecutor's brief that say so much.

Publisher's view: After reviewing the materials for yesterday's hearing, two lines - contained in a document filed by Crown Law Officer Alison Wheeler representing the Crown - strike me as going to the heart of what happened to Brenda Waudby. Simply put, the former doctor Charles Smith came into her life. The two lines read:

"In addition, the Crown acknowledges that in the absence of an incorrect pathology opinion from Dr. Smith, Ms Waudby would never have been charged with killing her daughter and would never have been accused or convicted of abusing her. If the forensic pathology had been done properly in the first place, Ms Waudby would never have been seen as anything other than a grieving mother facing her own difficult issues, who had her young child horribly and violently taken from her."

The acknowledgment is significant because Smith is the "expert" that prosecutors called on again and again to get conviction upon conviction of people unfortunate to be at the receiving end of his erroneous opinions and corrupt practices such as lying inside and outside court, misleading judges and jurors and "losing" key items of evidence which could have proven he was wrong, and that the at the accused person was innocent.

In the aftermath of the Goudge Inquiry, the Ontario Attorney-General's ministry has put in safeguards to ensure that thorough prosecutorial screening is done before charges are laid in suspicious death of children cases. This is a welcome development. The fact remains, however, that Charles Smith - unlike his victims - has not been charged with a single crime. And this sends the deplorable message that in Ontario, corrupt pathologists who subvert our criminal justice system to help the state get convictions can operate with immunity. I promise not to repeat the following mantra after this last time: The Ontario government is not in a position to determine if criminal charges should be laid against Smith because it is an "interested party," having relied on his evidence to secure convictions for so many years. At the very least, the government should bring in an independent counsel from another province to review the critical cases and publicly make a recommendation as to whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. If there is, charges should be laid. If there isn't it's game over and the public will move on. this was done in Ontario when former Attorney General Michael Bryant was involved in a tragic motor vehicle incident that resulted in the death of a bicycle courier. If there is a political will to bring Smith to account it should be done here.

Harold Levy. Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.


I am monitoring this case. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments.

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:

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:

Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to:

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.