One of the most relevant parts of the 50-page Privy Council decision to readers of this Blog deals with Lundy's allegations that the Crown had withheld important information gathered by a Detective Sergeant Grantham from Dr. Heng Teoh, a neuropathologist.The interview related to what has emerged as a central prop of the Crown's case: a specimen removed from his shirt which was analyzed as his deceased wife's brain tissue. We learn that Det. Grantham's notes of the interview were not disclosed to the Lundy's legal team until 12 years later (June 13, 2013): The notes read as follows: ""Dr. Pang...suggested a neuropathologist should be able to view the slide and be able to identify the cells by morphology, (appearance). He suggested a Dr. Heng Teoh. "On Tuesday 9/1/2001 I met with Dr. Teoh and he reviewed the slide. He would only commit to saying the cells are tissue cells. He opined that the time lapse between the murders and the preparation of the slide (some 58 days) was too long. The cells had degenerated badly. What did concern me about Dr. Teoh was that he was quite clear that he did not want to be involved in a police investigation and did not want to have to give evidence in any court proceedings. When he looked at the slide he commented that he did not think that he, (Mark Lundy) should be convicted of murder on the strength of the cells in the slide. I did not comment about furthur supporting evidence. He further pointed out that just because Christine Lundy's DNA was on his shirt didn't mean a lot. She was his wife. He later commented that this case might have to remain an unsolved mystery." Although government lawyer Cameron Mander acknowledged to the Privy Council that this interview should have been disclosed to the defence before trial, he argued that having this knowledge would not have stopped the defence from erroneously conceding, as it regretfully did, that the specimen was, in fact, brain tissue. To the contrary the judges unanimously ruled that the identification of the specimen as brain tissue was "of overwhelming significance", and that, "Here was clear evidence of a neuropathologist saying, in effect, that it was impossible to identify the material as CNS (Central nervous system - including the brain and the spinal cord) tissue; that the cells had degenerated badly and that Mr. Lundy should not be convicted of murder on the strength of this evidence." (The Privy Council also makes clear that had the defence lawyer been provided with this interview - as the law required - he could have used it to help secure an acquittal). This shocking omission suggests to this observer a tainted police investigation aimed at convicting Mark Lundy at all costs - even if it meant taking away his opportunity to make full answer and defence to two murder charges which could send him to jail for life.
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
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/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.
I would be pleased to hear from readers at:
hlevy15@gmail.com
