PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Two important stories published this weekend (Saturday April 29, 2017) raise serious doubts, ten years later, about what was learned from the Gouge inquiry, which as the Toronto Star points out "exposed the devastating fallout of SickKids pathologist Charles Smith, the Hospital for Sick Children." In one of these articles, (Part One) the Star's Rachel Mendleson asks "What is ailing Sickkids?" - and investigates "how Toronto’s world-class children’s hospital missed the warning signs." As the Star points out: "A decade after a public inquiry exposed the devastating fallout of SickKids pathologist Charles Smith, the Hospital for Sick Children is grappling with Motherisk, another scandal involving families torn apart by flawed forensics. A Star investigation reveals lingering questions and a battle to rebuild public trust by an institution that can’t afford to get it wrong again." In the second story, Christie Blatchford, writes about "The uncomfortable questions once again being asked of Ontario’s chief pathologist," - Dr. Michael Pollanen - in the National Post, and asks, " How can it be that almost a decade after the Goudge inquiry released its report into the messy trail left behind by former SickKids’ pathologist Dr. Charles Smith, the white knight who rode in to build Ontario a new forensic service and save the day is now being asked uncomfortably familiar questions? "The white knight, of course, is Dr. Michael Pollanen," says Blatchford. "Ontario’s chief forensic pathologist since 2006, the year that allegations about Smith reached a critical mass and prompted a sweeping coroner’s review. It found that Smith had reached dubious conclusions of foul play in 20 child autopsies, some of which ended in wrongful convictions."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "The uncomfortable questions once again being asked of Ontario’s chief pathologist," by Christie Blatchford, published by The National Post on April 28, 2017.
PHOTO CAPTION: "Dr. Michael Pollanen has been Ontario's chief forensic pathologist since 2006.
GIST:"To borrow from the immortal words of the Talking Heads in Once in a Lifetime, “And you may ask yourself, well, how did I get here?” How can it be that almost a decade after the Goudge inquiry released its report into the messy trail left behind by former SickKids’ pathologist Dr. Charles Smith, the white knight who rode in to build Ontario a new forensic service and save the day is now being asked uncomfortably familiar questions? The white knight, of course, is Dr. Michael Pollanen, Ontario’s chief forensic pathologist since 2006, the year that allegations about Smith reached a critical mass and prompted a sweeping coroner’s review. It found that Smith had reached dubious conclusions of foul play in 20 child autopsies, some of which ended in wrongful convictions. That in turn led to the Goudge inquiry, headed by now-retired Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Stephen Goudge, who concluded in 2008 that Smith had “actively misled” his superiors, “made false and misleading statements in court” and exaggerated his expertise. Compare that to the language reluctantly used last month by Ontario Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy to describe Pollanen. She found that he had failed to properly prepare before testifying and “nevertheless expressed an opinion with certainty”; had “offered opinions beyond his area of expertise”; looked for ways to shore up those opinions; and “started from a position that this was a case of abuse, which he then sought to prove.” In other words, Molloy was suggesting, like his disgraced predecessor Smith, Pollanen did not approach the case with an open mind and was “thinking dirty.”.........The former boy wonder – he hung out at the old forensic pathology department as a teenager – had testified before Molloy in a voir dire at the trial of Joel France. The 39-year-old France was accused of second-degree murder in the July 14, 2013 death of two-year-old Nicholas Cruz, the child of his live-in girlfriend.........Molloy was clearly shocked. As she put it once, “he started his task with the mindset that this child had been the victim of assault and he approached everything thereafter from that mindset, including his testimony in court…” She also pronounced Pollanen’s answers around how long he’d belatedly spent doing the literature review “evasive and disingenuous.” Molloy ruled he couldn’t give his opinion on whether an assault had caused the boy’s injuries and couldn’t say the required force was “significant” — a decision that knocked the stuffing out of the Crown’s theory that France deliberately administered the fatal blow. After the ruling. prosecutors and defence lawyers reached a plea bargain, with France pleading guilty to manslaughter for failing to get Nicholas medical help. It was a bolt out of the blue – a stunning, uncharacteristic and eerily familiar flaw in a man who prided himself on being the anti-Charles Smith. Yet there were early signs that some of the same trappings that led to Smith becoming virtually unassailable in court for so long – deferential if not reverential treatment, a growing self-confidence and the simple fact that scientists can often bedazzle lawyers with scientific language — may have been in play for Pollanen too.".........Pollanen hasn’t yet commented upon Molloy’s criticism and is out of the country until Monday. However, Dr. Toby Rose, Ontario’s deputy chief forensic pathologist, said that it isn’t just pathologists’ reports that are subject to peer review, but also “court transcripts following expert testimony of forensic pathologists, which will be the case in this instance as well.”"
The entire story can be found at:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/christie-blatchford-the-uncomfortable-questions-once-again-being-asked-of-ontarios-chief-pathologistPUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. 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: http://www.thestar.com/topic/
