PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am still 'reeling' after reading Christie Blatchford's story - absolutely dumbstruck. Christie rightly points out that "Her ( Justice Molloy's) findings are bound to send ripples of shock in defence lawyer and prosecution circles, as the well-regarded Pollanen is widely credited with bringing what he once told the Toronto Star was “a culture of accountability” to the forensic service." Dr. Pollanen also was an articulate exponent of evidence-based pathology - as contrasted with the "Think Dirty' approach that was prevalent during the Smith years. His contribution towards an enlightened approach to pediatric forensic pathology in Ontario - and elsewhere - has been immeasurable. One thing is clear: In the aftermath of the Charles Smith debacle - replete with so many ruined lives - no pathologist in Ontario can expect to be spared the requisite degree of probing, regardless of their reputation and experience. And that's a good thing.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "But in a devastating cross-examination by France’s defence lawyer, Nathan Gorham — which Molloy took pains to praise and credit for bringing to light problems with the doctor’s testimony — Pollanen acknowledged he hadn’t in fact reviewed the literature. And when Gorham presented him with a bound volume of 26 scholarly published articles on abdominal trauma causing injury to the bowels, Pollanen acknowledged he’d not seen 23 of them — and many showed examples of children sustaining perforations of the intestines after falls from a short height. “It was only as a result of extensive independent research by defence counsel and a very skilled cross-examination by Mr. Gorham that the weaknesses in Dr. Pollanen’s evidence came to light,” the judge said. She added, that’s the problem “with highly polished expert witnesses who wander off their area of expertise or who offer opinions without any scientific basis. They appear to be knowledgeable in areas about which they have no expertise, even when they are not.”
STORY: "Judge slams Ontario’s revered chief forensic pathologist over testimony in boy’s death," by reporter Christie Blatchford, published by The National Post on April 12, 2017.
GIST: "The
reputation of Dr. Michael Pollanen, Ontario’s much-praised chief
forensic pathologist, has taken a blistering hit from an Ontario
Superior Court judge who is sharply critical of his testimony in recent
criminal proceedings. Judge Anne Molloy Wednesday delivered written reasons for her oral
decision, issued from the bench, in pre-trial motions in the
second-degree murder trial of Joel France. In her decision, Molloy found Pollanen “had failed to properly
prepare before testifying,” yet nonetheless “expressed an opinion with
certainty,” offered opinions beyond his area of expertise, “looked for
ways” to support that hastily taken position and “started from a
position that this was a case of abuse.” Her findings echo some of those of the Goudge inquiry, in which
former appeal court judge Stephen Goudge blasted the province’s forensic
services after flawed child death...d that Smith had made false and misleading statements in court and exaggerated his expertise. Molloy prefaced her findings by noting that she considered “the
cautionary tale of now disgraced (Dr. Smith), a pathologist whose
testimony as an expert witness resulted in numerous miscarriages of
justice,” and quoted a scholarly article on the lessons of the Goudge
inquiry in which Pollanen was cited as an authority. “Ironically,” she said, she found that Pollanen himself displayed
some of the biases experts should be wary of and which Pollanen once
said experts could displace by paying attention to peer-reviewed
literature. While she said “I do not question the professional expertise of Dr.
Pollanen, nor do I doubt his integrity,” Molloy wrote, “… he himself ran
afoul of some of these very same principles. “It is a compelling illustration of how easy it is to fall into these
errors and how cautious lawyers and judges must be in evaluating such
evidence.” She also found that Pollanen was “evasive and disingenuous” in one particular area. Her findings are bound to send ripples of shock in defence lawyer and
prosecution circles, as the well-regarded Pollanen is widely credited
with bringing what he once told the Toronto Star was “a culture of
accountability” to the forensic service. It’s probably fair to say that he was previously considered an untouchable expert. Pollanen himself, reached by email late Wednesday, told Postmedia he
hasn’t “seen the ruling in this case. I will need to review it” before
commenting. He had testified before Molloy in January in a voir dire about the
death of two-year-old Nicholas Cruz, the baby of France’s live-in
partner Marleny Cruz. The little boy died as a result of septic shock
secondary to injuries to his intestines, and was dead by the time Cruz
and France brought him to hospital on July 14, 2013. Pollanen’s anticipated evidence at trial — that the little boy’s
injuries could not have been caused by a fall — was the linchpin of the
Crown’s theory that France had administered the fatal blow and had had
murderous intent. After all, Pollanen had testified to just that once
before, in March 2015, at France’s preliminary hearing. But at the pre-trial motion before Molloy, Pollanen produced a supplementary report the day before he took the witness stand. In it, he purported to have surveyed the medical literature on
children’s abdominal trauma and concluded, again, that such injuries are
usually caused by blows to the abdomen. This time, he granted that it was possible Nicholas’s injuries could
have been caused by “an unprecedented accident … but it is improbable.” But in a devastating cross-examination by France’s defence lawyer,
Nathan Gorham — which Molloy took pains to praise and credit for
bringing to light problems with the doctor’s testimony — Pollanen
acknowledged he hadn’t in fact reviewed the literature. And when Gorham presented him with a bound volume of 26 scholarly
published articles on abdominal trauma causing injury to the bowels,
Pollanen acknowledged he’d not seen 23 of them — and many showed
examples of children sustaining perforations of the intestines after
falls from a short height. “It was only as a result of extensive independent research by defence
counsel and a very skilled cross-examination by Mr. Gorham that the
weaknesses in Dr. Pollanen’s evidence came to light,” the judge said. She added, that’s the problem “with highly polished expert witnesses
who wander off their area of expertise or who offer opinions without any
scientific basis. They appear to be knowledgeable in areas about which
they have no expertise, even when they are not.” At the January pre-trial, Molloy ruled that while prosecutors could
call Pollanen as a witness at trial, and he could provide his expert
opinion on the cause of Nicholas’s death and the nature of the other
injuries, such as bruising, he had sustained, she placed strict
boundaries upon his testimony. He wouldn’t be allowed to testify as to whether an assault was more
likely, or express his opinion on whether an accidental fall had caused
the child’s injuries. Pollanen would also have to tone down his language, and avoid loaded
terms such as “significant” in describing the degree of force used. It was after the judge’s oral ruling that prosecutors and defence reached a negotiated agreement, a plea bargain. France pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of manslaughter based on his failure to get Nicholas medical treatment. The little boy’s mother, Cruz, earlier pleaded guilty to the same offence. Molloy reserved her decision on which of the adults may have killed Nicholas."
The entire story can be found at:
The entire story can be found at:
PUBLISHER'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/
