PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Overnight, I received the following 'update,' following my post yesterday of Doctor Bob Mole's review of investigative journalist Graham Archer's recently published book on the Henry Keogh travesty, I was delighted to receive the following 'up-date' from Dr. Moles, drawing parallels between the disastrous Australian and Canadian experiences with flawed pathology and flawed pathologists embodied by Dr. Colin Manock (Australia) and former doctor Charles Smith (Canada) respectively - and reflecting on the role played by journalists in helping expose miscarriages of justice. (Activist or 'fly on the wall?) I very much appreciate Dr. Mole's bringing his informed analysis to the attention of our readers.
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
-----------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: To yesterday's post: 'Graham Archer: Henry Keogh; Review of 'Unmaking a Murder: the
mysterious death of Anna-Jane Cheney,' by TV investigative journalist
Graham Archer, (Adelaide Today Tonight) recently published by Ebury
Press and Penguin Random House - reviewed by Dr. Robert Moles.' (Graham Archer Unmaking
a Murder: the mysterious death of Anna-Jane Cheney, Ebury Press, Penguin
Random House, Sydney 2017: ISBN 978 0 14378 405 0 (pbk) 384 pages $34.99. Available
in paperback and as an e-book.)
THE UPDATE: "I have written a review of this book for our Australian audience and need not repeat what I have said there except for some basic facts. The conviction of Henry Keogh in South Australia in 1995 was for the murder of his fiancée (Anna-Jane Cheney) by drowning her in the bath at their home. The person who propounded this theory was the chief forensic pathologist Dr Colin Manock who had worked in that capacity in South Australia for some 27 years. In recent years his work has come under scrutiny. It has been discovered that he was not properly qualified and that he gave false and misleading evidence in important cases during that time.[1] The purpose of this review is to bring to the attention of our Canadian friends the importance in our work over the years, of our association with those tackling similar issues in Toronto. Graham Archer is a leading Australian investigative journalist who has worked intensively on Dr Manock’s cases over some 17 years. As he explains, his main concern was not to free Henry Keogh, although he did make a major contribution to that important achievement. Nor was it to vilify Dr Manock or even the state of South Australia, although he was frequently accused of having that motivation. It was to identify institutional errors which had occurred in our judicial system and to attempt to put them right. I did say in my review that there are few journalists in Australia (or indeed internationally) who have made such an important contribution to the justice system over such a long period of time. However, I think it right to acknowledge the important work which has been done by Harold Levy in Toronto and the significance of his support for our work over the years. Our Canadian connection began with an approach from Professor Kent Roach who was working as Director of Research for the Goudge Commission of Inquiry into the work of Dr Charles Smith. Kent had picked up on the work which we had done on the Baby Death cases in South Australia and commissioned myself and my co-researcher, Bibi Sangha to provide the Goudge Inquiry with an expert report on our work on those cases. Around that time, we had also been in touch with AIDWYC (as it was then called) and began to understand the significant work which Harold Levy had been engaged in concerning Dr Smith.[2] I remember Harold telling me that whilst working with the Toronto Star, his employers had supported his investigative journalism concerning the work of Dr Smith. He had made it his mission to turn up to the court cases where Smith was to appear as an expert witness. Indeed, Harold said that he wanted Dr Smith to accept that Harold would be the first face Smith would see when he turned up to court. I have no doubt that it was due to Harold’s tenacity and perseverance, and the publicity which he was able to engender through his reporting for the Toronto Star, that the Judicial Inquiry into Smith’s conduct eventually got under way. So too, it has been with the work of Graham Archer. He has produced over 60 television programs about Dr Manock’s work.[3] He has examined Manock’s lack of qualifications, his flawed analyses in many cases, and the serious errors which eventually led to the overturning of Keogh’s conviction after he had been in prison for some 20 years. The importance of media attention in such cases cannot be overemphasized. Those wrongly convicted will be virtually destitute by the time they have finished with their trial(s) and the associated appeals. If they did have any money at the beginning of the process it will be gone by the time they have worked their way through the legal system. Most lawyers (not all) will have little time for those still proclaiming their innocence. There are very few talented journalists who have the capacity to understand the legal complexities involved in these cases. Harold Levy is one because of his earlier legal training and practice as a lawyer. Graham is another because of his intelligence and willingness to put in the hard-yards talking to Channel 7’s media lawyers and those who have taken up the Keogh case. From a reading of Graham’s book, one can gain some understanding (but only in a limited way) of the demands which this work imposes. Not just in terms of time but also resources. Defending defamation actions does not come cheap, especially when on the wrong end of a judgment designed more to protect the system than it is to dispense justice. Obviously, Graham Archer and Harold Levy became more than just observers of the process they were reporting on. They became advocates for those who had fallen foul of the system. In doing so, they had to contend with the inevitable push-back from those who are more concerned to protect the system than to protect the rights of their fellow citizens. Regrettably, it seems, they often include those who should be safeguarding our rights. In Toronto, the Coroner and Deputy Coroner who had gone out of their way to protect Dr Smith had eventually to resign in disgrace. In South Australia, accountability has not yet reached that far, but we can see from Graham’s account that it is long overdue. On 16 July 2007 Graham’s program discussed the ongoing work of the Goudge Inquiry with Professor Roach who was visiting with us in Adelaide. Graham drew parallels between the work of our Dr Manock and Canada’s Dr Smith. He discussed the tragic consequences for those involved in these appalling cases, including those of Mr Mullins-Johnson and Ms Reynolds and our own baby death cases. He emphasized the important work which had been done by AIDWYC (now Innocence Canada) and enabled us to see how lawyers there were willing to speak up for those who had been wrongly convicted. He urged the adoption of an independent inquiry into our cases (a Criminal Review Commission) modelled upon the work of AIDWYC and the Goudge Inquiry. Something we still have yet to achieve. There are also the ethical problems. Is a reporter there just to report on the progress of the case, or to assist it to reach a successful outcome? And what is a successful outcome? Every step towards the undoing of a wrongful conviction is a step towards leaving some victim (or the family of some victim) exposed to the uncertainties of not knowing what happened or who did it. Sometimes the certainty of having someone to blame – even if it is the wrong person – can feel more satisfying. It is clear that advocating for those who have been wrongly convicted is a high-risk activity. This much was clear from the work of Chris Mullins in the UK when he published his book about those convicted of the IRA bombing cases. Not the sort of people to arouse public sympathy. Yet, after the convictions were overturned as a grave miscarriage of justice, it led to the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in the UK. That in turn has led to the overturning of more than 400 wrongful convictions - including four where those convicted had been hanged. No doubt Harold had his fair share of detractors when he had the temerity to suggest that Dr Charles Smith, the most prominent person in his field in Toronto, was not properly skilled. Standing up for those accused of killing or abusing children, again, not the most popular thing to do. Yet the subsequent Goudge inquiry found that Dr Smith had committed most basic errors and had a cavalier disregard for proper procedures. He had caused incalculable suffering for many entirely innocent people. Subsequently, the government of Ontario invested more than $1billion in a world-leading forensic science centre in Toronto. Graham’s work on his programs over many years, given context now by his recent book, has transformed the public perception of those otherwise written off as callous killers. His work demonstrates clearly the disastrous situation which has enveloped the legal system of South Australia. If those responsible for the development of this catastrophe had the good sense to work collaboratively with people like Graham, they might yet be able to find the way forward. They could learn from the Canadian system of judicial inquiries that an international and comparative perspective could save them from having to invent their own solutions from a standing start. They could also, as Graham suggests, find some benefit by adopting and adapting a Criminal Cases Review Commission as has been established in the UK. Perhaps they could also reach out to people like Professor Kent Roach, an internationally recognized expert in this field, to chart the way forward – as he did as Director of Research with the Goudge Inquiry. But the story is not all gloom and doom. One of the most important innovations established in South Australia was the introduction of a new statutory right of appeal. Something which we think should also be introduced in Canada for many of the same reasons it was introduced in SA. Because of the new appeal right, Graham explains the background to some of the other cases which are now coming forward for appeal. He gives an account of the case of Derek Bromley, an indigenous man who has been in prison for 34 years. It is clear that his conviction will be overturned in the near future. Then there will be the case of David Szach, who is suffering from motor-neurone disease. Then there will be more – there are 400 or so such cases to be reviewed. It is not clear how much longer the legal system and the government of South Australia will continue to prevaricate and delay. However, it is clear to me that for so long as they do so, they will strengthen the hand of those like Graham who seek a restoration of the rule of law. At the same time, they will weaken their own position until they either lose their jobs, or are hauled before some official inquiry. In the meantime, we look forward to our continued collaboration with our Canadian friends. Bob Moles, Adelaide, South Australia, 6 September 2017."
THE UPDATE: "I have written a review of this book for our Australian audience and need not repeat what I have said there except for some basic facts. The conviction of Henry Keogh in South Australia in 1995 was for the murder of his fiancée (Anna-Jane Cheney) by drowning her in the bath at their home. The person who propounded this theory was the chief forensic pathologist Dr Colin Manock who had worked in that capacity in South Australia for some 27 years. In recent years his work has come under scrutiny. It has been discovered that he was not properly qualified and that he gave false and misleading evidence in important cases during that time.[1] The purpose of this review is to bring to the attention of our Canadian friends the importance in our work over the years, of our association with those tackling similar issues in Toronto. Graham Archer is a leading Australian investigative journalist who has worked intensively on Dr Manock’s cases over some 17 years. As he explains, his main concern was not to free Henry Keogh, although he did make a major contribution to that important achievement. Nor was it to vilify Dr Manock or even the state of South Australia, although he was frequently accused of having that motivation. It was to identify institutional errors which had occurred in our judicial system and to attempt to put them right. I did say in my review that there are few journalists in Australia (or indeed internationally) who have made such an important contribution to the justice system over such a long period of time. However, I think it right to acknowledge the important work which has been done by Harold Levy in Toronto and the significance of his support for our work over the years. Our Canadian connection began with an approach from Professor Kent Roach who was working as Director of Research for the Goudge Commission of Inquiry into the work of Dr Charles Smith. Kent had picked up on the work which we had done on the Baby Death cases in South Australia and commissioned myself and my co-researcher, Bibi Sangha to provide the Goudge Inquiry with an expert report on our work on those cases. Around that time, we had also been in touch with AIDWYC (as it was then called) and began to understand the significant work which Harold Levy had been engaged in concerning Dr Smith.[2] I remember Harold telling me that whilst working with the Toronto Star, his employers had supported his investigative journalism concerning the work of Dr Smith. He had made it his mission to turn up to the court cases where Smith was to appear as an expert witness. Indeed, Harold said that he wanted Dr Smith to accept that Harold would be the first face Smith would see when he turned up to court. I have no doubt that it was due to Harold’s tenacity and perseverance, and the publicity which he was able to engender through his reporting for the Toronto Star, that the Judicial Inquiry into Smith’s conduct eventually got under way. So too, it has been with the work of Graham Archer. He has produced over 60 television programs about Dr Manock’s work.[3] He has examined Manock’s lack of qualifications, his flawed analyses in many cases, and the serious errors which eventually led to the overturning of Keogh’s conviction after he had been in prison for some 20 years. The importance of media attention in such cases cannot be overemphasized. Those wrongly convicted will be virtually destitute by the time they have finished with their trial(s) and the associated appeals. If they did have any money at the beginning of the process it will be gone by the time they have worked their way through the legal system. Most lawyers (not all) will have little time for those still proclaiming their innocence. There are very few talented journalists who have the capacity to understand the legal complexities involved in these cases. Harold Levy is one because of his earlier legal training and practice as a lawyer. Graham is another because of his intelligence and willingness to put in the hard-yards talking to Channel 7’s media lawyers and those who have taken up the Keogh case. From a reading of Graham’s book, one can gain some understanding (but only in a limited way) of the demands which this work imposes. Not just in terms of time but also resources. Defending defamation actions does not come cheap, especially when on the wrong end of a judgment designed more to protect the system than it is to dispense justice. Obviously, Graham Archer and Harold Levy became more than just observers of the process they were reporting on. They became advocates for those who had fallen foul of the system. In doing so, they had to contend with the inevitable push-back from those who are more concerned to protect the system than to protect the rights of their fellow citizens. Regrettably, it seems, they often include those who should be safeguarding our rights. In Toronto, the Coroner and Deputy Coroner who had gone out of their way to protect Dr Smith had eventually to resign in disgrace. In South Australia, accountability has not yet reached that far, but we can see from Graham’s account that it is long overdue. On 16 July 2007 Graham’s program discussed the ongoing work of the Goudge Inquiry with Professor Roach who was visiting with us in Adelaide. Graham drew parallels between the work of our Dr Manock and Canada’s Dr Smith. He discussed the tragic consequences for those involved in these appalling cases, including those of Mr Mullins-Johnson and Ms Reynolds and our own baby death cases. He emphasized the important work which had been done by AIDWYC (now Innocence Canada) and enabled us to see how lawyers there were willing to speak up for those who had been wrongly convicted. He urged the adoption of an independent inquiry into our cases (a Criminal Review Commission) modelled upon the work of AIDWYC and the Goudge Inquiry. Something we still have yet to achieve. There are also the ethical problems. Is a reporter there just to report on the progress of the case, or to assist it to reach a successful outcome? And what is a successful outcome? Every step towards the undoing of a wrongful conviction is a step towards leaving some victim (or the family of some victim) exposed to the uncertainties of not knowing what happened or who did it. Sometimes the certainty of having someone to blame – even if it is the wrong person – can feel more satisfying. It is clear that advocating for those who have been wrongly convicted is a high-risk activity. This much was clear from the work of Chris Mullins in the UK when he published his book about those convicted of the IRA bombing cases. Not the sort of people to arouse public sympathy. Yet, after the convictions were overturned as a grave miscarriage of justice, it led to the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in the UK. That in turn has led to the overturning of more than 400 wrongful convictions - including four where those convicted had been hanged. No doubt Harold had his fair share of detractors when he had the temerity to suggest that Dr Charles Smith, the most prominent person in his field in Toronto, was not properly skilled. Standing up for those accused of killing or abusing children, again, not the most popular thing to do. Yet the subsequent Goudge inquiry found that Dr Smith had committed most basic errors and had a cavalier disregard for proper procedures. He had caused incalculable suffering for many entirely innocent people. Subsequently, the government of Ontario invested more than $1billion in a world-leading forensic science centre in Toronto. Graham’s work on his programs over many years, given context now by his recent book, has transformed the public perception of those otherwise written off as callous killers. His work demonstrates clearly the disastrous situation which has enveloped the legal system of South Australia. If those responsible for the development of this catastrophe had the good sense to work collaboratively with people like Graham, they might yet be able to find the way forward. They could learn from the Canadian system of judicial inquiries that an international and comparative perspective could save them from having to invent their own solutions from a standing start. They could also, as Graham suggests, find some benefit by adopting and adapting a Criminal Cases Review Commission as has been established in the UK. Perhaps they could also reach out to people like Professor Kent Roach, an internationally recognized expert in this field, to chart the way forward – as he did as Director of Research with the Goudge Inquiry. But the story is not all gloom and doom. One of the most important innovations established in South Australia was the introduction of a new statutory right of appeal. Something which we think should also be introduced in Canada for many of the same reasons it was introduced in SA. Because of the new appeal right, Graham explains the background to some of the other cases which are now coming forward for appeal. He gives an account of the case of Derek Bromley, an indigenous man who has been in prison for 34 years. It is clear that his conviction will be overturned in the near future. Then there will be the case of David Szach, who is suffering from motor-neurone disease. Then there will be more – there are 400 or so such cases to be reviewed. It is not clear how much longer the legal system and the government of South Australia will continue to prevaricate and delay. However, it is clear to me that for so long as they do so, they will strengthen the hand of those like Graham who seek a restoration of the rule of law. At the same time, they will weaken their own position until they either lose their jobs, or are hauled before some official inquiry. In the meantime, we look forward to our continued collaboration with our Canadian friends. Bob Moles, Adelaide, South Australia, 6 September 2017."
FOOTNOTES: [1] See for example our book on this topic A State of Injustice, full text available online. Adverse findings concerning Dr Manock were made by the Coroner in the Baby Deaths cases, and by the Court of Appeal in the case of Henry Keogh. A useful summary of our position can be found in this recent conference paper.
[3] Transcripts and links to the videos
are available at the Networked Knowledge TV programs Homepage.
Networked Knowledge Book Reviews Homepage
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/c
