PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Once again, this Blog can return to the original mission of this Blog - to continue to report on the devastating miscarriages of justice caused by the involvement of the now-disgraced former pathologist in Ontario's criminal justice system at least until the last of his victims has been exonerated. (O'Neill Blackett had pleaded guilty to manslaughter instead of murder with its mandatory life imprisonment 17 years ago). Exoneration is now close for O'Neil Blackett. It's hard to imagine that Ontario's prosecutors would not quickly quickly announce their intention not to proceed to trial - and to apologize for the horror it inflicted on an innocent father who lost his 13-month-old baby daughter at the hands of an extraordinarily influential pathologist whose opinion has been acknowledged by the Ontario Court of Appeal in multiple cases as unreliable. Congratulations to Innocence Canada (formerly called AIDWYC) for its work on smith cases over many years - I understand there are still more to come before The Ontario Court of Appeal in the coming years.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER: THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG.
----------------------------------------
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "A number of factors came into play in the appellant’s decision to plead guilty to manslaughter,” the Appeal Court said. “Of particular significance was the impact he thought Dr. Smith’s evidence would have on the jury.”
ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL:
-----------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "
"The guilty plea included a statement of facts in which Blackett said Tamara had suffocated while he was using force to feed her, and that he had left her to die. Watt jailed him for a total of 4 ½ years — a sentence he has long served. While his lawyer had advised him against pleading guilty to something he hadn’t done, Blackett apparently believed he had little choice. “A number of factors came into play in the appellant’s decision to plead guilty to manslaughter,” the Appeal Court said. “Of particular significance was the impact he thought Dr. Smith’s evidence would have on the jury.” Concerns about Smith’s work, which ultimately led to a judicial inquiry that uncovered major flaws in his opinions, first surfaced in 2001."
---------------------------------------
STORY: "Father convicted in baby’s death should get new trial over Dr. Charles Smith’s faulty pathology: court," by Canadian Press reporter Colin Perkel, published by The Toronto Star on February 8, 2018.
SUB-HEADING: “Fresh
evidence establishes that absent Dr. Smith’s flawed opinion, the
appellant would not have pleaded guilty,” the Appear Court ruled."
PHOTO CAPTION: "Dr.
Charles Smith, seen in this file photo from 2008, was of the view the
baby had suffocated either due to strangulation or brute force applied
to her body. He was certain the baby hadn’t choked to death on her vomit
or otherwise by accident."
GIST: "A
man who pleaded guilty to killing his baby daughter in a fit of
frustration almost two decades ago should get a new trial given the
involvement of disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith, Ontario’s top
court ruled on Wednesday. The decision by O’Neil Blackett to take a
manslaughter plea deal in 2001 was done in anticipation of Smith’s
testimony that the little girl had been murdered, the Court of Appeal
said. “This is one of those cases where, despite the passage of
time since the plea was entered, this court should exercise its power to
set aside the guilty plea in the interests of justice,” the Appeal
Court ruled. “Fresh evidence establishes that absent Dr. Smith’s flawed
opinion, the appellant would not have pleaded guilty.” The
case arose in February 1999, when Blackett was looking after his
13-month-old daughter, Tamara Thomas, who had a history of breathing and
intestinal problems for which she had on an occasion needed hospital
care. When her mother returned from running errands to her apartment in
Toronto’s east end, she found Tamara lifeless in her playpen. In
the month before she died, Tamara had been found with a fractured thigh
while Blackett was looking after her. A responding paramedic, who
described the father as an “anxious parent who showed concern,” said
Tamara’s leg had been caught in the spindles of her crib. Police found
the crib unsafe and decided the injury was accidental. Blackett
co-operated with an ensuing investigation by the Children’s Aid Society,
although the girl’s mother did not. Days before she died, Tamara
began throwing up and losing weight. Responders on the day of her death
described Blackett as distraught and confused, and said he denied
harming her. Smith, at the time a renowned pediatric forensic
pathologist, was of the view the child had suffocated either due to
strangulation or brute force applied to her body. He was certain the
baby hadn’t choked to death on her vomit or otherwise by accident. The
autopsy, Smith noted, had turned up fractures to both her thighs as well
as to several ribs. Police
initially charged Blackett, who is now 41 years old, with second-degree
murder. However, he pleaded out to a reduced manslaughter charge in
August 2001 before Superior Court Justice David Watt. The guilty plea
included a statement of facts in which Blackett said Tamara had
suffocated while he was using force to feed her, and that he had left
her to die. Watt jailed him for a total of 4 ½ years — a sentence he has long served. While
his lawyer had advised him against pleading guilty to something he
hadn’t done, Blackett apparently believed he had little choice. “A
number of factors came into play in the appellant’s decision to plead
guilty to manslaughter,” the Appeal Court said. “Of particular
significance was the impact he thought Dr. Smith’s evidence would have
on the jury.” Concerns about Smith’s work, which ultimately led to
a judicial inquiry that uncovered major flaws in his opinions, first
surfaced in 2001. An independent review of Tamara’s death was generally
supportive of Smith’s conclusions, court records show. However, a
subsequent review in 2001 by another pathologist cast doubt on the
findings. Blackett began his appeal years later based on evidence
before the public inquiry and other forensic reports that found it
impossible to say why the girl died — fresh evidence accepted by the
prosecution and the Appeal Court. “Dr. Smith’s conclusion — that
asphyxia properly described the cause of death in this case — is
reflected in the agreement statement of fact tendered in support of the
plea,” the prosecution said. “It is now well understood that Dr. Smith’s
opinion in this regard cannot be relied upon.” It was not immediately certain whether the Crown would in fact opt to try Blackett again."'
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/02/07/convicted-father-in-babys-death-should-get-new-trial-over-dr-charles-smiths-faulty-pathology-court.html
The Ontario Court of Appeal decision can be read at the link below: From the decision: "The Crown fairly does
not contest the admission of this evidence nor dispute its content. In para. 23 of its
factum the Crown notes: Dr. Smith’s conclusion that asphyxia properly described the
cause of death in this case is reflected in the agreement statement of fact
tendered in support of the plea. It is now well understood that Dr. Smith’s
opinion in this regard cannot be relied upon. The respondent accepts that in the circumstances of this case,
Dr. Smith’s flawed opinion as to the cause of Tamara Thomas’ death played a
significant role in the appellant’s decision to enter a plea of guilty.
Accordingly, the respondent agrees that it is in the interests of justice in
the circumstances of this case that the conviction be set aside and a new trial
ordered on a charge of manslaughter. In our view this is
one of those cases, where despite the passage of time since the plea was
entered, this court should exercise its power to set aside the guilty plea in
the interests of justice. The fresh evidence establishes that absent Dr.
Smith’s flawed opinion the appellant would not have pleaded guilty to
manslaughter."
http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2018/2018ONCA0119.htm
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
