PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "The oversight council argued in its written submissions that it conducted a reasonable review of Turner’s allegations, and its recommendations were “directly responsive” to her complaint. After baby Alexander died, his parents were blamed for fractures found on their infant and separated from their surviving children. The police found no criminality and closed the case, but Alexander’s parents did not get their surviving kids back until August 2019, 20 months after they were removed. Ontario’s Chief Coroner Dr. Dirk Huyer then overruled the investigating coroner, who had sided with Turner, and deemed the death a homicide, to the shock of police and some medical experts involved. The family’s child protection proceedings dragged on until last fall, when the matter was finally closed, nearly five years after Alexander died. (Their names have been changed to protect their identities as required under the law governing child protection cases.) “We still are constantly looking over our shoulders,” Alexander’s father said in a recent interview. “This whole experience has definitely ruined the health-care system for us.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The battle playing out in Divisional Court is the first-ever legal challenge of the effectiveness of the oversight council, which was created in 2010 as the province tried to restore public confidence following the scandal involving Charles Smith, whose flawed autopsies led to parents being wrongfully convicted of killing their children. The oversight council said it did its duty, including a review into Turner’s complaint that resulted in the council issuing 13 recommendations. One of those called for external experts to review the casework of the chief forensic pathologist. The Divisional Court reserved its decision in the case. Turner is asking the court to send her complaint back to the oversight council for reconsideration, allow her to present new evidence and repay the legal costs she has incurred “to protect the integrity of forensic pathology in Ontario.”
STORY: "Ontario’s top pathologist pushes back against accusation that he abused his power during probe of infant death," by Staff Reporter Rachel Mendleson, published by The Toronto Star, on February 3, 2023.
SUB-HEADING: "Dr. Michael Pollanen’s court filing is part of a case examining how the Death Investigation Oversight Council handled a complaint about his conduct."
GIST: "The province’s top pathologist is pushing back against an accusation that he abused his power to overrule some of his colleagues, breaking years of silence about his actions in a controversial case involving the sudden death of an infant.
In a recent court filing, Dr. Michael Pollanen says it was his duty to get involved in the investigation into the 2017 death. It’s the first time Pollanen has publicly commented on the specifics of the case, which has raised questions about the integrity of Ontario’s death investigation system.
After performing an autopsy, Dr. Jane Turner, the then-director of the former Hamilton forensic pathology unit, believed fractures in the seven-week-old boy’s body were likely caused by a bone disease. Police who investigated the death had not seen evidence of abuse.
But, as the Star reported, a Hamilton child abuse pediatrician disagreed with Turner, and Pollanen became involved.
Turner claims Pollanen intervened to change the cause of death to child abuse, allegations she first made to the Death Investigation Oversight Council in 2019. She resigned, in part, over her concerns about the case, saying she felt her integrity was being threatened.
Her allegations resurfaced Tuesday in Divisional Court, in a judicial review of the council’s handling of her complaint.
She claims the oversight body, which was created to guard against the kind of tunnel vision she alleges Pollanen displayed, failed to take appropriate action to respond to her complaint against him.
The disagreement in the “baby Alexander” case was between Turner on one side and the child abuse pediatrician and a committee that reviewed the case on the other, assert written submissions Pollanen made to the court.
“The job of (Pollanen) was to oversee those debates and try to come to the best conclusion based on the evidence collected during the death investigation,” the submissions read. “Dr. Pollanen did not conclude any specific cause of death but indicated that the underlying cause of the fractures has not been explained.”
Pollanen’s lawyer, Wayne Cunningham, told a panel of three judges on Tuesday that the problem in the baby Alexander case was a “breakdown in communication” — an issue the oversight council rightly sought to address in the systemic recommendations it issued in response to Turner’s complaint.
Turner’s lawyer, Sujit Choudhry, replied: “The issue was not communication. It was the integrity of forensic pathology,” adding that Turner’s complaint raised matters that “go to the core” of why the oversight council was created.
“If the DIOC doesn’t do its job, ultimately there will be implications in the criminal justice system, in the family law system with child apprehension, and it falls to the court to pick up the pieces,” Choudhry told the court.
The oversight council argued in its written submissions that it conducted a reasonable review of Turner’s allegations, and its recommendations were “directly responsive” to her complaint.
After baby Alexander died, his parents were blamed for fractures found on their infant and separated from their surviving children.
The police found no criminality and closed the case, but Alexander’s parents did not get their surviving kids back until August 2019, 20 months after they were removed.
Ontario’s Chief Coroner Dr. Dirk Huyer then overruled the investigating coroner, who had sided with Turner, and deemed the death a homicide, to the shock of police and some medical experts involved.
The family’s child protection proceedings dragged on until last fall, when the matter was finally closed, nearly five years after Alexander died. (Their names have been changed to protect their identities as required under the law governing child protection cases.)
“We still are constantly looking over our shoulders,” Alexander’s father said in a recent interview. “This whole experience has definitely ruined the health-care system for us.”
The battle playing out in Divisional Court is the first-ever legal challenge of the effectiveness of the oversight council, which was created in 2010 as the province tried to restore public confidence following the scandal involving Charles Smith, whose flawed autopsies led to parents being wrongfully convicted of killing their children.
The oversight council said it did its duty, including a review into Turner’s complaint that resulted in the council issuing 13 recommendations. One of those called for external experts to review the casework of the chief forensic pathologist.
The Divisional Court reserved its decision in the case. Turner is asking the court to send her complaint back to the oversight council for reconsideration, allow her to present new evidence and repay the legal costs she has incurred “to protect the integrity of forensic pathology in Ontario.”
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater’s attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, “Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it’s the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------
