At times it is good to get right to the point.
Dr. Smith has admitted that he saw himself as a member of the prosecution team - and that his role was to help the Crown win the case, "in the 80's."
However, on Wednesday morning the Goudge Inquiry heard startling evidence that he once agreed to go to Barrie, Ontario to meet with the mother of a deceased child - knowing that the conversation would be recorded by bugs which had been surreptitiously planted in her home by the police.
This was in 1996;
It is also noteworthy that Smith admitted in cross-examination regarded himself as a member of the prosecution team in "Sharon's case" where he testified under cross-examination at the mother's preliminary hearing that it was "absolutely wrong" to hypothesize a dog attack.
(The police theory was that Sharon had 81-wounds inflicted by knives or scissors - and that she had not been attacked by a Pit Bull as defence experts insisted - which later proved to be the case).
"I believe I could well have slipped into an advocacy role here," Dr. Smith said. "I believe that I knew by then that I wasn't to be an advocate ..."
This was in 1998;
Dr. Smith gave this evidence as an "advocate" for the prosecution, seven years after he was appointed Director of the Ontario Forensic Pediatric Pathology Unit at the Hospital For Sick Children in Toronto - and just three years before his name was removed from the roster for performing forensic autopsies.
It was near the end of his career - far from the beginning;
The evidence indicates that Dr. Smith - or "Mr. Smith" as Lawyer James Lockyer, representing nine families insisted on calling him yesterday - saw himself as a loyal member of the prosecution team right to the end.
Back to the Barrie case:
Smith's cooperation in the police investigation is documented in an affidavit by Detective Sergeant Mark Holden which filed as an exhibit;
Here is the complete affidavit - dated January 28, 2008;
"1: I am a staff Sergeant of the Barrie Police Service. I was involved in the investigation into the death of X, who was a minor. I believe that revealing the name of the minor and his mother could jeopardize an on-going investigation. I have knowledge of the matters deposed to in my affidavit.
2: On Sept 4, 1996, the Ontario Provincial Police (O.P.P) intercepted a telephone conversation between Dr. Smith and X’s mother pursuant to an authorization granted under Part VI of the Criminal Code of Canada. Dep. Insp. McNeil of the O.P.P. learned from the conversation that Dr Smith intended to meet with X’s mother at her home in the Barrie area to discuss with her the results of the report on his post-mortem examination on X. Det. Insp. McNeil knew that listening devices installed in the house, also pursuant to a Part VI application, would likely intercept this conversation.
3: Dep. Insp. McNeil subsequently met with members of the Barrie Police Service including me, to discuss the situation. Det. Insp. McNeil telephoned Dr. Smith and advised him that the listening devices installed in the house would likely intercept his conversations with X’s mother.
4: Dr. Smith agreed to meet with the Barrie Police Service and Det. Insp. McNeil and he did so on Sept. 5, 1996, the day he was scheduled to meet with X’s mother. The meeting took place at the Barrie Police Service police station and lasted approximately 20 minutes. During the meeting, the Barrie Police and Det, Insp. McNeil s did not direct Dr. Smith in in any way as to how to conduct the meeting with X’s mother and did not ask him to solicit any information from her. At the conclusion of the meeting with Barrie police and Det. Insp. McNeil, Dr. Smith went to the house of X’s mother and met with her.
5: Following that meeting, Dr. Smith met with representatives of the Barrie Police Service and Det, Insp. McNeil over lunch to discuss his meeting with X's mother. Dr. Smith explained that she had a number of questions about his findings and that he answered her questions arising from his report on post-mortem examination.
6: The Barrie Police officers recall that Dr. Smith expressed a view on X's mother's demeanour when she was discussing her child's death. Dr. Smith said, "It was like talking to a load of gravel." The officers understood this to mean that Dr. Smith was commenting on the inappropriate and flat affect of X's mother during that meeting. The Barrie police do not recall that Dr. Smith expressed a position during the lunch meetings to whether or not his pathology evidence supported X's mother's culpability or not.
7: I recall that there were two case conferences involving Dr. Cairns and Dr. Smith, which were held on April 17, 1996, and May 30, 1996. However at these meetings there was no discussion of any surveillance of X's mother.
8: I do not recall any further meetings with Dr. Smith following his meeting with X's mother.
9: The Barrie police have complied with S. 196 of the Criminal Code and have provided X's mother with written notification of the authorization of the interception."
A few comments:
Doctor Smith acknowledged in cross-examination that his interview with the mother in these circumstances was inappropriate but told the Inquiry that he had been asked to attend the meeting by Deputy Chief Coroner Dr. James Cairns;
In fairness to Dr. Cairns, by now we are well aware that just because Dr. Smith said this under oath does not mean that this is true. (We don't have Dr. Cairns side of the story);
However it is worth pointing out that this may not be an isolated incident in Ontario.
An earlier posting in the context of "Tiffani's case" contained a note written by a prosecutor which read: "Our file contains... a lot of information involving the initial coroner's investigation, including videotaped statements from both accused taken by the Regional Coroner Dr. (Benoit) Bechard and the police without caution, warning, or right to counsel."
(Part Ten: Interrogation of an innocent woman: Backing up Dr. Smith's opinion at all costs; Jan. 22, 2008);
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Showing posts with label advocacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advocacy. Show all posts
Friday, February 1, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
A Stunning Revelation From Dr. Smith's Very Own Lips: He Was A Member Of The Prosecution Team And Was Committed To Helping It Win.
"AND I WAS A -- A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT BEING AN ADVOCATE, BECAUSE BY THAT POINT IN THE 1990's, I KNEW AT LEAST IN THEORY, IF NOT PRACTICE, THAT I SHOULD NOT BE AN ADVOCATE".
DR. CHARLES SMITH TO COMMISSION COUNSEL LINDA ROTHSTEIN;
During the many years that I have been reporting on Dr. Charles Smith I strongly suspected that he regarded himself as a member of the prosecution team - instead of as an independent witness for the Crown.
Of, course, Dr. Smith did not declare his bias to the jury.
To the contrary, he appeared to be a sincere, objective and conscientious scientist who was there to help the judge and jurors decide the case.
So I almost fell off my chair yesterday when Dr. Smith candidly admitted to Justice Steven Goudge that for many years he saw himself as a member of the prosecution team and believed his job was to help the Crown win the case - and that it was all part of the war against the sexual abuse of children.
Dr. Smith made this stunning admission after Commission Counsel Linda Rothstein asked him to expand on his earlier testimony that, "I Fell victim to my tendency to become dogmatic, adversarial, too defensive, speak in black and white terms."
Here, without editorial comment, is a portion of the transcript from yesterday's hearing in which Dr. Smith makes his stunning admission:
"DR. CHARLES SMITH: in the very beginning when I went to court in the -- on the few occasions in the 1980s, I -- I honestly believed it was my role to support the Crown attorney. I was there to make a case look good.
That's being very blunt but that was the why I felt and I know when I talked with some of my other colleagues especially those who were junior, we -- we
shared the same -- the same kind of an attitude.
And -- and I think it -- it took me a long time, years, to acknowledge that my role was really not to make the Crown's case, or to make the case of whoever wanted me in court, but really to be much more impartial.
And though into the 1990s I would have told you that that was what my role was, I -- I think I was pretty lousy at executing it. I'm sorry for that -- for that language. I think I was poor at executing it.
Though I knew what to do, I didn't do it and so my -- my understanding or my book knowledge was not -- was not borne out by my execution in court.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And did your desire to make a case for the Crown lead as well to its converse? A feeling that you were there to refute the defence case?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: I -- I certainly felt tat pressure at times when I walked into court; that pressure from a Crown attorney, yeah.
COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Where did you get the sense originally that that was the role?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: I -- I think this is an expression of ignorance. The first time I went into a court case, you know, I had a -- I had a diagnosis of
head injury, of non-accidental head injury.
My colleagues had come to a similar thing and I think as we discussed the case in the hospital, it was our -- our view that this was a non-accidental head
injury and we were going out there to make sure that a
judge and jury understood it.
And as I spoke to my colleagues from, you know, radiology or -- or what was, I think, the forerunner to the to SCAN Team, that was the sense that I had.
As I think back on it now, I wonder to what degree the -- the -- sometimes the advocacy role that was used by some at the hospital coloured my thinking.
I certainly didn't understand sort of that concept of advocacy in the -- in the early '80s but I believe that I was giving an opinion as part of a group
that was supposed to -- to make -- make it very clear to everyone what the right diagnosis was.
COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: And who at the hospital had an advocacy role then?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: Oh, there -- there -- before the SCAN Team was kind of redesigned under Dr. Mian, which would have been -- I'm -- I'm sorry I can't
remember the year, it would have been mid or late '80s perhaps, there was prior to that others who were involved in those cases, and -- and they were -- they were
proactive in -- in their investigation.
As well, one (1) of the radiologists who I leaned heavily on, a -- a very senior gentleman, also was very clear cut in black and white and -- and that -- and...
CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Who was that, Dr. Smith?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: Dr. Reilly, R-E-I-L-L-Y. Bernard, Bernie Reilly, who I presume he's deceased now because I was junior and he was towards the end of his career and --
COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: And this was a general atmosphere of advocacy against child abuse?
Is that --
DR. CHARLES SMITH: Yes. I think -- I think that's a fair way of doing it.
And -- and please understand, sir, that his is a period of time where the whole area of child abuse is just kind of coming into being and so there was a sense that this is a new area, we need to pay attention to it.
And -- and it was almost wanting to educate and kind of bringing attention to this, and I think that might have been part of that advocacy community, or environment, or culture that -- that was exist -- in existence at that time.
COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Thank you.
CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: So just to follow up on that point before the break, Dr. Smith, you would share the view of those who've already told us that in
the mid '80s there as a concern that child abuse was under reported?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: Yes. Yes, I agree with that.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: That child abuse was under detected by health care professionals across the board?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: I believe that's accurate.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: That child abuse was under prosecuted by the State?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: I think that -- I -- I think at that time, I would have agreed with that, yes.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And that there had to be changes made in order to reverse those trends?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: Yes. I agree with that, yes.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And you saw it, in part, as your job to try and reverse those trends?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: I -- I think if you'd asked me that then I would have said no, but -- but I think I -- I did feel that way.
It was many years later when -- when mention was made of the possibility of me being part of the SCAN Team, and by that point in time -- but this is many years later -- I recognized that the SCAN Team could be more of an advocate that I could be.
And -- and I believe that was by definition their role, and I was reluctant to -- to be painted with that brush. I wasn't part of the SCAN Team; I didn't see live patients.
And I was a -- a little concerned about being an advocate, because by that point in the 1990s, I knew at least in theory, if not practice, that I should not be an advocate.
But if you set the clock back five (5) or ten (10) years earlier, I believe I was in -- I was part of that advocacy culture, though I don't think I would have recognized it or stated it at that time.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And by the mid '90s, how would you have characterized your approach?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: Well, I'd like -- I'd like to think, or I thought that I was sort of down the middle of the road, but obviously in -- in situations, I
was not, and I veered to the left or to the right at times."
As I heard these word coming out of the mouth of Dr. Charles Smith, I wondered how they were sounding to Sherry Sherret, Brenda Waudby, Lianne Thibeault, Bill Mullins-Johnson and the others present in the hearing room who were so sorely affected by his opinions over the years.
Apart from losing their children, the involvement of Dr. Charles Smith must have been the worst possible nightmare that could have entered their lives.
Now they learn that he saw himself as part of the prosecution team.
How far would he go to help the prosecution win?
That's question surely goes to the heart of this Inquiry.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com
DR. CHARLES SMITH TO COMMISSION COUNSEL LINDA ROTHSTEIN;
During the many years that I have been reporting on Dr. Charles Smith I strongly suspected that he regarded himself as a member of the prosecution team - instead of as an independent witness for the Crown.
Of, course, Dr. Smith did not declare his bias to the jury.
To the contrary, he appeared to be a sincere, objective and conscientious scientist who was there to help the judge and jurors decide the case.
So I almost fell off my chair yesterday when Dr. Smith candidly admitted to Justice Steven Goudge that for many years he saw himself as a member of the prosecution team and believed his job was to help the Crown win the case - and that it was all part of the war against the sexual abuse of children.
Dr. Smith made this stunning admission after Commission Counsel Linda Rothstein asked him to expand on his earlier testimony that, "I Fell victim to my tendency to become dogmatic, adversarial, too defensive, speak in black and white terms."
Here, without editorial comment, is a portion of the transcript from yesterday's hearing in which Dr. Smith makes his stunning admission:
"DR. CHARLES SMITH: in the very beginning when I went to court in the -- on the few occasions in the 1980s, I -- I honestly believed it was my role to support the Crown attorney. I was there to make a case look good.
That's being very blunt but that was the why I felt and I know when I talked with some of my other colleagues especially those who were junior, we -- we
shared the same -- the same kind of an attitude.
And -- and I think it -- it took me a long time, years, to acknowledge that my role was really not to make the Crown's case, or to make the case of whoever wanted me in court, but really to be much more impartial.
And though into the 1990s I would have told you that that was what my role was, I -- I think I was pretty lousy at executing it. I'm sorry for that -- for that language. I think I was poor at executing it.
Though I knew what to do, I didn't do it and so my -- my understanding or my book knowledge was not -- was not borne out by my execution in court.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And did your desire to make a case for the Crown lead as well to its converse? A feeling that you were there to refute the defence case?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: I -- I certainly felt tat pressure at times when I walked into court; that pressure from a Crown attorney, yeah.
COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Where did you get the sense originally that that was the role?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: I -- I think this is an expression of ignorance. The first time I went into a court case, you know, I had a -- I had a diagnosis of
head injury, of non-accidental head injury.
My colleagues had come to a similar thing and I think as we discussed the case in the hospital, it was our -- our view that this was a non-accidental head
injury and we were going out there to make sure that a
judge and jury understood it.
And as I spoke to my colleagues from, you know, radiology or -- or what was, I think, the forerunner to the to SCAN Team, that was the sense that I had.
As I think back on it now, I wonder to what degree the -- the -- sometimes the advocacy role that was used by some at the hospital coloured my thinking.
I certainly didn't understand sort of that concept of advocacy in the -- in the early '80s but I believe that I was giving an opinion as part of a group
that was supposed to -- to make -- make it very clear to everyone what the right diagnosis was.
COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: And who at the hospital had an advocacy role then?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: Oh, there -- there -- before the SCAN Team was kind of redesigned under Dr. Mian, which would have been -- I'm -- I'm sorry I can't
remember the year, it would have been mid or late '80s perhaps, there was prior to that others who were involved in those cases, and -- and they were -- they were
proactive in -- in their investigation.
As well, one (1) of the radiologists who I leaned heavily on, a -- a very senior gentleman, also was very clear cut in black and white and -- and that -- and...
CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Who was that, Dr. Smith?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: Dr. Reilly, R-E-I-L-L-Y. Bernard, Bernie Reilly, who I presume he's deceased now because I was junior and he was towards the end of his career and --
COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: And this was a general atmosphere of advocacy against child abuse?
Is that --
DR. CHARLES SMITH: Yes. I think -- I think that's a fair way of doing it.
And -- and please understand, sir, that his is a period of time where the whole area of child abuse is just kind of coming into being and so there was a sense that this is a new area, we need to pay attention to it.
And -- and it was almost wanting to educate and kind of bringing attention to this, and I think that might have been part of that advocacy community, or environment, or culture that -- that was exist -- in existence at that time.
COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Thank you.
CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: So just to follow up on that point before the break, Dr. Smith, you would share the view of those who've already told us that in
the mid '80s there as a concern that child abuse was under reported?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: Yes. Yes, I agree with that.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: That child abuse was under detected by health care professionals across the board?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: I believe that's accurate.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: That child abuse was under prosecuted by the State?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: I think that -- I -- I think at that time, I would have agreed with that, yes.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And that there had to be changes made in order to reverse those trends?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: Yes. I agree with that, yes.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And you saw it, in part, as your job to try and reverse those trends?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: I -- I think if you'd asked me that then I would have said no, but -- but I think I -- I did feel that way.
It was many years later when -- when mention was made of the possibility of me being part of the SCAN Team, and by that point in time -- but this is many years later -- I recognized that the SCAN Team could be more of an advocate that I could be.
And -- and I believe that was by definition their role, and I was reluctant to -- to be painted with that brush. I wasn't part of the SCAN Team; I didn't see live patients.
And I was a -- a little concerned about being an advocate, because by that point in the 1990s, I knew at least in theory, if not practice, that I should not be an advocate.
But if you set the clock back five (5) or ten (10) years earlier, I believe I was in -- I was part of that advocacy culture, though I don't think I would have recognized it or stated it at that time.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And by the mid '90s, how would you have characterized your approach?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: Well, I'd like -- I'd like to think, or I thought that I was sort of down the middle of the road, but obviously in -- in situations, I
was not, and I veered to the left or to the right at times."
As I heard these word coming out of the mouth of Dr. Charles Smith, I wondered how they were sounding to Sherry Sherret, Brenda Waudby, Lianne Thibeault, Bill Mullins-Johnson and the others present in the hearing room who were so sorely affected by his opinions over the years.
Apart from losing their children, the involvement of Dr. Charles Smith must have been the worst possible nightmare that could have entered their lives.
Now they learn that he saw himself as part of the prosecution team.
How far would he go to help the prosecution win?
That's question surely goes to the heart of this Inquiry.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
