Part Eighteen: Think Dirty: Ian And Angela Gay Speak Out Through An On-Line Publication;

"THE ORIGINAL TRIAL WAS BASED ON CONFLICTING MEDICAL OPINION AND CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.

THE RETRIAL PRESENTED FRESH MEDICAL EVIDENCE WHICH THE JURY ACCEPTED - THIS NEW EVIDENCE (A RARE BUT NATURALLY OCCURRING CONDITION) CERTAINLY MADE MORE SENSE THAN FORCE FEEDING A 3 YEAR OLD CHILD WITH SALT WITHOUT LEAVING ANY MARKS OR BRUISES."

IAN AND ANGELA GAY TO AN ON-LINE PUBLICATION;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian and Angela Gay turned to the Internet to explain to the public what went wrong in their case;

Their account is not lengthy.

It does, however, get to the heart of what happened through their eyes.

"This case was so very complex that, to make any rash judgements based on the limited media coverage would be foolhardy," the couple explained.

"It was presented before a jury who heard the full facts - and based on that evidence found us not guilty," they continued.

" The original trial was based on conflicting medical opinion and character assassination.

The retrial presented fresh medical evidence which the jury accepted - this new evidence (a rare but naturally occurring condition) certainly made more sense than force feeding a 3 year old child with salt without leaving any marks or bruises.

Christian was diagnosed with "water on the brain" as a baby - a factor which cannot be ignored.

Then there were the subscalp bruises which were dated as less than 2 days old, whilst Christian was in hospital for 4 days!!

And of course we have the treating doctor who became a self proclaimed expert following some Internet research - surely a conflict of interest!

This prosecution was engineered by "hired guns" who got it wrong!"

Angela & Ian Gay, West Midlands,

Part Fifteen: Think Dirty; Donna Anthony; Another Tragic Case Attributed To Dr. Roy Meadow;

"PATHOLOGIST PROFESSOR PETER BERRY, FOR THE PROSECUTION, SAID IN HIS OPINION THE TWO CHILDREN HAD BEEN SUFFOCATED AND WERE NOT VICTIMS OF SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME OR COT DEATH.

HEALTH WORKER CECELIA CLACK TOLD THE COURT THAT ANTHONY HAD SHOWN NO SIGNS OF WANTING TO BOND WITH OR CARE FOR HER CHILDREN.

SHE HAD VISITED THE DEFENDANT SHORTLY AFTER THE BIRTH OF HER FIRST CHILD AND ADVISED HER TO SEEK HELP FROM SOCIAL SERVICES TO DEVELOP PARENTING SKILLS.

UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION FROM MR DUNKELS, ANTHONY DENIED KILLING HER SON, MICHAEL, TO "GET SYMPATHY" FROM HER HUSBAND, DEAN, FROM WHOM SHE HAD RECENTLY SEPARATED."

FRON BBC REPORT ON DONNA ANTHONY'S SENTENCING HEARING;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Donna Anthony is another British woman who was convicted of killing her babies on the evidence of Dr. Roy Meadow.

By way of brief background here is the Wikepedia account of her experience to the point at which she was freed following a referral to the Criminal Cases Review Commission - followed by the a BBC report on her sentencing hearing;

"Donna Anthony is a British woman from Somerset who was jailed in 1998 having been wrongly convicted of the murder of her two babies," the Wikepedia account begins.

"She was cleared and freed after spending more than six years in prison," it continues.

"She was one of several women at the centre of high-profile cases where evidence given by the controversial paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow led to convictions of mothers who reported more than one cot death.

Anthony's daughter died in February 1996, at the age of eleven months.

Her four-month-old son died in March 1997.

In November 1998, twenty-five-year-old Anthony was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, following a trial in which it was suggested that she had smothered her son in order to get sympathy from her estranged husband.

She made an unsuccessful appeal against her conviction in 2000.

In January 2003, the conviction of Sally Clark — jailed for life for the murder of her two sons — was quashed.

In June that year, Trupti Patel was acquitted of murdering her babies.

In December, Angela Cannings was cleared after spending more than a year in prison for the murder of her sons.

The prosecution in all four cases had relied on evidence supplied by Sir Roy Meadow, who said that the chances of two babies dying of natural causes within the same family were one in 73 million.

Meadow's evidence was later discredited, and he was subsequently struck off by the General Medical Council (though he was reinstated on appeal).

Following the overturning of Angela Cannings's conviction, twenty-eight cases, including that of Donna Anthony, were referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), and Anthony was freed in April 2005."

By way of juxtaposition, here is the BBC report of Anthony's sentencing hearing published on-line on Tuesday 17, November, 1998, under the heading, "Mother jailed for killing her babies."

The story was accompanied by the following "graphic:



"ANTHONY SHOWED NO SIGN OF WANTING TO CARE FOR HER BABIES, COURT TOLD;"

"A young mother has been given two life sentences for murdering her two babies," the BBC story began.

"A unanimous jury at Bristol Crown Court found 25-year-old Donna Anthony guilty of murdering her 11-month-old daughter and four-month-old son," it continued;

"Anthony's daughter Jordan died in Yeovil District Hospital in February 1996, although doctors initially believed she had been a victim of cot death.

When her second child, Michael, died in March 1997 and medical examination proved inconclusive, police began an investigation.

For the prosecution, Paul Dunkels QC said Anthony, from Southville, in Yeovil, smothered her children to take them "to the very edge of the line that divides life and death".

After both incidents she tried frantically to revive the babies, but they both died in hospital in Yeovil.

She had behaved in this way to attract attention or sympathy, or perhaps out of resentment towards her babies, or possibly due to an intricate combination of both.

She loved children 'to death'

Anthony denied doing anything to harm her children and claimed she loved them "to death".

Jordan was admitted to hospital four times over a six-month period when Anthony claimed she had stopped breathing, the court heard.

Pathologist Professor Peter Berry, for the prosecution, said in his opinion the two children had been suffocated and were not victims of sudden infant death syndrome or cot death.

Health worker Cecelia Clack told the court that Anthony had shown no signs of wanting to bond with or care for her children.

She had visited the defendant shortly after the birth of her first child and advised her to seek help from social services to develop parenting skills.

Under cross-examination from Mr Dunkels, Anthony denied killing her son, Michael, to "get sympathy" from her husband, Dean, from whom she had recently separated.

Anthony described in detail how she found both her children after they had stopped breathing and her frantic attempts to revive them.

But paramedics called to her house in Yeovil on the occasion of Michael's death found him cold with dilated eyes "like he had been dead some time".

'A very damaged young woman'

Passing sentence, Mr Justice Astill said: "You deprived your two young children of the right to live and it is difficult without knowing much more why you should have done this.

He said Anthony was a "very damaged young woman" and that he would be calling for an investigation into the events in her life that may have brought her to commit the crimes.

The judge continued: "It is a tragedy for those two children. It is a tragedy also for you. But I must pass upon you now the only sentence that I can pass by law. I have no choice."

After the hearing Anthony's estranged husband Dean said: "With the verdict that was given I hope my children can now finally be at peace and all the people involved in the case can start rebuilding and get on with their lives."

Detective Inspector Steve Foster, of Avon and Somerset Police, said: "It is a sad case and it is sad for the family and the two children.

"But at the end of the day we have done a professional job in putting the facts before the court. It was a difficult case and a sensitive case and that's all one can say.""

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

Part Fourteen: Think Dirty; Donna Anthony; The Consequences; Even Her Husband Believed She was Guilty;

"I NEVER CONVICTED DONNA ORIGINALLY. I ONLY THOUGHT THAT SHE HAD KILLED THE CHILDREN BECAUSE SHE WAS PROVEN GUILTY.

DEAN ANTHONY (DONNA ANTHONY'S HUSBAND) IN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH THE WESTERN DAILY PRESS)";
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"YOU GET THESE POLICE OFFICERS, THESE DOCTORS SAYING THAT SHE HAD BEEN MOLESTED, SHE HAD BEEN STRANGLED. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE THE PROTECTORS OF SOCIETY AND ALL THIS STUFF. SO, YES, I BELIEVE SHE WAS. BUT I KNEW IT WASN'T ME."

WILLIAM MULLINS-JOHNSON TO THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was horrified to read, in this exclusive interview, that Donna Anthony's husband actually believed his wife must be guilty of killing their two sons because the jury had found her guilty. (See previous posts: Think Dirty: Donna Anthony) Parts Thirteen and Fourteen;)

I immediately thought of William Mullins-Johnson's testimony at the Ontario Court of Appeal to the effect that he believed Valin had been molested and then strangled - when we now know, years later - that his niece had died a natural death.

Asked by his lawyer (James Lockyer) if he thought that Valin had been molested and murdered, Mullins-Johnson replied: "You get these police officers, these doctors saying that she had been molested, she had been strangled. They're supposed to be the protectors of society and all this stuff. So, yes, I believe she was. But I knew it wasn't me."



Worse, Mullins Johnson told the Court that the murder charge had disastrous implications within his family - as it turned brother against brother.

"It split my family," he testified. "It had my brother thinking that I had killed his little girl. It had me thinking that my brother had killed his little girl."

As will be seen from the interview, these cases are graphic examples of the hellish implications of "thinking dirty" when investigating the deaths of infants.

"The former husband of convicted child-killer Donna Anthony last night said that the pain of losing his two little angels had never ended," the story began.

"As Anthony, who has always insisted she was innocent, won the right to appeal against her conviction, her former husband spoke exclusively to the Western Daily Press," it continued.

"Last night, Dean Anthony, 36, said his thoughts were always with his "two little angels", daughter Jordan, who died aged 11-and-a-half months, on February 1, 1996, and son Michael, who died aged four-and-a-half months the following March.

Donna Anthony, 31, of Yeovil, Somerset, was jailed for life in 1998 at Bristol Crown Court for murdering Jordan and Michael.

The case against her relied on evidence from the now-discredited paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow.

Anthony always claimed both children were victims of cot death, but her original appeal in June 2000 was dismissed.

However, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) yesterday gave her cause for hope.

It said it was sending her case back to the Court of Appeal after considering "new expert medical evidence".

Sir Roy Meadow had argued that one sudden infant death in a family is a tragedy, two are suspicious and three are murder unless proved otherwise.

His theory was that some mothers killed their babies to draw attention to themselves, a condition dubbed Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy.

But in January last year appeal judges dismissed his evidence in the case of Angela Cannings, from Wiltshire, who was jailed for life in 2002 for murdering her two baby sons.

Mrs Cannings, a shop assistant from Salisbury, saw her conviction quashed and, in the wake of her ruling, 297 other files were reviewed. Anthony's was among those given top priority.

Mr Anthony said: "There's not a moment I don't think about the children. You are always brought up to think your children will bury you. When you lose two, you think 'what's the point of living?'.

I never convicted Donna originally. I only thought that she had killed the children because she was proven guilty.

"Now if it is proven that the evidence that was given is incorrect then she has as much right as Angela Cannings to be released and to start a new life.

"Donna was like any other mum. Admittedly she suffered from the baby blues, but so do countless others.

"As far as I am concerned she took good care of the children, they were never without anything. I was away working a lot and I was not there when it happened.

"We were separated when Michael died, but I was shocked when Donna was arrested.

"At the beginning I would have liked to have asked her why, but all the way through Donna has insisted that she is innocent.

"They are saying now that Michael may have died of a chest infection -which would make one question whether Yeovil Hospital was negligent.

"Jordan was just at the stage of crawling and saying a couple of words when she died. I haven't experienced life with children more than a year old."

Mr Anthony, who is now single, added: "I would like to have more children, but that's in God's hands. It is a question of finding someone that I can tell about this and who will stand by me no matter what happens.

"The anniversary of Jordan's death was just yesterday. You can tell people what you are going through but you can't get comfort from that when you are crying in the night."

He said that if Donna wins the appeal he would only be in contact over family matters. "I was not allowed to contact her and I have no feelings for her," he added.

Anthony's solicitor George Hawks said: "I am very pleased for Donna, although it is only the beginning of the process, not the end.

"I don't expect she will be going overboard - I am sure she will be as relieved as I am, but she will recognise that we still have a major hurdle coming up with the appeal."

Anthony will be eligible to apply for bail, but last night no firm decision had been made on the matter."

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

Part Thirteen: Think Dirty; Donna Anthony; A Moving Post-Script: "Look St All The Suffering Since Then."

”SHE WAS CONDEMNED BY THEORY BASED ON SUSPICION MASQUERADING AS MEDICAL OPINION, WHICH WAS COMPLETELY WRONG”, HE ADDED.

FELICITY MCCALL; FROM POST-SCRIPT PUBLISHED ON WEB-SITE DEDICATED TO FREEING DONNA ANTHONY;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This moving "post-script" - described as a "Conviction Quashed Addendum - appeared on a Web-Site dedicated to freeing Donna Anthony under the heading: "Look at all the suffering since then."

It describes the horrific consequences caused to innocent parents, caregivers and their families when societies abandon reason, go on crusades, and rely on so-called experts like Drs. Charles Smith, Roy Meadow, and David Southall to achieve their misguided ends.

"On Monday, April 11, 2004, Donna Anthony finally walked free after the Appeal Court quashed her “guilty” verdict as unsafe and unsound," the post-script begins.

"The legal ruling was something of a formality; the crucial breakthrough had come 18 months earlier when the same court had cleared Angela Cannings of murdering her two babies," it continues.

"It had taken six years and sends the 31 year old out into a world where she is effectively homeless and has no family.

Her mother died when she was in prison.

Her husband, from whom she is divorced, had originally said he believed she had smothered her 11 month old daughter Jordan and a year later four month old Michael.

Throughout her questioning, trial and imprisonment Ms Anthony had maintained they were victims of cot death.

Her former husband now says he “accepts the appeal court’s judgement.”

Outside the Appeal Court, it was left to Donna Anthony’s solicitor, George Hawkes, to speak for her.

She was, he said “overwhelmed by her freedom”.

”She was condemned by theory based on suspicion masquerading as medical opinion, which was completely wrong”, he added.

Mr Hawkes said the whole episode” had completely shattered her life”.

“There are immense problems facing her out there which she has got to cope with, and she is going to need a lot of help and assistance” he added, as Ms Anthony, a silent, shadowy figure, was ushered into a waiting car.

The smiling young mother in the baby photographs reproduced at her trial seems a lifetime away. No amount of compensation can buy her back.

As the ruling was announced, newspapers were already reporting that the discredited paediatrician Sir Roy Meadow whose evidence had effectively sealed her conviction, has been paid £50,000 to testify in court.

The head of the Royal College of Paediatricians, Sir Alan Craft, says “lessons are being learned” from what he called “these difficult cases.”

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

Part Twelve (2): Think Dirty; Dr. Charles Smith's Notoriety Spreads to England; Alongside Meadow and Southall;

A recent post recorded Journalist Cassandra Jardine's observation that, "When the history of false allegations is written there will be a roll-call of honour for those who have taken a fresh look at the medical conundrums and questioned orthodox thinking."

One of the recipients of a place on this notable "roll-call of honour" is Dr. John Plunkett, a forensic pathologist, who Jardine describes as "an expert in childhood head injuries."

This is the very same Dr. John Plunkett whose reputation was demeaned in Court by Dr. Charles Smith, as detailed in a previous post headed: "Dr. Smith's Character: The Nasty Side: Part One: A Tendency to Cut Up Other Experts - So To Speak."

The post read in part as follows:

"In cross-examination by lawyer James Lockyer, who represents nine families affected by Dr. Smith's work, at the Goudge Inquiry, Smith also acknowledged that his characterization of Dr. John Plunkett in courtroom testimony was "uncharitable".

Dr. Plunkett's views on the harm that can be caused by accidental falls differed significantly from Dr. Smith's

Lockyer cited the following cross-examination of Dr. Smith;

"Are you aware of the work of a Dr. John Plunkett in this area?

Yes.

Do you know him personally?

No.

Just his work then?

Yes.

Have you reviewed his work?

I've seen his papers.

Do you have an opinion on his papers with respect to the force that may cause injury from an accidental fall?

I'm aware of a paper published recently that dealt with that, yes.

And do you agree with his findings?

No, I don't know anyone who does."

Dr. Smith told Lockyer that although he did not remember the specific testimony, "I do accept that this is what I said."

Let's put this in context;

Dr. Smith - who was a highly respected expert witness - (often referred to as the top forensic pediatric pathologist in the country) - had the right to say that he disagreed with Dr. Plunkett's findings.

But he went beyond that to state that Dr. Plunkett's work had been rejected by every other expert in the country, if not the world.

In short he denigrated Dr. Plunkett's work, by treating him as a pariah, whose opinion''s were not worth considering.

Not nice."

It's bad enough that Dr. Smith saw his role as helping the prosecution witn its case;

It's bad enough that Dr. Smith's evidence helped the authorities charge and convict innocent parents and caregivers;

But it is utterly cynical and outrageous that he would get in the witness box and demean true experts, who unlike himself, approached their work with integrity and scientific detachment.

Here is the previous post for those readers who may have missed it:

"From time to time this Blog has taken a look at Dr. Charles Smith's character as demonstrated through the evidence called at the Goudge Inquiry," the post began;

"One of the prime indicators of a rather nasty side was Dr. Smith's apparent confrontation with an Ontario Provincial Police Officer after being pulled over at night for speeding in which he made a big deal with the officer about how important he was - and threatened to cut off his office's services to dead children in the area if she persisted in giving him the ticket," it continued;

The officer was so upset about the incident that her superior brought it to the attention of Dr. James Young, who was then Ontario's chief coroner. (See previous postings: Goudge Inquiry: The OPP (Ontario Provincial Police Letter): Parts One to Four: December, 2007);

Another indicator of a nasty side is his attitude to some of his counter-parts in the world of pathology, as revealed from court transcripts.

Like Dr. Sukrita Nag, for example.

Dr. Nag is the neuro-pathologist who performed the autopsy on baby Dustin at Kingston General Hospital on November 18, 1992;

Here is what Dr. Smith had to say about Dr. Nag at the Dustin's father's preliminary hearing on charges of manslaughter and failure to provide the necessities of life.

"This is a botched autopsy," Doctor Smith told Court.

"The report of this autopsy, the paper that this autopsy is written on is not worthy of filing as an exhibit.

It should be filed in the garbage can.

I'm sorry to say it, but I would not accept this report from a resident in pathology. I don't care who signed their name to it.

It is wrong from the word "go."

If you look at the demographics on this report, the information is wrong.

Whoever signed this report either did not read the hospital chart, did not read the report before they signed it or they did not care.

I don't know which of those explanations is correct."

Dr. Smith also told the defence lawyer that he would say these things directly to Dr. Nag if she were present in court.

Something is very wrong with this picture.

Dr. Smith could have drawn the judge's attention to defects in Doctor Nag's work - as was his job - without humiliating her publicly by suggesting it was garbage.

Here was Dr Charles Randal Smith, who has been criticized by independent experts for the sub-standard quality of his autopsy reports in numerous cases, chastising a colleague who had been assigned the solemn task of performing an autopsy on a deceased child.

Having attacked the professional competence of Dr. Nag, Dr. Smith then went on to lie under oath about Judge Patrick Dunn - the judge who had severely criticized his work in the Amber case - saying that Judge Dunn "in fact told me on more than one occasion -- private conversations -- how hasty he was with the work I had done and others had done, at the hospital."

(Dr. Smith acknowledged during his evidence at the Goudge Inquiry that this alleged conversation with Judge Dunn never occurred.)

Dr. Smith agreed with Commission counsel Linda Rothstein that his characterization of his colleagues work was "uncharitable."

In cross-examination by lawyer James Lockyer, who represents nine families affected by Dr. Smith's work, at the Goudge Inquiry, Smith also acknowledged that his characterization of Dr. John Plunkett in courtroom testimony was "uncharitable".

Dr. Plunkett's views on the harm that can be caused by accidental falls differed significantly from Dr. Smith's

Lockyer cited the following cross-examination of Dr. Smith;

"Are you aware of the work of a Dr. John Plunkett in this area?

Yes.

Do you know him personally?

No.

Just his work then?

Yes.

Have you reviewed his work?

I've seen his papers.

Do you have an opinion on his papers with respect to the force that may cause injury from an accidental fall?

I'm aware of a paper published recently that dealt with that, yes.

And do you agree with his findings?

No, I don't know anyone who does."

Dr. Smith told Lockyer that although he did not remember the specific testimony, "I do accept that this is what I said."

Let's put this in context;

Dr. Smith - who was a highly respected expert witness - (often referred to as the top forensic pediatric pathologist in the country) - had the right to say that he disagreed with Dr. Plunkett's findings.

But he went beyond that to state that Dr. Plunkett's work had been rejected by every other expert in the country, if not the world.

In short he denigrated Dr. Plunkett's work, by treating him as a pariah, whose opinion''s were not worth considering.

Not nice.

Dr. Plunkett was not the only researcher who Dr. Smith denigrated.

There was also Dr. Charles Ferguson - a Winnipeg expert who was one of the many defence experts in the Amber case who took strong issue with Dr. Smith's conclusions that Amber had been shaken to death.

Judge Dunn was extremely impressed by Dr. Ferguson's evidence;

"Turning now to the Canadian specialist called by the defence. Dr. Charles
Ferguson graduated in medicine in 1957, and he's been a pediatrician since 1968," Dunn said in his decision on the Amber case;

"He's currently Director of the Child Protection Centre in Winnipeg Children's Hospital.

Dr. Ferguson has lectured on the mechanics of injury. I consider Dr. Ferguson to be an expert in forensic investigation.

This amazing man, and I say so with great respect, has testified in court proceedings over one thousand one hundred (1,100) times.

I was very impressed by his experience, by his careful method of approaching new or
dubious evidence; by his common sense and by his fairness in looking at all
sides of an issue."

But to Dr. Smith, Dr. Ferguson was merely "an expert from Winnipeg who's regarded as a 'paid mouth'."

As the following transcript of evidence from the Goudge Inquiry shows, Lawyer Lockyer was infuriated by Dr. Smith's characterization of the Winnipeg researcher.

MR. JAMES LOCKYER; Do you remember saying that, sir?

DR. CHARLES SMITH: I don't remember, but I recognize that that was uncharitable, yes.

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: Outrageous, isn't it, an outrageous thing to say? It's not just uncharitable. I'm not going to let you get away with that.

DR. CHARLES SMITH: That was certainly a view that was -- that was held of him, but it's un --

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: By you.

DR. CHARLES SMITH: -- uncharitable. I am -- well, I held that view, yes. You could ask others.

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: Well, perhaps I should ask Justice Dunn.

DR. CHARLES SMITH: The -- no, you keep going with your questions. I was going to --

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: Mm-hm, mm-hm.

DR. CHARLES SMITH: I was going to sort of try and understand your question here, but keep going, I'm sorry. Well, I -- I acknowledged that my testimony was not helpful.The issue as to Shaken Baby Syndrome in this case is an issue that I think many people could debate for years.

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: What does that mean? our testimony was not helpful: What on earth does that mean? You -- you mean -- doesn't it simply mean that your testimony had the potential to lead to a miscarriage of justice? "Unhelpful" is an odd word to
use, Mr. Smith.

DR. CHARLES SMITH: No, I -- I believe that that's a correct word.

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: Mm-hm.

DR. CHARLES SMITH: I certainly recognize that --

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: All right.

DR. CHARLES SMITH: -- I was dogmatic and defensive, yes...";

Dr. Smith has acknowledged in his evidence that he believed his duty was to help the prosecution win the case.

How dare he suggest in court that Dr. Ferguson was a hired gun?

Dr. Smith's ultimate degradation of a colleague while giving evidence in court would appear to be his comments on Dr. Rex Ferris, his nemesis.

Dr. Ferris is a forensic pathologist, whose opinion that Sharon had been savaged by a dog - and not by stab-wounds from knives and scissors as Smith had opined - had helped exonerate the child's mother.

The transcript of lawyer Lockyer's cross-examination of Dr. Smith about his characterization of Ferris to the Court tells all - including his failure to mention his involvement with Ferris in Sharon's case and his provision of misleading information about Ferris to the Court;

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: And then at the bottom of this page, sir, you're asked about Dr. Ferris:

"Are you aware of Dr. Rex Ferris?

Yes.

Do you respect Dr. Ferris' work?

No.

And may I ask why not?

I don't know anyone in the area of pediatric forensic work in Canada who respects his work in the area of pediatric forensic work."

At line 15:

"Is there perhaps, Dr. Smith, a publication or a particular case in which you've been involved in that leads you to say you don't respect Dr. Ferris' work?"

Your answer to that should've have been, Yes, shouldn't it, don't you think?

DR. CHARLES SMITH: Well --

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: Sharon's case.

DR. CHARLES SMITH: I'm...

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: But you didn't say that, did you?

DR. CHARLES SMITH: I -- I had not --

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: Chances are the cross-examiner wouldn't have know about Sharon's case at this point in time, but you sure did -- and Dr. Ferris' involvement in it.

DR. CHARLES SMITH: I'm sorry, what's your question?

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: I say your answer to that question --

DR. CHARLES SMITH: Mm-hm.

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: -- should have been "yes". Is there, perhaps, a publication or a particular case in which you've been involved in that leads you to say you don't respect Dr. Ferris' work?

DR. CHARLES SMITH: I -- I answered it as best I --

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: Mm-hm.

DR. CHARLES SMITH: -- remembered it at that time.

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: Well, let's see how you answered it:

"My struggle with the question, Your Honour, is whether it will get me in trouble legally if I answer it.

Q: What kind of trouble? Liable and slander, says the Court." And then the Court says: "Is there something you can have an intellectual disagreement with while still respecting another doctor's ability so it wouldn't be considered to be some kind of professional attack?" And you said: "Obviously, I know Rex Ferris." And then you say: "I mean James Ferris is his proper name, and I've known him for twenty 20) years. I've never seen him give an opinion on a pediatric case in which
I think he is close to reasonable. He doesn't practice pediatric forensic pathology." There's a real irony to that, isn't there, because nor did you? And then you go on: "He was excluded from doing so in British Columbia for many years before he lost his position in pediatric forensic pathology in British Columbia." nd that's simply not true, is it, sir.

DR. CHARLES SMITH: No, that's what I understood.

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: He just changed positions. He just moved on in his life.

DR. CHARLES SMITH: No, that's not what I -- what I was referring to, as best I can recall.

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: "And his knowledge of pediatric pathology, in general, is not of a level that I think he has any special expertise in the area." I mean as you read this kind of statement by you now, sir, under oath, it must make you shiver,
17 doesn't it? Like you could be describing yourself, couldn't you? You could say -- you -- you'd say that about yourself now. You have no special expertise in the area; any more than anyone else.

DR. CHARLES SMITH: No, I believe I have expertise in pediatric pathology, in general.

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: Now you're talking bout pediatric forensic pathology, sir; that's the -- that's the phrase that you've been using, isn't it, as you testify?
Do you see that? line 4, line 7, right? And then you say at line 15 "I just happen to think that in pediatric forensic pathology, I have no respect for Dr. Ferris' opinions. I cannot give you any statements about his work in adult forensic pathology. It's the area that was car -- his career and he worked in that for
decades before retiring, but in the pediatric realm, I do not respect his opinions though he is a very nice man."

MR> JAMES LOCKYER: Do you remember saying that, sir, about this man?

DR. CHARLES SMITH: No, I don't, but I read it, and I accept that I made those statements.

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: To me, that just shows the arrogance of yourself, sir, in the days that you were testifying as a purported pediatric forensic pathologist, am I right?


DR. CHARLES SMITH: I -- I do not interpret that to be arrogance.

MR. JAMES LOCKYER: Mm-hm.

DR. CHARLES SMITH: I was asked an opinion. I was asked a question about Dr. Ferris. I answered it truthfully, but very uncharitably and unkindly, but I answered truthfully the question that I was asked."

Dr. Smith's willingness to disparage genuine forensic pathologists and others who disagree with him tells us a great deal about his character.

But it is the fact that he disparaged them from the witness box when he was selling the Crown's case - with the risk that an innocent parent or caregiver could be sent to jail - that disturbs me the most.

This is about more than Dr. Smith's assault on the reputation of some professionals.

It's about miscarriages of justice - and how easily they can be caused;"

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;