"A panel of Ontario Appeal Court judges has rejected fresh evidence presented by lawyers representing a Toronto couple convicted of second-degree murder in the death of their seven-year-old son," The CBC reports.
"Randal Dooley died in September 1998 of a brain injury, the culmination of what the judge presiding over his parents' 2002 trial called one of the worst cases of child abuse in Canadian history," the CBC story, published yesterday, continues.
"The boy's father, Tony Dooley and stepmother, Marcia Dooley, were sentenced to life in prison in May 2002. Marcia Dooley's parole eligibility was set at 18 years, while Tony's was set at 13 years.
Lawyers for the couple are now asking the Ontario Court of Appeal to grant the two a new trial, saying fresh evidence casts doubt on the cause of death.
Two experts in the original trial — Dr. Robin Humphreys and the now discredited Dr. Charles Smith — concluded the boy had died after being violently shaken.
Alternate cause of death
On Tuesday, defence lawyer Gerald Chan presented the opinion of another pathologist, Dr. David Ramsay, who said shaking may not have caused the fatal brain injury.
Ramsay also said there is no reliable data on how much force is required to cause that injury, and suggested it could have been caused by a fall from a bunk bed — an explanation given by the Dooleys in 2002 for Randal's death.
However, Justice David Doherty said Tuesday all the experts agree that Randal suffered a fatal brain injury. He said if the injury wasn't caused by shaking, it could have been caused by the blunt force of a hand or fist.
Doherty questioned how the information presented Tuesday was new evidence, since many of the arguments had been made at their trial.
The Appeal Court is scheduled to hear arguments on the appeal through Thursday.
Trial judge criticized
Tony Dooley's lawyer, Clayton Ruby, kicked off the appeal Monday by saying the original trial judge had erred by repeatedly using inflammatory language in his comments to jury members instead of encouraging them to be unemotional.
The presiding judge at the time, Superior Court Justice Eugene Ewaschuk, determined Marcia Dooley inflicted most of the beatings and was the one who murdered Randal.
During sentencing, Ewaschuk called Marcia Dooley "Randal Dooley's cruel and evil stepmother."
Ewaschuk called Tony Dooley a coward, saying the father chose deliberately to do nothing to prevent his son's death.
An autopsy on Randal, who weighed just 40 pounds at the time of his death, discovered 13 broken ribs, a lacerated liver and a tooth in his stomach. A pathologist testified the boy had been stomped on and kicked.
"We provide an appeal because it's good for us to have a justice system we can be proud of. It's not for [Tony Dooley]; it's for us," Ruby said Monday, acknowledging the Dooleys were unlikely to receive public sympathy."
The story can be found at:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/randal-dooley-appeal-evidence482.html
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Showing posts with label dooley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dooley. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
MARCIA AND TONY DOOLEY CASE: SMITH OPINION COMES UNDER ATTACK IN ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL ALONG WITH OTHER GROUNDS;
"WHAT THE LAWYERS WILL ARGUE, THIS IN THE WAKE OF THE WELL-DOCUMENTED FALL OF DISGRACED PATHOLOGIST DR. CHARLES SMITH (WHO TESTIFIED AT THIS TRIAL AND WHO, WITH ANOTHER EXPERT WHO TESTIFIED, BELIEVED RANDAL HAD DIED OF A RECENT SUBDURAL HEMATOMA, POSSIBLY CAUSED BY SHAKING, OR BLUNT FORCE, OR BOTH) AND THE DISCREDITED "SHAKEN-IMPACT SYNDROME" THEORY, IS THAT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT UNDERMINES THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PAIR HAD THE REQUISITE INTENT FOR MURDER.
NOTHING, HOWEVER, SIGNIFICANTLY DIMINISHES THE IMPACT OF THE 61 TRIAL WITNESSES AND 92 TRIAL EXHIBITS AND THE HARD TRIAL TRUTH - THAT RANDY WAS THE VICTIM OF A VICIOUS, ESCALATING AND ULTIMATELY FATAL PATTERN OF ABUSE THAT COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THOSE WHO HAD A DUTY TO PROTECT HIM."
COLUMNIST CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD: THE GLOBE AND MAIL;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
""The buildings are cheek-by-jowl in downtown Toronto, their entrances maybe a couple of hundred feet apart," Christie Blatchford's column, published earlier today begins, under the heading, "bloodlessness of appeal belies violent death
Lawyers are now arguing that Randy Dooley's stepmother and father were wrongly convicted of murder."
"But it's a million miles from the trenches where Randy Dooley's parents' murder trial was held in the spring of 2002 to the august Ontario Court of Appeal, where lawyers are now arguing that his stepmother and father were wrongly convicted," the column by Blatchford, who covered the Dooley trial, continues.
""The little boy died on the evening of Sept. 24, 1998, his daddy phoning 911 the next morning to report, rather memorably, "For some reason, it seems like my little son has killed himself or something. He's stiff as a board."
Both Marcia Dooley, Randy's stepmother, and his father Anthony (Tony) Dooley were convicted by a jury almost four years later of second-degree murder.
Though on the evidence heard at the three-month trial, she was found to have been the actual murderer, Mr. Dooley a secondary player or party, the jurors' verdict suggested they accepted the prosecutorial theory that the long-standing abuse of Randy was a joint enterprise.
Their differing degrees of criminal responsibility were reflected in the sentences Ontario Superior Court Judge Eugene Ewaschuk gave them - the missus eligible to apply for parole after 18 years in prison, the mister after 13 years.
In the able hands of Judge Ewaschuk, the trial was a vibrant, living thing, as trials ought to be, and the dead boy - seven years old, three-foot-10-inches tall and 42 pounds, Randal was at autopsy found to have at least 13 broken ribs, a developing pneumonia, a torn liver and adrenal gland and four areas of injury to his brain linked to two separate incidents, one old, one recent - had a presence in the courtroom.
Not so at the appeal court, where bloodlessness is the name of the game, but where even so, Clayton Ruby, the appeal lawyer for Mr. Dooley, yesterday brought matters to a new depth of aseptic dryness.
Mr. Ruby made the argument - it is the first one in his 88-page factum - that Judge Ewaschuk prejudiced the Dooley jurors by describing the dead boy numerous times in his final remarks as "poor, pitiful Randal."
Outside the courthouse on a break, Mr. Ruby said the judge had a duty to remind the jurors to be dispassionate and that by repeatedly saying " 'poor, pitiful Randal,' that alliteration, we say, had the effect of inflaming the jury."
In his factum, he went even further. "There are, regretfully, a large number of judicial comments which refer to 'poor, pitiful Randal,' " Mr. Ruby wrote.
"Indeed, a juror might well think that this was Randal Dooley's proper name."
Har-har-har: There's nothing like having a laugh at an old judge (Judge Ewaschuk is now semi-retired) and a dead kid (now in his grave almost 11 years to the day).
Mr. Ruby appears to be throwing everything but the kitchen sink at this one.
In addition to the miscarriage-of-justice-by-alliteration allegation, he raised the spectre of racism, pointing out that "the opportunities for hatred of and disgust at these two black accused persons in the public mind were numerous," as if Randy, the alleged object of so much misplaced sympathy, was not also black; he argued that because Mr. Dooley wasn't present in the apartment for the last assault upon Randal, he shouldn't have been convicted and said, "If I'm right about that, there should be an acquittal," and today, lawyers for both Dooleys will also argue a "fresh evidence" application.
The fresh evidence in my view hardly lives up to its name in this instance.
What the lawyers will argue, this in the wake of the well-documented fall of disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith (who testified at this trial and who, with another expert who testified, believed Randal had died of a recent subdural hematoma, possibly caused by shaking, or blunt force, or both) and the discredited "shaken-impact syndrome" theory, is that the cumulative effect undermines the conclusion that the pair had the requisite intent for murder.
Nothing, however, significantly diminishes the impact of the 61 trial witnesses and 92 trial exhibits and the hard trial truth - that Randy was the victim of a vicious, escalating and ultimately fatal pattern of abuse that could only have been carried out by those who had a duty to protect him.
As even one of the defence lawyers at trial once wearily agreed, "You don't have to be a brain surgeon to look at Randal's body and see obvious signs of abuse." And only two people had ongoing exclusive access to that little boy.
His parents described his last day as utterly normal, even as they also told the police he had vomited four or five times, wet himself, lost control of his bowels and suffered a seizure such that Marcia Dooley stuck him in a bathtub of cold water and even forced ice on a spoon into his mouth.
As Randy's older brother Teego, then 11, testified - he was in the bathroom when Mrs. Dooley did her trick with the spoon, perhaps breaking off the tooth later found in Randy's tummy at autopsy - he took his little brother out of the tub, dressed him in dry jammies, and lay down beside him.
There is nobility in the trial lawyer's job, and perhaps there's nobility in what lawyers do at the Court of Appeal, and I am merely blind to it. But I am blind, and furious that the appellate Crowns acknowledge in their factum that Judge Ewaschuk's "repeated references to 'poor pitiful Randal' were unnecessary," though they defend them as grounded in evidence and accurate. "No one would quarrel with the sentiment expressed by the trial judge," their factum reads. But, they add, "That sentiment, however had no place in his instruction."
But Judge Ewaschuk was there, in court, every day, as were the jurors, as was I. No one will ever convince me that Randy Dooley was not poor or pitiful, or that jurors should not have heard the judge say he was. He was.. Jurors don't want automatons as judges, even if they may get them in their lawyers.
Oh, and by the way - Randy's brother's name is pronounced Teego (Tea-Go), Mr. Ruby. It does not rhyme with Leggo.
The column can be found at:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/bloodlessness-of-appeal-belies-violent-death/article1296656/
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
NOTHING, HOWEVER, SIGNIFICANTLY DIMINISHES THE IMPACT OF THE 61 TRIAL WITNESSES AND 92 TRIAL EXHIBITS AND THE HARD TRIAL TRUTH - THAT RANDY WAS THE VICTIM OF A VICIOUS, ESCALATING AND ULTIMATELY FATAL PATTERN OF ABUSE THAT COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THOSE WHO HAD A DUTY TO PROTECT HIM."
COLUMNIST CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD: THE GLOBE AND MAIL;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
""The buildings are cheek-by-jowl in downtown Toronto, their entrances maybe a couple of hundred feet apart," Christie Blatchford's column, published earlier today begins, under the heading, "bloodlessness of appeal belies violent death
Lawyers are now arguing that Randy Dooley's stepmother and father were wrongly convicted of murder."
"But it's a million miles from the trenches where Randy Dooley's parents' murder trial was held in the spring of 2002 to the august Ontario Court of Appeal, where lawyers are now arguing that his stepmother and father were wrongly convicted," the column by Blatchford, who covered the Dooley trial, continues.
""The little boy died on the evening of Sept. 24, 1998, his daddy phoning 911 the next morning to report, rather memorably, "For some reason, it seems like my little son has killed himself or something. He's stiff as a board."
Both Marcia Dooley, Randy's stepmother, and his father Anthony (Tony) Dooley were convicted by a jury almost four years later of second-degree murder.
Though on the evidence heard at the three-month trial, she was found to have been the actual murderer, Mr. Dooley a secondary player or party, the jurors' verdict suggested they accepted the prosecutorial theory that the long-standing abuse of Randy was a joint enterprise.
Their differing degrees of criminal responsibility were reflected in the sentences Ontario Superior Court Judge Eugene Ewaschuk gave them - the missus eligible to apply for parole after 18 years in prison, the mister after 13 years.
In the able hands of Judge Ewaschuk, the trial was a vibrant, living thing, as trials ought to be, and the dead boy - seven years old, three-foot-10-inches tall and 42 pounds, Randal was at autopsy found to have at least 13 broken ribs, a developing pneumonia, a torn liver and adrenal gland and four areas of injury to his brain linked to two separate incidents, one old, one recent - had a presence in the courtroom.
Not so at the appeal court, where bloodlessness is the name of the game, but where even so, Clayton Ruby, the appeal lawyer for Mr. Dooley, yesterday brought matters to a new depth of aseptic dryness.
Mr. Ruby made the argument - it is the first one in his 88-page factum - that Judge Ewaschuk prejudiced the Dooley jurors by describing the dead boy numerous times in his final remarks as "poor, pitiful Randal."
Outside the courthouse on a break, Mr. Ruby said the judge had a duty to remind the jurors to be dispassionate and that by repeatedly saying " 'poor, pitiful Randal,' that alliteration, we say, had the effect of inflaming the jury."
In his factum, he went even further. "There are, regretfully, a large number of judicial comments which refer to 'poor, pitiful Randal,' " Mr. Ruby wrote.
"Indeed, a juror might well think that this was Randal Dooley's proper name."
Har-har-har: There's nothing like having a laugh at an old judge (Judge Ewaschuk is now semi-retired) and a dead kid (now in his grave almost 11 years to the day).
Mr. Ruby appears to be throwing everything but the kitchen sink at this one.
In addition to the miscarriage-of-justice-by-alliteration allegation, he raised the spectre of racism, pointing out that "the opportunities for hatred of and disgust at these two black accused persons in the public mind were numerous," as if Randy, the alleged object of so much misplaced sympathy, was not also black; he argued that because Mr. Dooley wasn't present in the apartment for the last assault upon Randal, he shouldn't have been convicted and said, "If I'm right about that, there should be an acquittal," and today, lawyers for both Dooleys will also argue a "fresh evidence" application.
The fresh evidence in my view hardly lives up to its name in this instance.
What the lawyers will argue, this in the wake of the well-documented fall of disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith (who testified at this trial and who, with another expert who testified, believed Randal had died of a recent subdural hematoma, possibly caused by shaking, or blunt force, or both) and the discredited "shaken-impact syndrome" theory, is that the cumulative effect undermines the conclusion that the pair had the requisite intent for murder.
Nothing, however, significantly diminishes the impact of the 61 trial witnesses and 92 trial exhibits and the hard trial truth - that Randy was the victim of a vicious, escalating and ultimately fatal pattern of abuse that could only have been carried out by those who had a duty to protect him.
As even one of the defence lawyers at trial once wearily agreed, "You don't have to be a brain surgeon to look at Randal's body and see obvious signs of abuse." And only two people had ongoing exclusive access to that little boy.
His parents described his last day as utterly normal, even as they also told the police he had vomited four or five times, wet himself, lost control of his bowels and suffered a seizure such that Marcia Dooley stuck him in a bathtub of cold water and even forced ice on a spoon into his mouth.
As Randy's older brother Teego, then 11, testified - he was in the bathroom when Mrs. Dooley did her trick with the spoon, perhaps breaking off the tooth later found in Randy's tummy at autopsy - he took his little brother out of the tub, dressed him in dry jammies, and lay down beside him.
There is nobility in the trial lawyer's job, and perhaps there's nobility in what lawyers do at the Court of Appeal, and I am merely blind to it. But I am blind, and furious that the appellate Crowns acknowledge in their factum that Judge Ewaschuk's "repeated references to 'poor pitiful Randal' were unnecessary," though they defend them as grounded in evidence and accurate. "No one would quarrel with the sentiment expressed by the trial judge," their factum reads. But, they add, "That sentiment, however had no place in his instruction."
But Judge Ewaschuk was there, in court, every day, as were the jurors, as was I. No one will ever convince me that Randy Dooley was not poor or pitiful, or that jurors should not have heard the judge say he was. He was.. Jurors don't want automatons as judges, even if they may get them in their lawyers.
Oh, and by the way - Randy's brother's name is pronounced Teego (Tea-Go), Mr. Ruby. It does not rhyme with Leggo.
The column can be found at:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/bloodlessness-of-appeal-belies-violent-death/article1296656/
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Smith And the Media; Part One: Why The Media Share Some Of The Blame;
DR. SMITH IS A GENTLE MAN, AND A RELIGIOUS ONE"..."GOD LOVES THE LITTLE CHILDREN," HE WHISPERED TO ME ON HIS WAY OUT OF COURT. "AS A CHRISTIAN, I WONDERED HOW DID THE LOVE OF GOD EVER PENETRATE THAT BEDROOM?"
REPORTER CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD: GLOBE AND MAIL;
One of the untold stories of the Charles Smith saga is the role that the media played in conveying the image of the brilliant, competent, wise, sensitive and caring Dr. Charles Randal Smith.
A perfect example of this phenomena is a Christie Blatchford story published in the Globe and Mail on April 18, 2002, during the gruesome trial of Tony and Marcia Dooley in connection with the death of their son Randall.
"Another day, when Dr. Charles Smith, a pediatric pathologist who has performed autopsies upon the bodies of hundreds and hundreds of children, was testifying, he could not help but remember his visit, the day Randy was found dead, to the Dooley townhouse and the small second-floor room where the boy slowly died," Blatchford wrote.
"Dr. Smith is a gentle man, and a religious one.
"God loves the little children," he whispered to me on his way out of court. "As a Christian, I wondered, how did the love of God ever penetrate that bedroom?"
Once, on his way to the downtown courthouse from the farm north of the city where he raises beef cattle, Dr. Smith thought of his own baby son, who died years ago of birth defects.
"I remembered how my wife and I willed him to live," he said. "If only I could have transferred some of that here."
And one day, this while Dr. Smith was using a video monitor to display some of the autopsy pictures of Randy's terrible injuries, he came into the courtroom a little early after the lunch break.
Up on his monitor, for just a minute before things resumed, were pictures of a darling baby calf, just born the Saturday before.
"On March 2," Dr. Smith said, making it as important a thing as it was. "At noon."
There on the monitor was Wedgewood Micah, born of Royal Lady, getting his very first bath from his mum, who licked and nuzzled him clean.
Dr. Smith carefully explained to me that when a calf is first born, the mother imprints her voice on him by lowing, with all the other cows gathering around to low too, so the calf learns to distinguish from all the voices the one calling him home."
Something is wrong with this picture.
Smith, an important witness for the Crown, is giving a columnist for a major National newspaper an interview on the very case he is testifying on in court, full of inflammatory content which risks harming the two accused persons before the court.
I have reported many murder cases over the years and cannot recollect a single case where the forensic expert didn't say words to the effect of, "I will be pleased to talk to you, Mr. Levy. After this this trial is over. "
In many trials, the expert declined any comment on the basis that a new trial might be ordered if there was a successful appealed and he or she did not want to do anything that would risk prejudicing the right of the accused person to a fair trial.
Here is another example of the way reporters used to routinely canonize Dr. Charles Randal Smith.
It is a story by my former Toronto Star colleagues Kevin Donovan and Moira Welsh, on the case of Tammy Marquhardt who had been charged with murdering her child.
"Charles Smith, pathologist, cleans up after other people's mistakes, the kind made by children's aid workers and doctors who miss or fail to act on the warning signs of children at risk," the story reads.
"His tools consist of a scalpel and scissors. The dead children he examines, most are just babies, require nothing more.
When he has completed each autopsy there is not much left of the child, just an empty sack really.
In the blinding light of his autopsy room, Ontario's leading pediatric forensic pathologist sees all the missed opportunities that could have saved a life.
And then he gently puts the child's body into a bag, and goes on to the next case."
Donovan and Welsh go on to describe the injury Smith detected by Smith as a “Spiral fracture" noting that "Too often this indicator of child abuse – a type of broken leg or arm - is dismissed as accidental by doctors. And children's aid does not think dirty. "
"Experts like Smith say this fracture of the long bone in the arm or leg typically comes from an abuser violently twisting a small limb," Donovan and Welsh continue. "All fractures in small children should be investigated but spiral fractures are red flags. .."
Something is wrong in this picture too.
As Dr. Michael Pollanen testified in the Ontario Court of Appeal, thinking dirty leads to miscarriages of justice... The forensic pathologist must approach his or her work neutrally as an objective scientist. (See previous posting: "Mullins-Johnson Acquittal Notable Quotes);
In an another story - about Jordan Heicamp, a child deprived of necessities by his mother under the watchful eyes of the Toronto Catholic Children’s Aid Society, Donovan and Welsh wrote:
"The sight of Jordan’s emaciated body sickened Dr. Charles Smith, a hospital pathologist who has seen hundreds of abused and neglected children."
"Smith, who describes himself as a "strong Christian," was so upset when he saw Jordan's body that he did something he never does. He swore "Holy s---," Smith said. His pathology assistant looked up in surprise," they continued.
"Smith's gentle, quiet manner is well-known by police, prosecutors and the coroner's office, who frequently rely on him when investigating child deaths.
Smith has seen every manner of abuse on the autopsy table: a child whose skin has been "degloved" by scalding water; a baby kicked and punched to death; a little girl bludgeoned to death with a hard piece of plastic pipe.
He worked in Nigeria as a young doctor 20 years ago and saw many babies who died of starvation.
"I had seen starvation in northern Nigeria after I finished medical school and this was so awful that, for a moment, I forgot myself."
"For a brief moment my tongue was not under control. This was as bad as it gets. This little wee body with ribs sticking up, just covered by skin. This was worse than anything I ever saw in Africa. For days before this baby died anybody who looked at him would have known he was in trouble.
"For him, (Smith) Jordan is also the one who so obviously fits the child protection definition of "a child at risk. "
Smith oversees much of the forensic pediatric pathology work in the province.
Another pathologist, Dr. Ernest Cutz, did the autopsy, but Smith went in to view the body and, as he so often does, make sure that the child in death receives better care than the child did in life. "
I have talked to reporters who were shocked to learn that the man they had written about so glowingly was now accused of being responsible for more miscarriages of justice than any other person in Canadian history.
To a large extent they were sucked in like the judges, police and prosecutors who allowed their horror of sexual crimes against children to cause them to suspend their usual critical judgment when it came to dealing with Dr. Charles Smith.
But there is more at play here.
Some reporters told me that Smith had an uncanny way of attracting the media: He was accessible, articulate, intense - (read photogenic) - welcomed the cameras in his labs, appeared genuinely sympathetic, provided excellent copy and knew all of the buttons to push in order to get placed above the fold.
The Goudge Inquiry has commissioned a wide variety of research papers to try and explain phenomena connected with Dr. Smith.
It's too bad the Inquiry is not looking into the role the media played in facilitating the rise of Dr. Charles Randal Smith and uncritically selling his image to the public.
Such a project might prove worthwhile.
Other posts in the "Smith and the Media" series:
Part Five: Taking on Charles Smith: A second example of fearless journalism;
Part Four: Fifth Estate probe triggers a plea to Premier Mike Harris for Inquiry into Smith cases;
Part Three: Smith of the North;
Part Two: Smith goes to India;
Harold Levy;
Previous posting: Pollanen;
Latest posting;
REPORTER CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD: GLOBE AND MAIL;
One of the untold stories of the Charles Smith saga is the role that the media played in conveying the image of the brilliant, competent, wise, sensitive and caring Dr. Charles Randal Smith.
A perfect example of this phenomena is a Christie Blatchford story published in the Globe and Mail on April 18, 2002, during the gruesome trial of Tony and Marcia Dooley in connection with the death of their son Randall.
"Another day, when Dr. Charles Smith, a pediatric pathologist who has performed autopsies upon the bodies of hundreds and hundreds of children, was testifying, he could not help but remember his visit, the day Randy was found dead, to the Dooley townhouse and the small second-floor room where the boy slowly died," Blatchford wrote.
"Dr. Smith is a gentle man, and a religious one.
"God loves the little children," he whispered to me on his way out of court. "As a Christian, I wondered, how did the love of God ever penetrate that bedroom?"
Once, on his way to the downtown courthouse from the farm north of the city where he raises beef cattle, Dr. Smith thought of his own baby son, who died years ago of birth defects.
"I remembered how my wife and I willed him to live," he said. "If only I could have transferred some of that here."
And one day, this while Dr. Smith was using a video monitor to display some of the autopsy pictures of Randy's terrible injuries, he came into the courtroom a little early after the lunch break.
Up on his monitor, for just a minute before things resumed, were pictures of a darling baby calf, just born the Saturday before.
"On March 2," Dr. Smith said, making it as important a thing as it was. "At noon."
There on the monitor was Wedgewood Micah, born of Royal Lady, getting his very first bath from his mum, who licked and nuzzled him clean.
Dr. Smith carefully explained to me that when a calf is first born, the mother imprints her voice on him by lowing, with all the other cows gathering around to low too, so the calf learns to distinguish from all the voices the one calling him home."
Something is wrong with this picture.
Smith, an important witness for the Crown, is giving a columnist for a major National newspaper an interview on the very case he is testifying on in court, full of inflammatory content which risks harming the two accused persons before the court.
I have reported many murder cases over the years and cannot recollect a single case where the forensic expert didn't say words to the effect of, "I will be pleased to talk to you, Mr. Levy. After this this trial is over. "
In many trials, the expert declined any comment on the basis that a new trial might be ordered if there was a successful appealed and he or she did not want to do anything that would risk prejudicing the right of the accused person to a fair trial.
Here is another example of the way reporters used to routinely canonize Dr. Charles Randal Smith.
It is a story by my former Toronto Star colleagues Kevin Donovan and Moira Welsh, on the case of Tammy Marquhardt who had been charged with murdering her child.
"Charles Smith, pathologist, cleans up after other people's mistakes, the kind made by children's aid workers and doctors who miss or fail to act on the warning signs of children at risk," the story reads.
"His tools consist of a scalpel and scissors. The dead children he examines, most are just babies, require nothing more.
When he has completed each autopsy there is not much left of the child, just an empty sack really.
In the blinding light of his autopsy room, Ontario's leading pediatric forensic pathologist sees all the missed opportunities that could have saved a life.
And then he gently puts the child's body into a bag, and goes on to the next case."
Donovan and Welsh go on to describe the injury Smith detected by Smith as a “Spiral fracture" noting that "Too often this indicator of child abuse – a type of broken leg or arm - is dismissed as accidental by doctors. And children's aid does not think dirty. "
"Experts like Smith say this fracture of the long bone in the arm or leg typically comes from an abuser violently twisting a small limb," Donovan and Welsh continue. "All fractures in small children should be investigated but spiral fractures are red flags. .."
Something is wrong in this picture too.
As Dr. Michael Pollanen testified in the Ontario Court of Appeal, thinking dirty leads to miscarriages of justice... The forensic pathologist must approach his or her work neutrally as an objective scientist. (See previous posting: "Mullins-Johnson Acquittal Notable Quotes);
In an another story - about Jordan Heicamp, a child deprived of necessities by his mother under the watchful eyes of the Toronto Catholic Children’s Aid Society, Donovan and Welsh wrote:
"The sight of Jordan’s emaciated body sickened Dr. Charles Smith, a hospital pathologist who has seen hundreds of abused and neglected children."
"Smith, who describes himself as a "strong Christian," was so upset when he saw Jordan's body that he did something he never does. He swore "Holy s---," Smith said. His pathology assistant looked up in surprise," they continued.
"Smith's gentle, quiet manner is well-known by police, prosecutors and the coroner's office, who frequently rely on him when investigating child deaths.
Smith has seen every manner of abuse on the autopsy table: a child whose skin has been "degloved" by scalding water; a baby kicked and punched to death; a little girl bludgeoned to death with a hard piece of plastic pipe.
He worked in Nigeria as a young doctor 20 years ago and saw many babies who died of starvation.
"I had seen starvation in northern Nigeria after I finished medical school and this was so awful that, for a moment, I forgot myself."
"For a brief moment my tongue was not under control. This was as bad as it gets. This little wee body with ribs sticking up, just covered by skin. This was worse than anything I ever saw in Africa. For days before this baby died anybody who looked at him would have known he was in trouble.
"For him, (Smith) Jordan is also the one who so obviously fits the child protection definition of "a child at risk. "
Smith oversees much of the forensic pediatric pathology work in the province.
Another pathologist, Dr. Ernest Cutz, did the autopsy, but Smith went in to view the body and, as he so often does, make sure that the child in death receives better care than the child did in life. "
I have talked to reporters who were shocked to learn that the man they had written about so glowingly was now accused of being responsible for more miscarriages of justice than any other person in Canadian history.
To a large extent they were sucked in like the judges, police and prosecutors who allowed their horror of sexual crimes against children to cause them to suspend their usual critical judgment when it came to dealing with Dr. Charles Smith.
But there is more at play here.
Some reporters told me that Smith had an uncanny way of attracting the media: He was accessible, articulate, intense - (read photogenic) - welcomed the cameras in his labs, appeared genuinely sympathetic, provided excellent copy and knew all of the buttons to push in order to get placed above the fold.
The Goudge Inquiry has commissioned a wide variety of research papers to try and explain phenomena connected with Dr. Smith.
It's too bad the Inquiry is not looking into the role the media played in facilitating the rise of Dr. Charles Randal Smith and uncritically selling his image to the public.
Such a project might prove worthwhile.
Other posts in the "Smith and the Media" series:
Part Five: Taking on Charles Smith: A second example of fearless journalism;
Part Four: Fifth Estate probe triggers a plea to Premier Mike Harris for Inquiry into Smith cases;
Part Three: Smith of the North;
Part Two: Smith goes to India;
Harold Levy;
Previous posting: Pollanen;
Latest posting;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
