MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: WHY DID YOU FEEL THAT YOUR LAWSUIT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO TO FUND?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: THE -- THE ISSUE OF THE LAWSUIT WAS ONE (1) WHICH I HAD DESCRIBED WITH DR. YOUNG AND -- OR I HAD DISCUSSED, I'M SORRY, WITH DR. YOUNG. AND IT WAS AS A RESULT OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS THAT -- THAT DR. YOUNG HAD GIVEN ME HIS ADVICE ON WHAT -- WHAT HE THOUGHT WOULD BE REASONABLE FOR ME, AND AS PART OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS, INDICATED THAT -- THAT, AS BEST I RECALL, THAT IN HIS ROLE, EITHER AS CHIEF CORONER OR AS ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER, THAT -- THAT HE COULD SEEK FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR A LAWSUIT.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR. CHARLES SMITH: GOUDGE INQUIRY; JANUARY 29, 2008;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As my brains started waking up this morning - with the help of a steaming cup of coffee - I started thinking about former Chief Coroner Dr. James Young's evidence that he helped secure government funding for Dr. Charles Smith's law suit against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in connection with a blistering "Fifth Estate" documentary that was highly critical both of Dr Smith and the Chief Coroner's Office;
(I am currently waiting for a response to my application under Ontario's access to information legislation for documents relating to Dr. Young's testimony at the Goudge Inquiry);
It occurred to me that Dr. Young's evidence was just one side of the story.
Was it possible that Dr. Smith had been asked about this during his five days of testimony - and that somehow I had missed it?
Sure enough, I discovered that Dr. Smith had been questioned directly on the point on JANUARY 29, 2008, while under cross-examination by Commission Counsel Linda Rothstein;
That testimony reads as follows:
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: We'll come back to it. Do you recall asking Dr. Young to obtain government funding with respect to your lawsuit against the Fifth Estate?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: I -- I don't know if I asked him or he offered it, but -- but yes, that conversation did occur.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Why did you feel that your lawsuit was appropriate for the Government of Ontario to fund?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: The -- the issue of the lawsuit was one (1) which I had described with Dr. Young and -- or I had discussed, I'm sorry, with Dr. Young. And it was as a result of those discussions that -- that Dr. Young had given me his advice on what -- what he thought would be reasonable for me, and as part of those discussions, indicated that -- that, as best I recall, that in his role, either as Chief Coroner or as Assistant Deputy Minister, that -- that he could seek financial support for a lawsuit.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: But, Dr. Smith, didn't the Fifth Estate raise the very issues with respect to Nicholas' case and Amber's case that you've now acknowledged in your written evidence; the same issues that you've acknowledged manifested errors by you?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: The -- the Fifth Estate did point to issues, but at the same time, I think that I minimized or rationalized some of those issues or errors by things like the fact that I was supported by opinions of others, which came -- which -- which lay similar to mine or supported mine. (A)nd so the -- and so as I explained yesterday, I -- I think I minimized them and -- and reacted to them as -- to make them go away, as opposed to try to dissect through and -- and determine the truth or the kernel of the issues.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Would it be fair to say you were trying to fend off any criticism of you to the extent you could?
DR. CHARLES SMITH: Yes. Absolutely. Yes. Yes. That was part of the discussion that had gone on with Dr. Young as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those readers who are unfamiliar with this controversy, here is the most recent posting:
"Thirty days have passed since this Blog made an application under Ontario's freedom of information legislation for documents relating to evidence given by Dr. James Young to the Goudge Inquiry;
The application pertains to Dr. Young's evidence that he got the Ontario Government to help finance Dr. Charles Smith's private libel suit against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in connection with a "Fifth Estate" documentary.
The information should have been provided to this Blog by April 3, 2008.
No information was received.
Technically, I have the right to appeal the lack of a response to the Provinces Information and Privacy Commissioner.
I have, however, decided not to take precipitous action because after discussing the situation with an official in the Ministry of Community Safety and Corrections.
The official explained that the delay was due to a high volume of requests and indicated that searches for relevant documents had already been executed at the Chief Coroner's Office and at the Ontario Government's legal services department;
The apology is accepted and I look forward to receiving the response - whatever that might be - within the next two weeks as indicated by the official.
I will keep our readers posted.
For those readers who are not familiar with the issue, here is the early blog as posted on March 3, 2008;
"The Charles Smith Blog is filing a request today for information relating to the Ontario government's partial funding of a libel suit brought personally by Dr. Charles Smith against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in connection with a hard-hitting Fifth Estate documentary;
The application, under Ontario's Freedom of Information legislation, is based on Dr. Young's testimony to the Goudge Inquiry as set out in a previous posting: "Young tells Inquiry he persuaded Ontario government to fund Dr. Charles Smith's libel suit against the CBC: Abuse of Office? December 3, 2007".
Ths Bloggist believes that there should be a public investigation into how public funds came to be used fund a private lawsuit against the CBC - an issue with important constitutional ramifications - but until that happens this application will have to do.
The Blog ran as follows:
"I -- I PASSED ON A MESSAGE FROM OUR LEGAL BRANCH, WHO HAD DISCUSSED IT WITHIN THE MINISTRY AND SAID THEY WOULD TO A VERY LIMITED EXTENT, THAT THEY WOULD PAY A SMALL AMOUNT TOWARDS THE --THE CASE."
FORMER CHIEF CORONER DR. JAMES YOUNG TO GOUDGE INQUIRY;
I am extremely troubled by former Chief Coroner Dr. James Young's evidence that he persuaded the Ontario government to financially back a private libel suit brought by Dr. Charles Smith against the CBC in connection with a hard-hitting documentary produced by the "Fifth Estate;" (The entire documentary can be found in previous postings: Interrogation of an innocent mother: Parts eleven to fourteen);
The groundbreaking documentary, telecast on Nov. 10. 1999 was highly critical of Dr. Smith's competence and credibility. (See earlier posting: Smith and the media; Part four; Fifth Estate probe triggers plea to Premier Mike Harris for inquiry into Smith cases; Deaf ears;)
It included interviews with the mother of a deceased child, Deputy Chief Coroner Dr. James Cairns, who was very supportive of Dr. Smith, and several medical experts who were critical of Smith's work in the cases examined by the program,
I am reprinting Dr. Young's testimony to the Inquiry earlier this week in full, so that the readers of this Blog can make their own judgment of the propriety of Dr. Young's actions;.
(Inquiry lawyer): MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Now, we see, again, skipping ahead in time a little bit, that -- that Dr. Smith has filed a statement of claim against the CBC. And it's dated February of 2000, which would be not that long after the -- the matter was originally televised. And did you become aware of the existence of the statement of claim against The Fifth Estate?
DR. JAMES YOUNG: I became aware that he was going to issue a statement of claim.
MR. MARK SANDLER: And how did you become aware of that?
DR. JAMES YOUNG: I believe he asked me whether or not the Ministry would support -- would help with the legal fees if -- if he proceeded.
MR. MARK SANDLER: And did you get back to him about that?
DR. JAMES YOUNG: I did.
MR. MARK SANDLER: And what did you tell him?
DR. JAMES YOUNG: I -- I passed on a message from our legal branch, who had discussed it within the Ministry and said they would to a very limited extent, that they would pay a small amount towards the -- the case.
MR. MARK SANDLER: And did you support the -- the determination that at least to some extent he would be financially assisted, if he chose to go that route, by the Ministry?
DR. JAMES YOUNG: I believe I probably did. I remember bringing it forward for consideration, which was first and foremost what I agreed to do. I -- I probably said to a -- some limited extent we should -- we should back him on this.
MR. MARK SANDLER: Well, the question that arises is that to a limited extent you indicated to the Ministry that we should back him on this without having heard the telecast, without have read its contents, and without being in any position to
independently form an opinion as to whether there was any merit at all to his statement of claim?
DR. JAMES YOUNG: No. First of all, I've said I don't know if I said that, whether I backed him. I may have or I may not have, but I think I did -- probably did. The other issues that were going on at the time, within government, were that we were having discussions both with coroners and pathologists about issues around liability, workplace safety, providing lawyers for other hearings, et cetera.
And -- and it was becoming a very difficult matter when -- as -- as the number of things were increasing, they were saying, You know, if we're going to do the work for government, we expect support from government in return. So I remember that being an issue at the time, and I remember supporting it for that reason, that
I felt that it was important that we back the -- the people that are doing the work for us. If we're not prepared to back them, then we're not going to have them working for us. It was that simple."
Here is what troubles this Blogster.
First, the Government of Ontario;
If in fact the Ontario government did secretly throw money into Dr. Smith's private lawsuit - even one cent - there has been an extremely grave violation of the constitutionally protected right of Canadians to Freedom of Expression.
Lawsuits against the media are very dangerous because they can have a chilling effect - and can discourage the media from reporting fearlessly while the matter is awaiting trial.
Any government that secretly uses public dollars to support a private lawsuit - especially one launched in connection with a documentary that was critical of the Chief Coroner's office which is under the aegis of Ministry of the Solicitor General - crosses a very dangerous line.
Dr. Smith kept his lawsuit hanging over the CBC for years before ultimately dropping it) - just as he had sued Macleans for a brilliant expose on Smith by reporter Jane O'Hara only to drop it before trial; (See previous posting: Smith and the Media: Part Five; Taking on Charles Smith; A second example of fearless journalism);
At the moment, we have no proof that the government did, in fact, help fund the lawsuit - just Dr. Young's testimony under oath at the Inquiry.
But Dr. Young's testimony puts a very strong onus on the McGuinty government to clear the air and tell us whether this happened or not.
If it did occur, questions abound;
Who in the Ministry's legal department approved and facilitated the funding?
What elected officials or civil servants in the Ministry gave their approval?
Have the individuals involved been brought to account?
If not, will they be brought to account?
Has there been a breach of ethical obligations by the politicians and civil servants involved?
Now for Dr. Young.
I am astounded that alarm bells didn't go off in his head when Dr. Smith asked him to persuade the government to help fund his lawsuit against the CBC - that he didn't realize at once that such a course of action could be perceived as an abuse of his office.
In this Blogster's view, Dr. Young's actions were aggravated by the fact that he signed a letter intended for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario which had been drafted by Dr. Smith's lawyers.
Dr. Young testified that he did not change a single word of this letter in which he defended Dr. Smith on the three complaints that had been filed against him - (and one of these complaints occupied a central role in the CBC documentary that was subject to the libel suit he wanted the Ontario government to help fund).
I, personally, find it very difficult to understand why Dr. Young would have asked the government to help pay for Dr. Smith's lawsuit in light of his sworn evidence that he had not seen the broadcast, he had not read its contents, and he was not in any position to independently ascertain the merit of Dr. Smith's statement of claim.
I will leave it for the readers of this Blog to decide if they accept Dr. Young's explanation that, "If we're (the coroners and pathologists) going to do the work for the government, we expect support from government in return."
I also find it very difficult to understand why Dr. Young just couldn't say "no" to Dr. Smith."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Showing posts with label libel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label libel. Show all posts
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
Pathology of Lies: Part Two: Smith The Intimidator; Battling Against Truth And Accountability;
One aspect of Dr. Charles Smith's pathology is a tendency to call others "liars" - especially when they are speaking the truth.
A classic example is the $4 million lawsuit he launched against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in connection with the Fifth Estate documentary "Diagnosis Murder", which exposed the enormous harm Dr. Smith caused to innocent parents and caregivers within Ontario's criminal justice system.
Smith claimed a whopping $2 million in general damages for libel and $2 million punitive damages from the CBC in in his statement of claim, dated February 8, 2000, which was filed as an exhibit at the Goudge Inquiry.
The legal basis of the claim was that the broadcast was "malicious, false and libelous of him (Smith) personally and in the profession", and that it contained "false defamatory innuendoes".
More specifically, it alleged that the impugned aspects of the program would make people believe that:
"(B)ased on the plaintiff's involvement in the review of the three pediatric deaths described in the broadcast, the plaintiff in the performance of his duties as a pediatric forensic pathologist is incompetent."
How misleading!
"(T)hat the plaintiff is not qualified to perform he role of pediatric forensic pathologist;
How dare they suggest that!
"The plaintiff is primarily responsible for miscarriages of justice in the first and second pediatric deaths described in the Broadcast and perhaps is primarily responsible for a miscarriage of justice in the third pediatric death described in the broadcast!
Moi? How could that possibly be true?
As a result of these unwarranted calumnies, Smith went on to say that he "personally and in the way of his profession has been greatly injured in his credit and his reputation and has been brought into scandal, odium, hatred ridicule, contempt and has suffered damage."
Poor Charles...
(The CBC was unaware at the time Smith had asked former Chief Coroner, Dr. James Young, to ask the Ontario Government to help back his private lawsuit with public funds - and the government pulled through!);
(See earlier posting: Goudge Inquiry: Young tells inquiry he persuaded Ontario Government to help fund Dr. Charles Smith's lawsuit against the CBC);
Dr. Smith's lawsuit CBC never played out in a courtroom. (It's probably the last thing he have ever wanted)!
Instead he left it hanging over the CBC like a dark cloud - a stark message to the CBC and any other media that might be tempted to portray the truth about him, that there would be consequences.
This was Smith the intimidator.
The same Dr. Smith who allegedly tried to brow-beat an Ontario Provincial Police Officer who pulled him over for speeding by threatening to curtail his office's investigations of deaths of children in her area if she insisted on giving him a ticket.
See previous postings: Goudge Inquiry: The OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) letter; Was this the real Dr. Charles Smith; Parts one, two, three and four: December, 2007);
Smith also lashed out against Macleans Magazine in connection with a feature article by reporter Jane O'Hara which, as we have seen from the evidence called at the Goudge Inquiry, has also withstood the sands of time;
Information he gave O'Hara during the course of a lengthy interview about two elaborate conversations he purported to have with a judge has been proven, during the course of the Inquiry, to be an utter fabrication.
(To think that he had the nerve to sue O'Hara and Macleans for not telling the truth!)
It is mind-boggling.
If only he had taken the stories to heart - and learned from them - instead of blasting away defensively in the courts.
Things might have turned out very differently.
Dr. Smith also fought to keep the truth about him from emerging on three other fronts:
The courts; (His legal battle to prevent any one from suing him for any alleged misconduct on the basis that he was a witness and therefore enjoyed absolute witness immunity);
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario; (His efforts, backed up by the Chief Coroner, Dr. James Young, to persuade the College that it did not have the legal jurisdiction to hear complaints against pathologists for work done on behalf of the Chief Coroner's Office, and;
Public Opinion: His lawyer's efforts to play down suggestions that Dr. Smith was responsible for miscarriages of justice while sending out the message that he he was only responsible for mistakes and errors - a theme which Dr. Smith played out to the hilt in his testimony at the Inquiry.
First, the courts; For about five years, Dr. Smith fended off law-suits - with their potential to compell him to testify and produce documents - with his arcane legal argument that he could not be sued because of a common law doctrine intended encourage people testify in legal proceedings without fear of being sued.
The Ontario Court of Appeal finally opened a door to lawsuits from the people affected by his work, by ruling that the lawsuits were focused on his death investigations – and not on the testimony he later gave in court.
Second: The College; Smith, took the legal position, that the College had no jurisdiction to investigate complaints against him for the reasons referred to above.
We now know, from evidence called at the Goudge Inquiry, that Dr. James Young, the Chief Coroner of the day, attempted to get the College to decline to receive the complaints and forward them to his office where they would be dealt with internally.
Ultimately, the Ontario Health Professions Review Board ruled against Smith and Young, and the three complaints could finally proceed - but not without significant delay and aggravation for the complainants;
A scary thought: If Dr. Smith had managed to fend off both the courts and the College he would have been totally without any external public accountability
(While, at the same time, as we know from the evidence called at the Inquiry, he was not being subjected to internal accountability by either his superiors at the Hospital For Sick Children or in the Chief Coroner's office);
Lastly, the spin being put on Dr. Smith's work by his lawyers is illustrated by a legal document they filed at the outset of the Inquiry.
As I set out in an earlier posting: "Lawyers representing Dr. Charles Smith claim some media incorrectly reported that an independent review found he had "erred" in his work, engaged in "misconduct" - and that his actions had, "directly resulted in miscarriages of justice."
Smith's lawyers make these allegations in a "factum" filed at the Goudge Inquiry on Smith's application to have his own lawyers elicit his evidence "in chief."
The lawyers refer to a "background paper" released by Dr. Barry McLellan, Chief Coroner of Ontario at that time, which announced the result of an independent inquiry of criminally suspicious and homicide cases where Dr. Charles Smith conducted autopsies or provided opinions.
"The Office of the Chief Coroner revealed that in 20 of the 45 cases, the reviewers "had some issue with the opinion of Dr. Smith that appeared in a written report, testimony in Court, or both," the lawyers say in the factum.
"Moreover, the Chief Coroner advised that there were "restrictions of liberty arising from findings of guilt, including 12 convictions and one finding of not criminally responsible, in 13 of those cases where the reviewers did not agree with significant facts or with the interpretation of the examinations conducted."
But Smith's lawyers contend that, "despite the absence of any indication in the Backgrounder that Dr. Smith had "erred" in his work, or that he had engaged in any misconduct, subsequent media coverage of the "Backgrounder" described a "revelation of errors" in Dr. Smith's work."
They also allege that, "Moreover, because the Office of the Chief Coroner advised that some of the cases in which concerns were identified had resulted in convictions, the public perception created by the media coverage was that Dr. Smith's "errors" had directly resulted in miscarriages of justice."
The "factum" also alleges that media coverage of government announcements relating to the Inquiry were "highly prejudicial"..." referring to Dr. Smith himself as "an error prone pathologist", and questioning whether his work was "reckless" or "inept.";
(See earlier posting: Smith and the media: Part Six; Smith's lawyers criticize media;)
But no lawyer's tactic could ever contain the ugly truth's about Dr. Smith that were ultimately exposed in the courts, through the College, and at the Inquiry - all of which proved to be beyond Dr. Smith's control and influence.
We have learned that he was not only a liar - both inside and outside of court - but also that he did his best to prevent others from learning the truth, and to defy accountability.
A very calculating and intimidating man.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
A classic example is the $4 million lawsuit he launched against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in connection with the Fifth Estate documentary "Diagnosis Murder", which exposed the enormous harm Dr. Smith caused to innocent parents and caregivers within Ontario's criminal justice system.
Smith claimed a whopping $2 million in general damages for libel and $2 million punitive damages from the CBC in in his statement of claim, dated February 8, 2000, which was filed as an exhibit at the Goudge Inquiry.
The legal basis of the claim was that the broadcast was "malicious, false and libelous of him (Smith) personally and in the profession", and that it contained "false defamatory innuendoes".
More specifically, it alleged that the impugned aspects of the program would make people believe that:
"(B)ased on the plaintiff's involvement in the review of the three pediatric deaths described in the broadcast, the plaintiff in the performance of his duties as a pediatric forensic pathologist is incompetent."
How misleading!
"(T)hat the plaintiff is not qualified to perform he role of pediatric forensic pathologist;
How dare they suggest that!
"The plaintiff is primarily responsible for miscarriages of justice in the first and second pediatric deaths described in the Broadcast and perhaps is primarily responsible for a miscarriage of justice in the third pediatric death described in the broadcast!
Moi? How could that possibly be true?
As a result of these unwarranted calumnies, Smith went on to say that he "personally and in the way of his profession has been greatly injured in his credit and his reputation and has been brought into scandal, odium, hatred ridicule, contempt and has suffered damage."
Poor Charles...
(The CBC was unaware at the time Smith had asked former Chief Coroner, Dr. James Young, to ask the Ontario Government to help back his private lawsuit with public funds - and the government pulled through!);
(See earlier posting: Goudge Inquiry: Young tells inquiry he persuaded Ontario Government to help fund Dr. Charles Smith's lawsuit against the CBC);
Dr. Smith's lawsuit CBC never played out in a courtroom. (It's probably the last thing he have ever wanted)!
Instead he left it hanging over the CBC like a dark cloud - a stark message to the CBC and any other media that might be tempted to portray the truth about him, that there would be consequences.
This was Smith the intimidator.
The same Dr. Smith who allegedly tried to brow-beat an Ontario Provincial Police Officer who pulled him over for speeding by threatening to curtail his office's investigations of deaths of children in her area if she insisted on giving him a ticket.
See previous postings: Goudge Inquiry: The OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) letter; Was this the real Dr. Charles Smith; Parts one, two, three and four: December, 2007);
Smith also lashed out against Macleans Magazine in connection with a feature article by reporter Jane O'Hara which, as we have seen from the evidence called at the Goudge Inquiry, has also withstood the sands of time;
Information he gave O'Hara during the course of a lengthy interview about two elaborate conversations he purported to have with a judge has been proven, during the course of the Inquiry, to be an utter fabrication.
(To think that he had the nerve to sue O'Hara and Macleans for not telling the truth!)
It is mind-boggling.
If only he had taken the stories to heart - and learned from them - instead of blasting away defensively in the courts.
Things might have turned out very differently.
Dr. Smith also fought to keep the truth about him from emerging on three other fronts:
The courts; (His legal battle to prevent any one from suing him for any alleged misconduct on the basis that he was a witness and therefore enjoyed absolute witness immunity);
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario; (His efforts, backed up by the Chief Coroner, Dr. James Young, to persuade the College that it did not have the legal jurisdiction to hear complaints against pathologists for work done on behalf of the Chief Coroner's Office, and;
Public Opinion: His lawyer's efforts to play down suggestions that Dr. Smith was responsible for miscarriages of justice while sending out the message that he he was only responsible for mistakes and errors - a theme which Dr. Smith played out to the hilt in his testimony at the Inquiry.
First, the courts; For about five years, Dr. Smith fended off law-suits - with their potential to compell him to testify and produce documents - with his arcane legal argument that he could not be sued because of a common law doctrine intended encourage people testify in legal proceedings without fear of being sued.
The Ontario Court of Appeal finally opened a door to lawsuits from the people affected by his work, by ruling that the lawsuits were focused on his death investigations – and not on the testimony he later gave in court.
Second: The College; Smith, took the legal position, that the College had no jurisdiction to investigate complaints against him for the reasons referred to above.
We now know, from evidence called at the Goudge Inquiry, that Dr. James Young, the Chief Coroner of the day, attempted to get the College to decline to receive the complaints and forward them to his office where they would be dealt with internally.
Ultimately, the Ontario Health Professions Review Board ruled against Smith and Young, and the three complaints could finally proceed - but not without significant delay and aggravation for the complainants;
A scary thought: If Dr. Smith had managed to fend off both the courts and the College he would have been totally without any external public accountability
(While, at the same time, as we know from the evidence called at the Inquiry, he was not being subjected to internal accountability by either his superiors at the Hospital For Sick Children or in the Chief Coroner's office);
Lastly, the spin being put on Dr. Smith's work by his lawyers is illustrated by a legal document they filed at the outset of the Inquiry.
As I set out in an earlier posting: "Lawyers representing Dr. Charles Smith claim some media incorrectly reported that an independent review found he had "erred" in his work, engaged in "misconduct" - and that his actions had, "directly resulted in miscarriages of justice."
Smith's lawyers make these allegations in a "factum" filed at the Goudge Inquiry on Smith's application to have his own lawyers elicit his evidence "in chief."
The lawyers refer to a "background paper" released by Dr. Barry McLellan, Chief Coroner of Ontario at that time, which announced the result of an independent inquiry of criminally suspicious and homicide cases where Dr. Charles Smith conducted autopsies or provided opinions.
"The Office of the Chief Coroner revealed that in 20 of the 45 cases, the reviewers "had some issue with the opinion of Dr. Smith that appeared in a written report, testimony in Court, or both," the lawyers say in the factum.
"Moreover, the Chief Coroner advised that there were "restrictions of liberty arising from findings of guilt, including 12 convictions and one finding of not criminally responsible, in 13 of those cases where the reviewers did not agree with significant facts or with the interpretation of the examinations conducted."
But Smith's lawyers contend that, "despite the absence of any indication in the Backgrounder that Dr. Smith had "erred" in his work, or that he had engaged in any misconduct, subsequent media coverage of the "Backgrounder" described a "revelation of errors" in Dr. Smith's work."
They also allege that, "Moreover, because the Office of the Chief Coroner advised that some of the cases in which concerns were identified had resulted in convictions, the public perception created by the media coverage was that Dr. Smith's "errors" had directly resulted in miscarriages of justice."
The "factum" also alleges that media coverage of government announcements relating to the Inquiry were "highly prejudicial"..." referring to Dr. Smith himself as "an error prone pathologist", and questioning whether his work was "reckless" or "inept.";
(See earlier posting: Smith and the media: Part Six; Smith's lawyers criticize media;)
But no lawyer's tactic could ever contain the ugly truth's about Dr. Smith that were ultimately exposed in the courts, through the College, and at the Inquiry - all of which proved to be beyond Dr. Smith's control and influence.
We have learned that he was not only a liar - both inside and outside of court - but also that he did his best to prevent others from learning the truth, and to defy accountability.
A very calculating and intimidating man.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
