PUBLISHER'S NOTE: In view of the Attorney General of Ontario's decision to support Sherry Sherret's acquittal at an up-coming hearing set for December 7, 2009, I am re-running a four part series on "Joshua's Case."
Part Two ran on Wednesday November 21, 2007, under the heading "Goudge Inquiry; Joshua's Case: Part four: Notable Quotes From External Reviewer's Report;"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: An overview of Joshua's case prepared by Commission staff indicates that:
Joshua was born in Belleville, Ontario on September 23, 1995 to Sherry Lee-Ann Sherret and Peter. Joshua had an older half-brother born on July 4, 1994 to Sherry and another partner. Sherry, Peter, Joshua and Joshua's bother all resided together in Trenton, Ontario. Joshua died on January 23, 1996, at the age of four months in Trenton,Ontario.
At the time of Joshua's death Sherry was 20 years old. On March 27, 1996, sherry was charged with first-degree murder in Joshua's death. After a preliminary inquiry she was committed to stand trial on that charge. However, that committal was subsequently quashed and she was ordered to stand trial on a charge of second-degree murder instead.
On January 4, 1999, a new indictment charging infanticide was placed before the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division). Sherry entered a plea of not guilty. However, the Crown then read into the record certain agreed facts. The defence called no evidence in response to the facts read in and did not dispute them. As a result sherry was convicted of infanticide. On June 2, 1999, she was sentenced to a one-year custodial term followed by two years of probation. Just prior to the laying of the criminal charge, on March 7, 1996, Joshua's brother was apprehended by the Northumberland Children's Aid Society and placed in foster care. He was ultimately adopted by his foster family. In September, 2005, Sherry had another child, a daughter. The Children's Aid Society obtained a Supervision Order in October, 2006, in relation to this child. On April 11, 2007, that order was terminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post ran as follows:
"Dr. Jack Crane reviewed Joshua's case:
Here are some notable quotes from his "Expanded Report;"
On Dr. Smith's finding of "asphyxia":
"The autopsy report prepared by Dr. Smith was quite detailed but is lacking any form of discussion or conclusion as to how the diagnosis of asphyxia, as the cause of death, was determined...Furthermore, a diagnosis of asphyxia is vague and non-specific and should properly be provided in the context of the mechanism by which it was produced, e.g.compression of neck.""
On Dr. Smith's interpretation of the significance of certain petechia haemorrhages:
"The finding of petechial haemorrhages (pinhead=sized) spots of bleeding on the surfaces of the internal organs is a common finding in all types of infant deaths and is of no significance whatsoever."
On Dr. Smith's testimony:
"It is my view that parts of Dr. Smith's testimony to the court were misleading. Whilst he does concede that he cannot be sure of the cause of death he uses, what I consider to be inappropriate language, terms such as "If I was a betting man, I would bet that it was. (Reference to death being non-accidental);.
He also commented "I am certainly suspicious of that". (Referring to suffocation);
Also in his testimony he makes reference to neck haemorrhage as being worrying and would increase the likelihood of a non-accidental etiology whereas in my opinion this was no more than an artefactual finding. (Inflicted on the body during the autopsy. H.L.);
On the so-called skull fracture Dr. Smith discovered after completing his post-mortem report;
"There is, in my opinion, no evidence of any fracture.""
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Showing posts with label sherrett. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sherrett. Show all posts
Monday, November 23, 2009
JOSHUA'S CASE; PART THREE; AFTERMATH OF A FLAWED OPINION;
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: In view of the Attorney General of Ontario's decision to support Sherry Sherret's acquittal at an up-coming hearing set for December 7, 2009, I am re-running a four part series on "Joshua's Case."
Part Two ran on Tuesday, November 29, 2007, under the heading "Goudge Inquiry; Joshua's Case: Part Three: Aftermath of a flawed opinion."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: An overview of Joshua's case prepared by Commission staff indicates that:
Joshua was born in Belleville, Ontario on September 23, 1995 to Sherry Lee-Ann Sherret and Peter. Joshua had an older half-brother born on July 4, 1994 to Sherry and another partner. Sherry, Peter, Joshua and Joshua's bother all resided together in Trenton, Ontario. Joshua died on January 23, 1996, at the age of four months in Trenton,Ontario.
At the time of Joshua's death Sherry was 20 years old. On March 27, 1996, sherry was charged with first-degree murder in Joshua's death. After a preliminary inquiry she was committed to stand trial on that charge. However, that committal was subsequently quashed and she was ordered to stand trial on a charge of second-degree murder instead.
On January 4, 1999, a new indictment charging infanticide was placed before the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division). Sherry entered a plea of not guilty. However, the Crown then read into the record certain agreed facts. The defence called no evidence in response to the facts read in and did not dispute them. As a result sherry was convicted of infanticide. On June 2, 1999, she was sentenced to a one-year custodial term followed by two years of probation. Just prior to the laying of the criminal charge, on March 7, 1996, Joshua's brother was apprehended by the Northumberland Children's Aid Society and placed in foster care. He was ultimately adopted by his foster family. In September, 2005, Sherry had another child, a daughter. The Children's Aid Society obtained a Supervision Order in October, 2006, in relation to this child. On April 11, 2007, that order was terminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post ran as follows:
"SOME CASES COME BACK TO HAUNT YOU AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM;"
LAWYER BRUCE HILLIER;
"On January 4, 1999, something happened that should never happen in Canada's criminal justice system.
Sherry Sherret not guilty to infanticide but was found guilty based on the evidence from Dr Charles Smith.
Dr. Smith's opinion was at the heart of the Agreed Statement of Facts read into the court record;
The Agreed Statement reads:
"Dr. Charles Smith performed an autopsy on the baby at the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children.
He determined the cause of death to be asphyxia.
He ruled out mould or disease as a cause of death.
Pinpoint hemorrhages in the tissue of the eyelids, sometimes present in non-accidental asphyxia were not found in the case.
Dr. Smith was highly suspicion that the death as non-accidental, but there were no overt signs of violence upon which to make a conclusive finding."
"A microscopic skull fracture was discovered months after the original post mortem," the Agreed Statement of Facts continued.
"It was not initially visible to the pathologist."
Dr. Smith testified at the preliminary hearing that this skull fracture could have been caused on either an accidental or non-accidental basis and was not the cause of death.'
One can only imagine what Sherret felt when she heard Justice Byers utter the fallowing words before sentencing her to one year in jail followed by two years probation.
"To this day, I do not understand why she did it," he began.
"There is no doubt that looking after Joshua was very stressful for her; and it would seem that there were warning signs that were there to be seen
But at the end of the day only she knows what she did, and shy she did it.
And she is not telling." denies her guilt and shows no remorse," Byers continued.
"Her support system in the community - her family, her friends - reinforce that position.
Joshua did not die because his mother was suffering from some sort of post-partem depression.
His death, perhaps, is connected the fact that Sherry suffers from what the doctors have called a mixed personality disorder.
Or perhaps not.
No doubt, though, her attitude towards this tragedy is connected to that diagnosis."
We are now aware that Dr. Smith's opinion was terribly flawed.
There was no ashphyxia.
There was no skull fracture.
There was just an innocent grieving mother who had lost her son due to a natural but unexplained death; (One possibility is that Joshua accidentally suffocated during his sleep.)
I sometimes wonder how judges feel on learning that they have passed sentence on an innocent person - and the words they have said on passing sentence are seen in a different light.
In fairness, the judge usually has no information on the case except that which is provided by the parties at the particular time.
The one year prison term -sentencing was left in the hands of the judge - was not the only punishment meted on Ms. Sherret in the aftermath of Dr. Charles Randal Smith's flawed opinion.
Byers also placed her on probation for two years, saying:
"You are not to be in a parental position towards infant children; and,
"If you get pregnant, you must immediately report that to a probation officer."
We learn from an Overview Report on the case prepared by Commission staff that Sherret had a third child in September, 2005 - and that on the basis of her conviction for infanticide the local Children's Aid Society applied for an order removing her from the family home in order to prevent her from living with her new child.
The Report includes a letter "To whom it may concern" drafted by Bruce Hillier, Sherret's lawyer, to assist her with the family court proceedings;
"Faced with the prospect of a conviction and all that flows from that, I vigorously represented Ms. Sherret and at the 11th hour, the Crown's office, no doubt for good reasons, elected to resolve the matter by way of a plea for the rarely used charge of infanticide, the basis at the time, Sherry was suffering from post-partem depression," Hillier wrote;
"The compromise between the Crown and the defence was seen as a way out for both sides - the Crown fearing they couldn't get a conviction of any kind and the defence fearing that a conviction for murder, while not justified, would result in a lengthy period of incarceration."
Sherret then turned to the Association In Defence of the Wrongly Accused for assistance.
Lawyer James Lockyer wrote former Chief Coroner Dr. Barry McLellan, that a review by his office of Joshua's death "acquires huge importance" because Sherret, having lost one child to adoption, now faced loss of her daughter.
"Ms. Sherret has two other children," Lockyer wrote.
"Her first born...was taken away from her at the age of eighteen months after her arrest in March 196 for Josh's murder.
(He) was subsequently put up for adoption, and now lives with his adoptive parents in Cobourg;
Ms. Sherret has written contact with him every year at Christmas and his birthday,
(He) is now 12 years old.
Her third born...is now five-months old.
Ms. Sherret, (the child's father and (the child) herself live together at their home in Belleville.
By Court order, Ms. Sherret has not been allowed to be alone at any time with her daughter since her birth;"
Lockyer stressed that a review was imperative because, "if Joshua died of natural causes, as AIDWYC believes he likely did, (and the Chief Coroner's review confirmed: HL) Ms. Sherret may be about to become the victim of a third miscarriage of justice."
"(Her daughter) will become one too."
Finally, on April 5, 2007, the Children's Aid Society applied in Court for an order terminating the existing supervision order.
A child protection worked candidly noted in an affidavit filed with the Court that, "Following the completion of the parenting Capacity Assessment, it was noted that (Sherry's) denial of any wrongdoing was concerning and further, made it impossible to treat her."
(See previous posting: Mullins-Johnson: Dilemma of the innocent;)
"However, it is now believed that (Sherry) may not have done anything wrong.
AIDWYC is now pursuing quashing of the infanticide conviction and an acquittal for Ms. Sherret in the Ontario Court of Appeal;
Lawyer Hillier cogently summed up this case in his letter "to whom it may concern" referred to above.
"Some cases come back to haunt you and this is one of them," he said."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Part Two ran on Tuesday, November 29, 2007, under the heading "Goudge Inquiry; Joshua's Case: Part Three: Aftermath of a flawed opinion."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: An overview of Joshua's case prepared by Commission staff indicates that:
Joshua was born in Belleville, Ontario on September 23, 1995 to Sherry Lee-Ann Sherret and Peter. Joshua had an older half-brother born on July 4, 1994 to Sherry and another partner. Sherry, Peter, Joshua and Joshua's bother all resided together in Trenton, Ontario. Joshua died on January 23, 1996, at the age of four months in Trenton,Ontario.
At the time of Joshua's death Sherry was 20 years old. On March 27, 1996, sherry was charged with first-degree murder in Joshua's death. After a preliminary inquiry she was committed to stand trial on that charge. However, that committal was subsequently quashed and she was ordered to stand trial on a charge of second-degree murder instead.
On January 4, 1999, a new indictment charging infanticide was placed before the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division). Sherry entered a plea of not guilty. However, the Crown then read into the record certain agreed facts. The defence called no evidence in response to the facts read in and did not dispute them. As a result sherry was convicted of infanticide. On June 2, 1999, she was sentenced to a one-year custodial term followed by two years of probation. Just prior to the laying of the criminal charge, on March 7, 1996, Joshua's brother was apprehended by the Northumberland Children's Aid Society and placed in foster care. He was ultimately adopted by his foster family. In September, 2005, Sherry had another child, a daughter. The Children's Aid Society obtained a Supervision Order in October, 2006, in relation to this child. On April 11, 2007, that order was terminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post ran as follows:
"SOME CASES COME BACK TO HAUNT YOU AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM;"
LAWYER BRUCE HILLIER;
"On January 4, 1999, something happened that should never happen in Canada's criminal justice system.
Sherry Sherret not guilty to infanticide but was found guilty based on the evidence from Dr Charles Smith.
Dr. Smith's opinion was at the heart of the Agreed Statement of Facts read into the court record;
The Agreed Statement reads:
"Dr. Charles Smith performed an autopsy on the baby at the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children.
He determined the cause of death to be asphyxia.
He ruled out mould or disease as a cause of death.
Pinpoint hemorrhages in the tissue of the eyelids, sometimes present in non-accidental asphyxia were not found in the case.
Dr. Smith was highly suspicion that the death as non-accidental, but there were no overt signs of violence upon which to make a conclusive finding."
"A microscopic skull fracture was discovered months after the original post mortem," the Agreed Statement of Facts continued.
"It was not initially visible to the pathologist."
Dr. Smith testified at the preliminary hearing that this skull fracture could have been caused on either an accidental or non-accidental basis and was not the cause of death.'
One can only imagine what Sherret felt when she heard Justice Byers utter the fallowing words before sentencing her to one year in jail followed by two years probation.
"To this day, I do not understand why she did it," he began.
"There is no doubt that looking after Joshua was very stressful for her; and it would seem that there were warning signs that were there to be seen
But at the end of the day only she knows what she did, and shy she did it.
And she is not telling." denies her guilt and shows no remorse," Byers continued.
"Her support system in the community - her family, her friends - reinforce that position.
Joshua did not die because his mother was suffering from some sort of post-partem depression.
His death, perhaps, is connected the fact that Sherry suffers from what the doctors have called a mixed personality disorder.
Or perhaps not.
No doubt, though, her attitude towards this tragedy is connected to that diagnosis."
We are now aware that Dr. Smith's opinion was terribly flawed.
There was no ashphyxia.
There was no skull fracture.
There was just an innocent grieving mother who had lost her son due to a natural but unexplained death; (One possibility is that Joshua accidentally suffocated during his sleep.)
I sometimes wonder how judges feel on learning that they have passed sentence on an innocent person - and the words they have said on passing sentence are seen in a different light.
In fairness, the judge usually has no information on the case except that which is provided by the parties at the particular time.
The one year prison term -sentencing was left in the hands of the judge - was not the only punishment meted on Ms. Sherret in the aftermath of Dr. Charles Randal Smith's flawed opinion.
Byers also placed her on probation for two years, saying:
"You are not to be in a parental position towards infant children; and,
"If you get pregnant, you must immediately report that to a probation officer."
We learn from an Overview Report on the case prepared by Commission staff that Sherret had a third child in September, 2005 - and that on the basis of her conviction for infanticide the local Children's Aid Society applied for an order removing her from the family home in order to prevent her from living with her new child.
The Report includes a letter "To whom it may concern" drafted by Bruce Hillier, Sherret's lawyer, to assist her with the family court proceedings;
"Faced with the prospect of a conviction and all that flows from that, I vigorously represented Ms. Sherret and at the 11th hour, the Crown's office, no doubt for good reasons, elected to resolve the matter by way of a plea for the rarely used charge of infanticide, the basis at the time, Sherry was suffering from post-partem depression," Hillier wrote;
"The compromise between the Crown and the defence was seen as a way out for both sides - the Crown fearing they couldn't get a conviction of any kind and the defence fearing that a conviction for murder, while not justified, would result in a lengthy period of incarceration."
Sherret then turned to the Association In Defence of the Wrongly Accused for assistance.
Lawyer James Lockyer wrote former Chief Coroner Dr. Barry McLellan, that a review by his office of Joshua's death "acquires huge importance" because Sherret, having lost one child to adoption, now faced loss of her daughter.
"Ms. Sherret has two other children," Lockyer wrote.
"Her first born...was taken away from her at the age of eighteen months after her arrest in March 196 for Josh's murder.
(He) was subsequently put up for adoption, and now lives with his adoptive parents in Cobourg;
Ms. Sherret has written contact with him every year at Christmas and his birthday,
(He) is now 12 years old.
Her third born...is now five-months old.
Ms. Sherret, (the child's father and (the child) herself live together at their home in Belleville.
By Court order, Ms. Sherret has not been allowed to be alone at any time with her daughter since her birth;"
Lockyer stressed that a review was imperative because, "if Joshua died of natural causes, as AIDWYC believes he likely did, (and the Chief Coroner's review confirmed: HL) Ms. Sherret may be about to become the victim of a third miscarriage of justice."
"(Her daughter) will become one too."
Finally, on April 5, 2007, the Children's Aid Society applied in Court for an order terminating the existing supervision order.
A child protection worked candidly noted in an affidavit filed with the Court that, "Following the completion of the parenting Capacity Assessment, it was noted that (Sherry's) denial of any wrongdoing was concerning and further, made it impossible to treat her."
(See previous posting: Mullins-Johnson: Dilemma of the innocent;)
"However, it is now believed that (Sherry) may not have done anything wrong.
AIDWYC is now pursuing quashing of the infanticide conviction and an acquittal for Ms. Sherret in the Ontario Court of Appeal;
Lawyer Hillier cogently summed up this case in his letter "to whom it may concern" referred to above.
"Some cases come back to haunt you and this is one of them," he said."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
"JOSHUA'S CASE: PART TWO: YET ANOTHER DISTURBING TALE OF IMPORTANT FORENSIC EXHIBITS LOST BY DR. CHARLES RANDAL SMITH;
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: In view of the Attorney General of Ontario's decision to support Sherry Sherret's acquittal at an up-coming hearing set for December 7, 2009, I am re-running a four part series on "Joshua's Case."
Part Two ran on Monday, November 19, 2007, under the heading "Goudge Inquiry; Joshua's Case: Part Two: "Yet Another Disturbing Tale of Important Forensic Exhibits Lost By Dr. Charles Randal Smith;"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: An overview of Joshua's case prepared by Commission staff indicates that:
Joshua was born in Belleville, Ontario on September 23, 1995 to Sherry Lee-Ann Sherret and Peter. Joshua had an older half-brother born on July 4, 1994 to Sherry and another partner. Sherry, Peter, Joshua and Joshua's bother all resided together in Trenton, Ontario. Joshua died on January 23, 1996, at the age of four months in Trenton,Ontario.
At the time of Joshua's death Sherry was 20 years old. On March 27, 1996, sherry was charged with first-degree murder in Joshua's death. After a preliminary inquiry she was committed to stand trial on that charge. However, that committal was subsequently quashed and she was ordered to stand trial on a charge of second-degree murder instead.
On January 4, 1999, a new indictment charging infanticide was placed before the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division). Sherry entered a plea of not guilty. However, the Crown then read into the record certain agreed facts. The defence called no evidence in response to the facts read in and did not dispute them. As a result sherry was convicted of infanticide. On June 2, 1999, she was sentenced to a one-year custodial term followed by two years of probation. Just prior to the laying of the criminal charge, on March 7, 1996, Joshua's brother was apprehended by the Northumberland Children's Aid Society and placed in foster care. He was ultimately adopted by his foster family. In September, 2005, Sherry had another child, a daughter. The Children's Aid Society obtained a Supervision Order in October, 2006, in relation to this child. On April 11, 2007, that order was terminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post ran as follows:
"AFTER THE EXPERIENCE IN THE JOSHUA CASE, I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED DR. SMITH TO BE MORE CAREFUL WITH EVIDENCE IN HOMICIDE CASES."
PROSECUTOR SHEILA WALSH;
Earlier postings on this Blog demonstrated how Dr. Smith had violated his responsibility to preserve forensic evidence in four murder cases;
0: Misplacing all of the forensic exhibits in the Trotta case - so that they were unavailable for trial and appeals; (See previous posting: Trotta: Another Smith Case Involving Misplaced Evidence;
0: Retaining without submitting for analysis a dark, curly, male pubic-type hair indicating that Baby Jenna may have been sexually assaulted in the Brenda Waudby case; (Discussed in Trotta posting referred to above);
0: Misplacing the only evidence that could be used to prove that William Mullins-Johnson did not kill his four-year-old niece. (See previous posting: Mullins-Johnson:: Evidence allegedly misplaced;)
As if this disgraceful, unprofessional conduct was not enough yet another loss of key forensic exhibits has been revealed in the "Overview Report" of Joshua's case; (See previous posting: Goudge Inquiry: Joshua's case; Part One: How Smith caused havoc by failing to deliver a crucial forensic report);
The loss of exhibits in the Joshua case is described by Sheila Walsh - the Crown Attorney who prosecuted Sherry Sherret (Joshua's mother) for first-degree murder - in a letter to Ed Bradley, who was prosecuting Louise Reynolds at the time.
Walsh, now deceased, explains to Bradley that the mother's defence lawyer was pressing for the microscopic slides from the autopsy because Smith had come up with damning information against his client - the discovery of a skull fracture - after signing his autopsy report.
"The defence retained their own pathologist and obtained an order for the release of the autopsy slides, on certain conditions, to the defence expert for a second opinion," Walsh wrote.
"We worked out a plan to have the slides delivered.
The slides did not get delivered.
Again, Dr. Smith ignored my slides and letters;
Finally, I found out that he had lost the slides;
They remained lost for a period of time, but they were eventually found they had not been found, our case would likely have been at an end.
Some x-rays were also lost and were never found. I don't know if this was Dr. Smith's fault or if it was someone else's;
Given what happened in this case, (being forced to offer a plea to infanticide because of the deficiencies in Dr. Smith's work H.L.) I was very surprised that Dr. Smith then lost important evidence in the (Sharon) case;
After the experience in the (Joshua) case, I would have expected Dr. Smith to be more careful with evidence in homicide cases;"
We know, however, that no one ever stepped up to the plate to protect the public by containing Dr. Smith when loss after loss occurred;
0: Prosecutors kept on calling him to testify against other unfortunate accused persons;
0: The chief coroner's office allowed him to continue running his one-man show - without any apparent interference or accountability, and,
0: There are no indications that the Hospital for Sick Children ever took him to task for the shoddy way in which he was heading the Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit which had been entrusted to the hospital by the Ontario government;
We are now aware that the Hospital failed to set up a system for tracking, cataloguing and protecting forensic exhibits sent to the Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit (created in 1981) for consultation purposes by coroners and pathologists elsewhere in the province until December, 2004.
That's around the time that Dr. Barry McLellan, the former chief coroner, began to probe the missing Mullins-Johnson exhibits.
Documents filed at the Inquiry indicate that McLellan's investigators - assisted by hospital staff - spent days cleaning up Dr. Smith's office before ultimately locating the missing evidence on top of Dr. Smith's desk.
(The small, dark, curly, male pubic hair that Dr. Smith retained in his possession for years in the Waudby case - without informing police or prosecutors or submitting it for forensic testing - had been kept in one of Dr. Smith's desk drawers.)
The disorder in Dr. Smith's office must have been apparent for years to all who entered it or worked there - yet Dr. Smith's Superior's in the Hospital administration apparently did nothing about it.
Nor can the famed hospital claim ignorance: There were too many media reports of controversies over Smith's handling of exhibits, going back to the Reynold's case, over the years.
On May 31, 2005, after the Star reported that the missing Mullins-Johnson exhibits had been found in an envelope on top of Dr. Smith's desk during a review of exhibits launched in April ran a revealing interview with Hospital for Sick Children spokesperson Helen Simeon.
Simeon said Smith agreed to go on an administrative leave pending a review by an “outside” pathologist after it became public that the materials in the Mullins-Johnson case were missing.
She said Smith was allowed to return after the reviewer reported that Smith was doing a satisfactory job.
The Hospital would not name the reviewer or release the report;
I wonder if that internal report will surface at the inquiry!
Given the importance of preservation and continuity of evidence - especially in an era where DNA analysis and other sophisticated scientific processes may help clear or incriminate individuals decades later - the Hospital clearly let the public down and has much to account for at the Goudge Inquiry;
Dr. Smith was a member of the pathology department - and that department was headed by chiefs of pathology over the years who in turn were supposed to be responsible to the top levels of the hospital hierarchy.
If the public is to regain confidence in the delivery of pediatric forensic service in the province it is crucial for the Inquiry to probe why Dr. Smith's superiors at the Hospital for Sick Children failed to reign him in."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Part Two ran on Monday, November 19, 2007, under the heading "Goudge Inquiry; Joshua's Case: Part Two: "Yet Another Disturbing Tale of Important Forensic Exhibits Lost By Dr. Charles Randal Smith;"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: An overview of Joshua's case prepared by Commission staff indicates that:
Joshua was born in Belleville, Ontario on September 23, 1995 to Sherry Lee-Ann Sherret and Peter. Joshua had an older half-brother born on July 4, 1994 to Sherry and another partner. Sherry, Peter, Joshua and Joshua's bother all resided together in Trenton, Ontario. Joshua died on January 23, 1996, at the age of four months in Trenton,Ontario.
At the time of Joshua's death Sherry was 20 years old. On March 27, 1996, sherry was charged with first-degree murder in Joshua's death. After a preliminary inquiry she was committed to stand trial on that charge. However, that committal was subsequently quashed and she was ordered to stand trial on a charge of second-degree murder instead.
On January 4, 1999, a new indictment charging infanticide was placed before the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division). Sherry entered a plea of not guilty. However, the Crown then read into the record certain agreed facts. The defence called no evidence in response to the facts read in and did not dispute them. As a result sherry was convicted of infanticide. On June 2, 1999, she was sentenced to a one-year custodial term followed by two years of probation. Just prior to the laying of the criminal charge, on March 7, 1996, Joshua's brother was apprehended by the Northumberland Children's Aid Society and placed in foster care. He was ultimately adopted by his foster family. In September, 2005, Sherry had another child, a daughter. The Children's Aid Society obtained a Supervision Order in October, 2006, in relation to this child. On April 11, 2007, that order was terminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post ran as follows:
"AFTER THE EXPERIENCE IN THE JOSHUA CASE, I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED DR. SMITH TO BE MORE CAREFUL WITH EVIDENCE IN HOMICIDE CASES."
PROSECUTOR SHEILA WALSH;
Earlier postings on this Blog demonstrated how Dr. Smith had violated his responsibility to preserve forensic evidence in four murder cases;
0: Misplacing all of the forensic exhibits in the Trotta case - so that they were unavailable for trial and appeals; (See previous posting: Trotta: Another Smith Case Involving Misplaced Evidence;
0: Retaining without submitting for analysis a dark, curly, male pubic-type hair indicating that Baby Jenna may have been sexually assaulted in the Brenda Waudby case; (Discussed in Trotta posting referred to above);
0: Misplacing the only evidence that could be used to prove that William Mullins-Johnson did not kill his four-year-old niece. (See previous posting: Mullins-Johnson:: Evidence allegedly misplaced;)
As if this disgraceful, unprofessional conduct was not enough yet another loss of key forensic exhibits has been revealed in the "Overview Report" of Joshua's case; (See previous posting: Goudge Inquiry: Joshua's case; Part One: How Smith caused havoc by failing to deliver a crucial forensic report);
The loss of exhibits in the Joshua case is described by Sheila Walsh - the Crown Attorney who prosecuted Sherry Sherret (Joshua's mother) for first-degree murder - in a letter to Ed Bradley, who was prosecuting Louise Reynolds at the time.
Walsh, now deceased, explains to Bradley that the mother's defence lawyer was pressing for the microscopic slides from the autopsy because Smith had come up with damning information against his client - the discovery of a skull fracture - after signing his autopsy report.
"The defence retained their own pathologist and obtained an order for the release of the autopsy slides, on certain conditions, to the defence expert for a second opinion," Walsh wrote.
"We worked out a plan to have the slides delivered.
The slides did not get delivered.
Again, Dr. Smith ignored my slides and letters;
Finally, I found out that he had lost the slides;
They remained lost for a period of time, but they were eventually found they had not been found, our case would likely have been at an end.
Some x-rays were also lost and were never found. I don't know if this was Dr. Smith's fault or if it was someone else's;
Given what happened in this case, (being forced to offer a plea to infanticide because of the deficiencies in Dr. Smith's work H.L.) I was very surprised that Dr. Smith then lost important evidence in the (Sharon) case;
After the experience in the (Joshua) case, I would have expected Dr. Smith to be more careful with evidence in homicide cases;"
We know, however, that no one ever stepped up to the plate to protect the public by containing Dr. Smith when loss after loss occurred;
0: Prosecutors kept on calling him to testify against other unfortunate accused persons;
0: The chief coroner's office allowed him to continue running his one-man show - without any apparent interference or accountability, and,
0: There are no indications that the Hospital for Sick Children ever took him to task for the shoddy way in which he was heading the Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit which had been entrusted to the hospital by the Ontario government;
We are now aware that the Hospital failed to set up a system for tracking, cataloguing and protecting forensic exhibits sent to the Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit (created in 1981) for consultation purposes by coroners and pathologists elsewhere in the province until December, 2004.
That's around the time that Dr. Barry McLellan, the former chief coroner, began to probe the missing Mullins-Johnson exhibits.
Documents filed at the Inquiry indicate that McLellan's investigators - assisted by hospital staff - spent days cleaning up Dr. Smith's office before ultimately locating the missing evidence on top of Dr. Smith's desk.
(The small, dark, curly, male pubic hair that Dr. Smith retained in his possession for years in the Waudby case - without informing police or prosecutors or submitting it for forensic testing - had been kept in one of Dr. Smith's desk drawers.)
The disorder in Dr. Smith's office must have been apparent for years to all who entered it or worked there - yet Dr. Smith's Superior's in the Hospital administration apparently did nothing about it.
Nor can the famed hospital claim ignorance: There were too many media reports of controversies over Smith's handling of exhibits, going back to the Reynold's case, over the years.
On May 31, 2005, after the Star reported that the missing Mullins-Johnson exhibits had been found in an envelope on top of Dr. Smith's desk during a review of exhibits launched in April ran a revealing interview with Hospital for Sick Children spokesperson Helen Simeon.
Simeon said Smith agreed to go on an administrative leave pending a review by an “outside” pathologist after it became public that the materials in the Mullins-Johnson case were missing.
She said Smith was allowed to return after the reviewer reported that Smith was doing a satisfactory job.
The Hospital would not name the reviewer or release the report;
I wonder if that internal report will surface at the inquiry!
Given the importance of preservation and continuity of evidence - especially in an era where DNA analysis and other sophisticated scientific processes may help clear or incriminate individuals decades later - the Hospital clearly let the public down and has much to account for at the Goudge Inquiry;
Dr. Smith was a member of the pathology department - and that department was headed by chiefs of pathology over the years who in turn were supposed to be responsible to the top levels of the hospital hierarchy.
If the public is to regain confidence in the delivery of pediatric forensic service in the province it is crucial for the Inquiry to probe why Dr. Smith's superiors at the Hospital for Sick Children failed to reign him in."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
SHERRY SHERRET: FOUR PART SERIES; PART ONE: HOW DR. CHARLES SMITH CAUSED HAVOC BY FAILING TO DELIVER A CRUCIAL FORENSIC REPORT;
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: In view of the Attorney General of Ontario's decision to support Sherry Sherret's acquittal at an up-coming hearing set for December 7, 2009, I am re-running a four part series on "Joshua's Case."
Part One ran on Monday, November 19, 2007, under the heading "Goudge Inquiry; The Joshua Case: Part One; How Smith Caused Havoc By Failing To Deliver A Crucial Forensic Report;"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: An overview of Joshua's case prepared by Commission staff indicates that:
Joshua was born in Belleville, Ontario on September 23, 1995 to Sherry Lee-Ann Sherret and Peter. Joshua had an older half-brother born on July 4, 1994 to Sherry and another partner. Sherry, Peter, Joshua and Joshua's bother all resided together in Trenton, Ontario. Joshua died on January 23, 1996, at the age of four months in Trenton,Ontario.
At the time of Joshua's death Sherry was 20 years old. On March 27, 1996, sherry was charged with first-degree murder in Joshua's death. After a preliminary inquiry she was committed to stand trial on that charge. However, that committal was subsequently quashed and she was ordered to stand trial on a charge of second-degree murder instead.
On January 4, 1999, a new indictment charging infanticide was placed before the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division). Sherry entered a plea of not guilty. However, the Crown then read into the record certain agreed facts. The defence called no evidence in response to the facts read in and did not dispute them. As a result sherry was convicted of infanticide. On June 2, 1999, she was sentenced to a one-year custodial term followed by two years of probation. Just prior to the laying of the criminal charge, on March 7, 1996, Joshua's brother was apprehended by the Northumberland Children's Aid Society and placed in foster care. He was ultimately adopted by his foster family. In September, 2005, Sherry had another child, a daughter. The Children's Aid Society obtained a Supervision Order in October, 2006, in relation to this child. On April 11, 2007, that order was terminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"DR. SMITH IS VERY QUICK TO CONDEMN OTHER PATHOLOGISTS WHO MISS THINGS DURING THE POST MORTEM;"
PROSECUTOR SHEILA WALSH; IN A LETTER TO A COLLEAGUE PROSECUTING SHARON'S MOTHER;
"The "Joshua" case involves a woman charged with first degree murder after Dr. Charles Smith came up with a diagnosis of "Asphyxia" in his autopsy report - and later informed the prosecutor, (Ms. Sheila Walsh), that he had detected a "skull fracture."
This Blog detailed the havoc caused in the Kporwodu and Veno case when Dr. Smith failed to produce urgently required forensic reports to anxious police and prosecutors. (See previous posting: (Kporwodu and Veno: Judge "shocked" by Smith's delay in producing post-mortem report.")
Now we learn - from a letter included in the "Overview Report" prepared for the Inquiry by Commission staff - that Smith's failure to provide an essential report caused similar havoc in Joshua's case.
The letter is from prosecutor Walsh to a colleague named Ed Bradley who was prosecuting Sharon's mother at the time.
"Dr. Smith initially prepared an autopsy report which said there was no injury to the baby's skull," Walsh said in her letter.
"He then later called to say that upon re=examination of the autopsy slides, he discovered a skull fracture.
Again, I requested a written report concerning this fracture, and again he would not provide it.
(We were not depending on Dr. Smith to prove the cause of death, but rather to rule out certain things.)
The presence of the skull fracture was, of course, extremely important to the case,
Again, I never did get a report about this.
Dr. Smith is very quick to condemn other pathologists who miss things during the post mortem.
Of course, this opened the door for the defence to say he could have missed other things.
Walsh eventually agreed to allow Sherry Sherret, (Joshua's mother) to plead guilty to infanticide. (More about that plea in a future posting);
She tells Bradley that, "while there were a number of considerations that went into that decision (to agree to the plea), one significant one was my experience with Dr. Smith."
This horror story gets even worse - when we learn from the external examiners reviewing Dr. Smith's work that Dr. Smith's opinion was terribly flawed;
In short:
No evidence to support a diagnosis of asphyxia;
No evidence to support Dr. Smith's observation of a skull fracture;
No definitive cause of death revealed by the autopsy findings;
Nothing but a possibility, suggested by the position in which Joshua's body was found, that he had accidentally suffocated while sleeping;"
NEXT POST: Part Two: Goudge inquiry: Joshua's case; Yet another example of Dr. Charles Randal Smith losing important forensic exhibits in a murder case;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Part One ran on Monday, November 19, 2007, under the heading "Goudge Inquiry; The Joshua Case: Part One; How Smith Caused Havoc By Failing To Deliver A Crucial Forensic Report;"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: An overview of Joshua's case prepared by Commission staff indicates that:
Joshua was born in Belleville, Ontario on September 23, 1995 to Sherry Lee-Ann Sherret and Peter. Joshua had an older half-brother born on July 4, 1994 to Sherry and another partner. Sherry, Peter, Joshua and Joshua's bother all resided together in Trenton, Ontario. Joshua died on January 23, 1996, at the age of four months in Trenton,Ontario.
At the time of Joshua's death Sherry was 20 years old. On March 27, 1996, sherry was charged with first-degree murder in Joshua's death. After a preliminary inquiry she was committed to stand trial on that charge. However, that committal was subsequently quashed and she was ordered to stand trial on a charge of second-degree murder instead.
On January 4, 1999, a new indictment charging infanticide was placed before the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division). Sherry entered a plea of not guilty. However, the Crown then read into the record certain agreed facts. The defence called no evidence in response to the facts read in and did not dispute them. As a result sherry was convicted of infanticide. On June 2, 1999, she was sentenced to a one-year custodial term followed by two years of probation. Just prior to the laying of the criminal charge, on March 7, 1996, Joshua's brother was apprehended by the Northumberland Children's Aid Society and placed in foster care. He was ultimately adopted by his foster family. In September, 2005, Sherry had another child, a daughter. The Children's Aid Society obtained a Supervision Order in October, 2006, in relation to this child. On April 11, 2007, that order was terminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"DR. SMITH IS VERY QUICK TO CONDEMN OTHER PATHOLOGISTS WHO MISS THINGS DURING THE POST MORTEM;"
PROSECUTOR SHEILA WALSH; IN A LETTER TO A COLLEAGUE PROSECUTING SHARON'S MOTHER;
"The "Joshua" case involves a woman charged with first degree murder after Dr. Charles Smith came up with a diagnosis of "Asphyxia" in his autopsy report - and later informed the prosecutor, (Ms. Sheila Walsh), that he had detected a "skull fracture."
This Blog detailed the havoc caused in the Kporwodu and Veno case when Dr. Smith failed to produce urgently required forensic reports to anxious police and prosecutors. (See previous posting: (Kporwodu and Veno: Judge "shocked" by Smith's delay in producing post-mortem report.")
Now we learn - from a letter included in the "Overview Report" prepared for the Inquiry by Commission staff - that Smith's failure to provide an essential report caused similar havoc in Joshua's case.
The letter is from prosecutor Walsh to a colleague named Ed Bradley who was prosecuting Sharon's mother at the time.
"Dr. Smith initially prepared an autopsy report which said there was no injury to the baby's skull," Walsh said in her letter.
"He then later called to say that upon re=examination of the autopsy slides, he discovered a skull fracture.
Again, I requested a written report concerning this fracture, and again he would not provide it.
(We were not depending on Dr. Smith to prove the cause of death, but rather to rule out certain things.)
The presence of the skull fracture was, of course, extremely important to the case,
Again, I never did get a report about this.
Dr. Smith is very quick to condemn other pathologists who miss things during the post mortem.
Of course, this opened the door for the defence to say he could have missed other things.
Walsh eventually agreed to allow Sherry Sherret, (Joshua's mother) to plead guilty to infanticide. (More about that plea in a future posting);
She tells Bradley that, "while there were a number of considerations that went into that decision (to agree to the plea), one significant one was my experience with Dr. Smith."
This horror story gets even worse - when we learn from the external examiners reviewing Dr. Smith's work that Dr. Smith's opinion was terribly flawed;
In short:
No evidence to support a diagnosis of asphyxia;
No evidence to support Dr. Smith's observation of a skull fracture;
No definitive cause of death revealed by the autopsy findings;
Nothing but a possibility, suggested by the position in which Joshua's body was found, that he had accidentally suffocated while sleeping;"
NEXT POST: Part Two: Goudge inquiry: Joshua's case; Yet another example of Dr. Charles Randal Smith losing important forensic exhibits in a murder case;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
SHERRY SHERRET: TORONTO STAR REPORTER THERESA BOYLE'S MEMORABLE STORY ABOUT COLLATERAL DAMAGE AND DR. CHARLES SMITH'S FORGOTTEN VICTIMS;
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Toronto Star reporter Theresa Boyle's memorable story on Dr. Charles Smith's innocent victims - published on March 9, 2008 - was featured on this Blog on March 17, 2008;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: An overview of Joshua's case prepared by Commission staff indicates that:
Joshua was born in Belleville, Ontario on September 23, 1995 to Sherry Lee-Ann Sherret and Peter. Joshua had an older half-brother born on July 4, 1994 to Sherry and another partner. Sherry, Peter, Joshua and Joshua's bother all resided together in Trenton, Ontario. Joshua died on January 23, 1996, at the age of four months in Trenton,Ontario.
At the time of Joshua's death Sherry was 20 years old. On March 27, 1996, sherry was charged with first-degree murder in Joshua's death. After a preliminary inquiry she was committed to stand trial on that charge. However, that committal was subsequently quashed and she was ordered to stand trial on a charge of second-degree murder instead.
On January 4, 1999, a new indictment charging infanticide was placed before the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division). Sherry entered a plea of not guilty. However, the Crown then read into the record certain agreed facts. The defence called no evidence in response to the facts read in and did not dispute them. As a result sherry was convicted of infanticide. On June 2, 1999, she was sentenced to a one-year custodial term followed by two years of probation. Just prior to the laying of the criminal charge, on March 7, 1996, Joshua's brother was apprehended by the Northumberland Children's Aid Society and placed in foster care. He was ultimately adopted by his foster family. In September, 2005, Sherry had another child, a daughter. The Children's Aid Society obtained a Supervision Order in October, 2006, in relation to this child. On April 11, 2007, that order was terminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post, which delved into Sherry Sherret's tragic situation, ran on March 17, 2008, as follows:
Part One: Collateral Damage: Dr. Charles Smith's Forgotten Victims;
"THE BOY, CHRISTOPHER (NOT HIS REAL NAME), IS ONE OF AT LEAST 17 CHILDREN WHOSE LIVES WERE THROWN INTO CHAOS AFTER THE DEATH OF A SIBLING. IN EACH CASE, DISGRACED PATHOLOGIST DR. CHARLES SMITH PERFORMED AN AUTOPSY OR OFFERED A CONSULTING OPINION ON THE DEATHS. BAD ENOUGH THEY HAD LOST A SISTER OR A BROTHER. BUT SMITH'S MISTAKES HELPED IMPLICATE THEIR PARENTS AND RESULTED IN THESE CHILDREN BEING REMOVED FROM THEIR HOMES BY CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES."
THERESA BOYLE: TORONTO STAR;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "collateral damage" caused by Dr. Charles Smith has been vividly captured by Toronto Star reporter Theresa Boyle, in a story, published on March 9, 2008, that focuses on "The 'forgotten victims' torn from their homes."
The disturbing story is accompanied by a photograph of Sherry Sherret in her home, holding the baby album of the son taken away from her for adoption.
Boyle's story makes the point that much of the damage caused by Smith - and those who failed to rein him in - will linger for years to come.
"July 2012. This date won't come soon enough for Sherry Sherret," Boyle's story begins;
"It's when her first born will turn 18. And it's when the Belleville mother will finally be reunited with the son who was put up for adoption when he was only 5," it continues.
"The boy, Christopher (not his real name), is one of at least 17 children whose lives were thrown into chaos after the death of a sibling. In each case, disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith performed an autopsy or offered a consulting opinion on the deaths. Bad enough they had lost a sister or a brother. But Smith's mistakes helped implicate their parents and resulted in these children being removed from their homes by children's aid societies.
At least three children, including Christopher, were adopted out to other families. There is no legal recourse to undo adoptions as the Child and Family Service Act stipulates that once an adoption order is finalized, it cannot be reviewed.
The remaining children were sent to live with relatives or foster families for as long as two years.These children are from the 20 botched death investigations that have been explored at the ongoing Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology. A panel of renowned forensic pathologists determined Smith erred in all these cases.
While attention has largely been focused on potentially wrongful convictions, these children have been the "forgotten victims" of his errors, says Julie Kirkpatrick, lawyer for one family.
The upheaval they faced is "among the worst consequences of Smith's mistakes," she says, adding they are no less victims of miscarriages of justice.
One of the many issues explored at the inquiry is that of child protection. Child advocates are putting forth an array of recommendations on behalf of the displaced children, including possible reconciliation of broken-up families.
Twice a year, Sherret, 32, gets letters and pictures from Christopher. She stares at the photos intently, looking for signs of her son's growth. From a picture he sent this past Christmas, she can see his face had filled out some. He looks more like his dad, her ex, she notes. But she can see her own DNA in his eyes.
"He's a gorgeous young man. He will be 14 years old in July. I keep thinking to myself, four more years," she says.
In his letters to her, he addresses her as "Dear Sherry."
"That hurts," she says. "But it's understandable."
She signs her letters back, "Love, Mommy Sherry."
Sherret lost two sons in 1996. That January, she discovered 4-month-old Joshua dead in his playpen. Smith said the child was suffocated, as evidenced by marks on his neck. The pathologist also said the boy had a fractured skull. Sherret was charged with first-degree murder.
Years later, when Smith's work came under scrutiny, Joshua's body was exhumed. It was revealed his skull wasn't fractured and the marks on his neck were actually created by Smith, himself, during the autopsy. Experts who reviewed the case said Joshua had accidentally asphyxiated in an unsafe sleep environment. He had slept in a playpen, under a sleeping bag, comforter and blankets.
Child-welfare workers removed Christopher, then 18 months, from her custody. He was first placed with his grandparents and then with a foster family.
In January 1999, Sherret was convicted on a reduced charge of infanticide. The following June she was sentenced to a year in jail and two years probation. Meantime, Sherret learned children's aid was putting forth an application to the courts to have Christopher move from foster care to adoption. The foster family told Sherret they would be willing to make him a permanent part of their family.
Evoking the parable of King Solomon threatening to split a baby to determine its rightful mother, Sherret made the difficult decision to let this family adopt her son, fearing he could otherwise bounce around different homes. The adoption agreement included the exchange of letters, annual phone calls from Christopher's foster mother and plans for a reunion when he turns 18.
Lawyer Suzan Fraser has been representing Defence for Children International at the inquiry. The group aims to protect the rights of youngsters and is going to bat for the 17 displaced children.
"The big problem is that there is no process for dealing with apprehension or adoption orders made on the basis of flawed pathology evidence," Fraser remarks.
She says the damage inflicted on the affected children is immeasurable. "Imagine the anger and the sorrow to learn that you had been wrongfully taken from your mother or father. Imagine the taunts of the other children in foster care teasing you because your mother killed your sister.
"Imagine the horror of losing your sibling and then your mother, when your mother was actually protective rather than the killer everyone thought she was? Imagine having no power to fix it."
Fraser is fearful there may be even more children out there who were uprooted from their homes because of errors Smith made in child-death investigations. Undoing Smith's mistakes isn't so easy. The Child and Family Services Act makes no provision to appeal an adoption order except within the first 30 days after it has been made.
"The best interests and stability of a child require that the adoption order is not subject to further review, even if unjust and based on a clearly erroneous factual premise," states a paper prepared for the inquiry by Queen's law professor Nicholas Bala and McGill social work professor Nico Trocme.
"However, if it is established that a child was removed from parental custody due to an erroneous belief that the parent was responsible for the death of a sibling, it may well be in the best interests of the children to have at least some contact with the parents, depending on their age and wishes. At the very least, the adoptive parents, and through them the children, should be informed of the new circumstances," they continue.
Sherret says Christopher doesn't know why she gave him up for adoption.
He only recently learned he has a 2-year-old sister. This is Sherret's third child, the only one with her. Christopher's adoptive mother was afraid to tell him about his new sibling, lest it raise questions about why his biological mother could keep one child and not another, Sherret says.
While she dreams about the day they'll see each other again, she has nightmares about the last time she saw him. It was in a playroom at the Northumberland Children's Aid Society. Sherret knew she wouldn't see her son, then 5, again until he was 18. She kept her eye on the clock, savouring her last three hours with him.
Mom and child played for the first 2 1/2 hours, but as the end of their visit neared, Sherret pulled the lad onto her lap for a serious chat. "I told him that mommy still has some problems to deal with and that he couldn't come home," Sherret recounts.
The lad reacted angrily. "He told me I lied," she says, explaining how Christopher reminded her of a previous promise that he could come home. "He wanted to come home and he wanted to know if he could keep Whisper, his kitty."
In his letters to her now, Christopher asks if she still has Whisper. She does.
Sherret wept during her final minutes with her son. Her tears continued to flow in the car on her way home. She had lost her two sons now and was on her way to prison.
The next day, she was sent to the Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton, where other inmates called her a "baby killer." She ignored their taunts until one day it became too much. She overheard one women ask another: "Do you know how Sherry killed her baby?"
"I remember just coming around the corner and starting to beat on her," recalls Sherret, who was moved to segregation and then to another detention centre.
As devastating as it was to be blamed, jailed and taunted for Joshua's death, those experiences paled in comparison to losing custody of Christopher, she says. "Having a child taken from you is like having your life taken from you. I just didn't want to be around. I didn't want to live. But then I sat there and thought, I've got to go on because I know I'll get a chance to see him at some point."
Despite the hell a biological parent like Sherret has gone though, returning custody of a child may not be the best idea, experts warn.
"While the unmerited separation of children from their parents is a great injustice, it does not necessarily follow that returning these children to the care of their parents is in their best interest," Bala and Trocme write in their report for the inquiry.
"In particular, if children are returned to their parents' custody after several years in a stable foster home, they may well be traumatized by the stress of separation from their foster families and the experience of returning to a now unfamiliar environment," they continue.
Still, Sherret's lawyer, James Lockyer, hopes adoptive parents would be open to allowing some sort of contact between the birth parents and the children.
"What you would hope is that the adoptive parent might have the foresight, strength, courage to consider allowing the children to recontact the parent. But that's a pretty tall order," he admits, likening the struggle to Bertolt Brecht's The Caucasian Chalk Circle, a play about a literal tug-of-war over a child.
Lockyer doesn't blame children's aid societies in these cases. They were just sadly relying on bad information from sources like Smith, he notes. "Wrongful convictions have consequences way beyond someone being in jail for something they didn't do."
less than three years ago, Sherret discovered she was pregnant again. Her first reaction was panic. Her name was still on the province's child-abuse registry and she faced the prospect of having her third child taken from her, too.
Her reaction wasn't so unusual. In another case in which Smith was involved, a couple decided to have an abortion after learning of an unexpected pregnancy. Angela Veno and Anthony Kporwodu had their toddler son seized by children's aid after they were charged with the 1998 death of their infant daughter. They were told any new child would also be seized. Sherret was duty bound to report her pregnancy to CAS, which she did. This is how she discovered serious questions were being raised about Smith's work. A CAS official told her the doctor was being investigated.
Sherret contacted the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted and Lockyer, who would assist her in trying to clear her name. He would also help her in her efforts to keep her third child. Initially, the CAS wanted to remove Sherret from her home when the baby was born, leaving the infant to reside with its father. Eventually they settled for a supervisory order, meaning Sherret could never be alone with the baby.
The child was born on Sept. 29, 2005.
For the first 11 months of the child's life, father Rob couldn't even go to the store without waking the baby and taking her with him.
But last April, a provincial court ruled that the supervision order be dropped. By this time, two outside experts had confirmed there was no foul play involved involved in Joshua's death.
"I believe I lost a special 11 months with her. It was an 11 months I could not be alone with my beautiful girl," Sherret says. "I had to go though hell to stay in her life."
Sherret has been diagnosed with major, chronic depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. "I'm exhausted physically, mentally."
Her children keep her going.
"I'm mad, but I have to live every day for my daughter and (Christopher), not just me," she says.
While she dreams about the day she'll see Christopher again, she has no illusions. "He's grown up with his family pretty much most of his life and it would just be wrong to take him away from them. I just want some kind of a relationship with him."
She's kept a lot of Christopher's old toys. She watches her daughter play with them, remembering her son doing the same.
"I would be so happy if I could see them play together," she says."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: An overview of Joshua's case prepared by Commission staff indicates that:
Joshua was born in Belleville, Ontario on September 23, 1995 to Sherry Lee-Ann Sherret and Peter. Joshua had an older half-brother born on July 4, 1994 to Sherry and another partner. Sherry, Peter, Joshua and Joshua's bother all resided together in Trenton, Ontario. Joshua died on January 23, 1996, at the age of four months in Trenton,Ontario.
At the time of Joshua's death Sherry was 20 years old. On March 27, 1996, sherry was charged with first-degree murder in Joshua's death. After a preliminary inquiry she was committed to stand trial on that charge. However, that committal was subsequently quashed and she was ordered to stand trial on a charge of second-degree murder instead.
On January 4, 1999, a new indictment charging infanticide was placed before the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division). Sherry entered a plea of not guilty. However, the Crown then read into the record certain agreed facts. The defence called no evidence in response to the facts read in and did not dispute them. As a result sherry was convicted of infanticide. On June 2, 1999, she was sentenced to a one-year custodial term followed by two years of probation. Just prior to the laying of the criminal charge, on March 7, 1996, Joshua's brother was apprehended by the Northumberland Children's Aid Society and placed in foster care. He was ultimately adopted by his foster family. In September, 2005, Sherry had another child, a daughter. The Children's Aid Society obtained a Supervision Order in October, 2006, in relation to this child. On April 11, 2007, that order was terminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post, which delved into Sherry Sherret's tragic situation, ran on March 17, 2008, as follows:
Part One: Collateral Damage: Dr. Charles Smith's Forgotten Victims;
"THE BOY, CHRISTOPHER (NOT HIS REAL NAME), IS ONE OF AT LEAST 17 CHILDREN WHOSE LIVES WERE THROWN INTO CHAOS AFTER THE DEATH OF A SIBLING. IN EACH CASE, DISGRACED PATHOLOGIST DR. CHARLES SMITH PERFORMED AN AUTOPSY OR OFFERED A CONSULTING OPINION ON THE DEATHS. BAD ENOUGH THEY HAD LOST A SISTER OR A BROTHER. BUT SMITH'S MISTAKES HELPED IMPLICATE THEIR PARENTS AND RESULTED IN THESE CHILDREN BEING REMOVED FROM THEIR HOMES BY CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES."
THERESA BOYLE: TORONTO STAR;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "collateral damage" caused by Dr. Charles Smith has been vividly captured by Toronto Star reporter Theresa Boyle, in a story, published on March 9, 2008, that focuses on "The 'forgotten victims' torn from their homes."
The disturbing story is accompanied by a photograph of Sherry Sherret in her home, holding the baby album of the son taken away from her for adoption.
Boyle's story makes the point that much of the damage caused by Smith - and those who failed to rein him in - will linger for years to come.
"July 2012. This date won't come soon enough for Sherry Sherret," Boyle's story begins;
"It's when her first born will turn 18. And it's when the Belleville mother will finally be reunited with the son who was put up for adoption when he was only 5," it continues.
"The boy, Christopher (not his real name), is one of at least 17 children whose lives were thrown into chaos after the death of a sibling. In each case, disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith performed an autopsy or offered a consulting opinion on the deaths. Bad enough they had lost a sister or a brother. But Smith's mistakes helped implicate their parents and resulted in these children being removed from their homes by children's aid societies.
At least three children, including Christopher, were adopted out to other families. There is no legal recourse to undo adoptions as the Child and Family Service Act stipulates that once an adoption order is finalized, it cannot be reviewed.
The remaining children were sent to live with relatives or foster families for as long as two years.These children are from the 20 botched death investigations that have been explored at the ongoing Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology. A panel of renowned forensic pathologists determined Smith erred in all these cases.
While attention has largely been focused on potentially wrongful convictions, these children have been the "forgotten victims" of his errors, says Julie Kirkpatrick, lawyer for one family.
The upheaval they faced is "among the worst consequences of Smith's mistakes," she says, adding they are no less victims of miscarriages of justice.
One of the many issues explored at the inquiry is that of child protection. Child advocates are putting forth an array of recommendations on behalf of the displaced children, including possible reconciliation of broken-up families.
Twice a year, Sherret, 32, gets letters and pictures from Christopher. She stares at the photos intently, looking for signs of her son's growth. From a picture he sent this past Christmas, she can see his face had filled out some. He looks more like his dad, her ex, she notes. But she can see her own DNA in his eyes.
"He's a gorgeous young man. He will be 14 years old in July. I keep thinking to myself, four more years," she says.
In his letters to her, he addresses her as "Dear Sherry."
"That hurts," she says. "But it's understandable."
She signs her letters back, "Love, Mommy Sherry."
Sherret lost two sons in 1996. That January, she discovered 4-month-old Joshua dead in his playpen. Smith said the child was suffocated, as evidenced by marks on his neck. The pathologist also said the boy had a fractured skull. Sherret was charged with first-degree murder.
Years later, when Smith's work came under scrutiny, Joshua's body was exhumed. It was revealed his skull wasn't fractured and the marks on his neck were actually created by Smith, himself, during the autopsy. Experts who reviewed the case said Joshua had accidentally asphyxiated in an unsafe sleep environment. He had slept in a playpen, under a sleeping bag, comforter and blankets.
Child-welfare workers removed Christopher, then 18 months, from her custody. He was first placed with his grandparents and then with a foster family.
In January 1999, Sherret was convicted on a reduced charge of infanticide. The following June she was sentenced to a year in jail and two years probation. Meantime, Sherret learned children's aid was putting forth an application to the courts to have Christopher move from foster care to adoption. The foster family told Sherret they would be willing to make him a permanent part of their family.
Evoking the parable of King Solomon threatening to split a baby to determine its rightful mother, Sherret made the difficult decision to let this family adopt her son, fearing he could otherwise bounce around different homes. The adoption agreement included the exchange of letters, annual phone calls from Christopher's foster mother and plans for a reunion when he turns 18.
Lawyer Suzan Fraser has been representing Defence for Children International at the inquiry. The group aims to protect the rights of youngsters and is going to bat for the 17 displaced children.
"The big problem is that there is no process for dealing with apprehension or adoption orders made on the basis of flawed pathology evidence," Fraser remarks.
She says the damage inflicted on the affected children is immeasurable. "Imagine the anger and the sorrow to learn that you had been wrongfully taken from your mother or father. Imagine the taunts of the other children in foster care teasing you because your mother killed your sister.
"Imagine the horror of losing your sibling and then your mother, when your mother was actually protective rather than the killer everyone thought she was? Imagine having no power to fix it."
Fraser is fearful there may be even more children out there who were uprooted from their homes because of errors Smith made in child-death investigations. Undoing Smith's mistakes isn't so easy. The Child and Family Services Act makes no provision to appeal an adoption order except within the first 30 days after it has been made.
"The best interests and stability of a child require that the adoption order is not subject to further review, even if unjust and based on a clearly erroneous factual premise," states a paper prepared for the inquiry by Queen's law professor Nicholas Bala and McGill social work professor Nico Trocme.
"However, if it is established that a child was removed from parental custody due to an erroneous belief that the parent was responsible for the death of a sibling, it may well be in the best interests of the children to have at least some contact with the parents, depending on their age and wishes. At the very least, the adoptive parents, and through them the children, should be informed of the new circumstances," they continue.
Sherret says Christopher doesn't know why she gave him up for adoption.
He only recently learned he has a 2-year-old sister. This is Sherret's third child, the only one with her. Christopher's adoptive mother was afraid to tell him about his new sibling, lest it raise questions about why his biological mother could keep one child and not another, Sherret says.
While she dreams about the day they'll see each other again, she has nightmares about the last time she saw him. It was in a playroom at the Northumberland Children's Aid Society. Sherret knew she wouldn't see her son, then 5, again until he was 18. She kept her eye on the clock, savouring her last three hours with him.
Mom and child played for the first 2 1/2 hours, but as the end of their visit neared, Sherret pulled the lad onto her lap for a serious chat. "I told him that mommy still has some problems to deal with and that he couldn't come home," Sherret recounts.
The lad reacted angrily. "He told me I lied," she says, explaining how Christopher reminded her of a previous promise that he could come home. "He wanted to come home and he wanted to know if he could keep Whisper, his kitty."
In his letters to her now, Christopher asks if she still has Whisper. She does.
Sherret wept during her final minutes with her son. Her tears continued to flow in the car on her way home. She had lost her two sons now and was on her way to prison.
The next day, she was sent to the Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton, where other inmates called her a "baby killer." She ignored their taunts until one day it became too much. She overheard one women ask another: "Do you know how Sherry killed her baby?"
"I remember just coming around the corner and starting to beat on her," recalls Sherret, who was moved to segregation and then to another detention centre.
As devastating as it was to be blamed, jailed and taunted for Joshua's death, those experiences paled in comparison to losing custody of Christopher, she says. "Having a child taken from you is like having your life taken from you. I just didn't want to be around. I didn't want to live. But then I sat there and thought, I've got to go on because I know I'll get a chance to see him at some point."
Despite the hell a biological parent like Sherret has gone though, returning custody of a child may not be the best idea, experts warn.
"While the unmerited separation of children from their parents is a great injustice, it does not necessarily follow that returning these children to the care of their parents is in their best interest," Bala and Trocme write in their report for the inquiry.
"In particular, if children are returned to their parents' custody after several years in a stable foster home, they may well be traumatized by the stress of separation from their foster families and the experience of returning to a now unfamiliar environment," they continue.
Still, Sherret's lawyer, James Lockyer, hopes adoptive parents would be open to allowing some sort of contact between the birth parents and the children.
"What you would hope is that the adoptive parent might have the foresight, strength, courage to consider allowing the children to recontact the parent. But that's a pretty tall order," he admits, likening the struggle to Bertolt Brecht's The Caucasian Chalk Circle, a play about a literal tug-of-war over a child.
Lockyer doesn't blame children's aid societies in these cases. They were just sadly relying on bad information from sources like Smith, he notes. "Wrongful convictions have consequences way beyond someone being in jail for something they didn't do."
less than three years ago, Sherret discovered she was pregnant again. Her first reaction was panic. Her name was still on the province's child-abuse registry and she faced the prospect of having her third child taken from her, too.
Her reaction wasn't so unusual. In another case in which Smith was involved, a couple decided to have an abortion after learning of an unexpected pregnancy. Angela Veno and Anthony Kporwodu had their toddler son seized by children's aid after they were charged with the 1998 death of their infant daughter. They were told any new child would also be seized. Sherret was duty bound to report her pregnancy to CAS, which she did. This is how she discovered serious questions were being raised about Smith's work. A CAS official told her the doctor was being investigated.
Sherret contacted the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted and Lockyer, who would assist her in trying to clear her name. He would also help her in her efforts to keep her third child. Initially, the CAS wanted to remove Sherret from her home when the baby was born, leaving the infant to reside with its father. Eventually they settled for a supervisory order, meaning Sherret could never be alone with the baby.
The child was born on Sept. 29, 2005.
For the first 11 months of the child's life, father Rob couldn't even go to the store without waking the baby and taking her with him.
But last April, a provincial court ruled that the supervision order be dropped. By this time, two outside experts had confirmed there was no foul play involved involved in Joshua's death.
"I believe I lost a special 11 months with her. It was an 11 months I could not be alone with my beautiful girl," Sherret says. "I had to go though hell to stay in her life."
Sherret has been diagnosed with major, chronic depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. "I'm exhausted physically, mentally."
Her children keep her going.
"I'm mad, but I have to live every day for my daughter and (Christopher), not just me," she says.
While she dreams about the day she'll see Christopher again, she has no illusions. "He's grown up with his family pretty much most of his life and it would just be wrong to take him away from them. I just want some kind of a relationship with him."
She's kept a lot of Christopher's old toys. She watches her daughter play with them, remembering her son doing the same.
"I would be so happy if I could see them play together," she says."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
BREAKING NEWS: SHERRY SHERRET CASE: CANADIAN PRESS REPORTS CROWN AGREES TO SHERRY SHERRET'S ACQUITTAL;
"SMITH DETERMINED ASPHYXIA WAS THE CAUSE OF DEATH. HIS OPINION THAT JOSHUA'S DEATH WAS SUSPICIOUS WAS DUE IN PART TO HIS FINDINGS OF A SKULL FRACTURE AND NECK HEMORRHAGES, BUT BOTH OF THOSE FINDINGS HAVE SINCE BEEN REFUTED BY POLLANEN AND OTHER EXPERTS WHO REVIEWED THE CASE.
THERE WAS NO SKULL FRACTURE, THE EXPERTS FOUND, AND THE NECK HEMORRHAGES WERE IN FACT CAUSED BY SMITH DURING THE AUTOPSY, POLLANEN WROTE."
REPORTER ALLISON JONES: CANADIAN PRESS;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: An overview of Joshua's case prepared by Commission staff indicates that:
Joshua was born in Belleville, Ontario on September 23, 1995 to Sherry Lee-Ann Sherret and Peter. Joshua had an older half-brother born on July 4, 1994 to Sherry and another partner. Sherry, Peter, Joshua and Joshua's bother all resided together in Trenton, Ontario. Joshua died on January 23, 1996, at the age of four months in Trenton, Ontario.
At the time of Joshua's death Sherry was 20 years old. On March 27, 1996, sherry was charged with first-degree murder in Joshua's death. After a preliminary inquiry she was committed to stand trial on that charge. However, that committal was subsequently quashed and she was ordered to stand trial on a charge of second-degree murder instead. On January 4, 1999, a new indictment charging infanticide was placed before the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division). Sherry entered a plea of not guilty. However, the Crown then read into the record certain agreed facts. The defence called no evidence in response to the facts read in and did not dispute them. As a result sherry was convicted of infanticide. On June 2, 1999, she was sentenced to a one-year custodial term followed by two years of probation. Just prior to the laying of the criminal charge, on March 7, 1996, Joshua's brother was apprehended by the Northumberland Children's Aid Society and placed in foster care. He was ultimately adopted by his foster family. In September, 2005, Sherry had another child, a daughter. The Children's Aid Society obtained a Supervision Order in October, 2006, in relation to this child. On April 11, 2007, that order was terminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TORONTO — An Ontario woman convicted of killing her four-month-old son after a now-disgraced pathologist concluded the child's death was suspicious should be acquitted of infanticide, both the Crown and defence say in new court filings," the Canadian Press story by reporter Allison Jones published earlier today begins.
"Sherry Sherret-Robinson was found guilty in 1999 of killing her infant son Joshua due in part to evidence from Dr. Charles Smith, whose opinion at the time carried much weight," the story, continues, under the heading, "Court should acquit mom of infanticide in disgraced pathologist case: Crown."
"Since then his findings in dozens of cases have been called into question or discredited. A report on pediatric forensic pathology from Justice Stephen Goudge last year found the failings of the "arrogant" Smith, once considered the dean of his profession, and his bosses were at the heart of several miscarriages of justice.
Though Sherret-Robinson had initially pleaded not guilty to infanticide, the Crown and her lawyer drafted an agreed statement of facts that said she smothered Joshua, causing his death, and she was found guilty in a Belleville, Ont., court.
Her trial lawyer writes in an affidavit that had he known then what he knows now about Smith he would have told Sherret-Robinson to vigorously fight the charge.
Sherret-Robinson takes her bid to clear her name before the Ontario Court of Appeal on Dec. 7, and a factum filed with the court shows the Crown will recommend an acquittal.
New expert evidence "conclusively refutes critical aspects of Dr. Smith's opinion" and Sherret-Robinson's conviction should be quashed and an acquittal entered in its place, the Crown says in the documents.
Dr. Michael Pollanen, Ontario's chief forensic pathologist, re-autopsied Joshua's body in 2006 and concluded there is no definitive cause of death.
Smith determined asphyxia was the cause of death. His opinion that Joshua's death was suspicious was due in part to his findings of a skull fracture and neck hemorrhages, but both of those findings have since been refuted by Pollanen and other experts who reviewed the case.
There was no skull fracture, the experts found, and the neck hemorrhages were in fact caused by Smith during the autopsy, Pollanen wrote.
The experts concluded there is no basis in the pathology to support Smith's inference the baby was deliberately smothered or suffocated, but that it can't be ruled out.
Instead, Pollanen suggested, the autopsy findings and the fact that Joshua had numerous layers of blankets under, around and on top of him, "reasonably support the conclusion that death occurred by an accidental asphyxial means in an unsafe sleeping environment."
In an affidavit filed with the court Sherret-Robinson says she has always wondered if she put too many blankets around Joshua that night and now will have to live with the knowledge that probably led to his death.
"I will never forget the terror I felt when I reached down to pick him up and discovered that he was blue and his little body was completely stiff," she writes.
After the police arrived, the next thing she remembers is sitting in the emergency room, hugging a picture of Joshua and sobbing.
"Eventually the doctors came and told me he had died, and let me hold him to say goodbye," Sherret-Robinson writes.
"I sang him a lullaby and refused to let go of him. Even to this day I cannot get that image out of my head."
Goudge referred to Sherret-Robinson's case in his report, saying Smith "inappropriately" formed his opinion using matters outside the pathology, such as statements Sherret-Robinson had made one month before the death that she was depressed and was going to smother her baby."
The story can be found at:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5ibi5YwxRiC4ZAlcY9HRXR8o3Ieog
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
THERE WAS NO SKULL FRACTURE, THE EXPERTS FOUND, AND THE NECK HEMORRHAGES WERE IN FACT CAUSED BY SMITH DURING THE AUTOPSY, POLLANEN WROTE."
REPORTER ALLISON JONES: CANADIAN PRESS;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: An overview of Joshua's case prepared by Commission staff indicates that:
Joshua was born in Belleville, Ontario on September 23, 1995 to Sherry Lee-Ann Sherret and Peter. Joshua had an older half-brother born on July 4, 1994 to Sherry and another partner. Sherry, Peter, Joshua and Joshua's bother all resided together in Trenton, Ontario. Joshua died on January 23, 1996, at the age of four months in Trenton, Ontario.
At the time of Joshua's death Sherry was 20 years old. On March 27, 1996, sherry was charged with first-degree murder in Joshua's death. After a preliminary inquiry she was committed to stand trial on that charge. However, that committal was subsequently quashed and she was ordered to stand trial on a charge of second-degree murder instead. On January 4, 1999, a new indictment charging infanticide was placed before the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division). Sherry entered a plea of not guilty. However, the Crown then read into the record certain agreed facts. The defence called no evidence in response to the facts read in and did not dispute them. As a result sherry was convicted of infanticide. On June 2, 1999, she was sentenced to a one-year custodial term followed by two years of probation. Just prior to the laying of the criminal charge, on March 7, 1996, Joshua's brother was apprehended by the Northumberland Children's Aid Society and placed in foster care. He was ultimately adopted by his foster family. In September, 2005, Sherry had another child, a daughter. The Children's Aid Society obtained a Supervision Order in October, 2006, in relation to this child. On April 11, 2007, that order was terminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TORONTO — An Ontario woman convicted of killing her four-month-old son after a now-disgraced pathologist concluded the child's death was suspicious should be acquitted of infanticide, both the Crown and defence say in new court filings," the Canadian Press story by reporter Allison Jones published earlier today begins.
"Sherry Sherret-Robinson was found guilty in 1999 of killing her infant son Joshua due in part to evidence from Dr. Charles Smith, whose opinion at the time carried much weight," the story, continues, under the heading, "Court should acquit mom of infanticide in disgraced pathologist case: Crown."
"Since then his findings in dozens of cases have been called into question or discredited. A report on pediatric forensic pathology from Justice Stephen Goudge last year found the failings of the "arrogant" Smith, once considered the dean of his profession, and his bosses were at the heart of several miscarriages of justice.
Though Sherret-Robinson had initially pleaded not guilty to infanticide, the Crown and her lawyer drafted an agreed statement of facts that said she smothered Joshua, causing his death, and she was found guilty in a Belleville, Ont., court.
Her trial lawyer writes in an affidavit that had he known then what he knows now about Smith he would have told Sherret-Robinson to vigorously fight the charge.
Sherret-Robinson takes her bid to clear her name before the Ontario Court of Appeal on Dec. 7, and a factum filed with the court shows the Crown will recommend an acquittal.
New expert evidence "conclusively refutes critical aspects of Dr. Smith's opinion" and Sherret-Robinson's conviction should be quashed and an acquittal entered in its place, the Crown says in the documents.
Dr. Michael Pollanen, Ontario's chief forensic pathologist, re-autopsied Joshua's body in 2006 and concluded there is no definitive cause of death.
Smith determined asphyxia was the cause of death. His opinion that Joshua's death was suspicious was due in part to his findings of a skull fracture and neck hemorrhages, but both of those findings have since been refuted by Pollanen and other experts who reviewed the case.
There was no skull fracture, the experts found, and the neck hemorrhages were in fact caused by Smith during the autopsy, Pollanen wrote.
The experts concluded there is no basis in the pathology to support Smith's inference the baby was deliberately smothered or suffocated, but that it can't be ruled out.
Instead, Pollanen suggested, the autopsy findings and the fact that Joshua had numerous layers of blankets under, around and on top of him, "reasonably support the conclusion that death occurred by an accidental asphyxial means in an unsafe sleeping environment."
In an affidavit filed with the court Sherret-Robinson says she has always wondered if she put too many blankets around Joshua that night and now will have to live with the knowledge that probably led to his death.
"I will never forget the terror I felt when I reached down to pick him up and discovered that he was blue and his little body was completely stiff," she writes.
After the police arrived, the next thing she remembers is sitting in the emergency room, hugging a picture of Joshua and sobbing.
"Eventually the doctors came and told me he had died, and let me hold him to say goodbye," Sherret-Robinson writes.
"I sang him a lullaby and refused to let go of him. Even to this day I cannot get that image out of my head."
Goudge referred to Sherret-Robinson's case in his report, saying Smith "inappropriately" formed his opinion using matters outside the pathology, such as statements Sherret-Robinson had made one month before the death that she was depressed and was going to smother her baby."
The story can be found at:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5ibi5YwxRiC4ZAlcY9HRXR8o3Ieog
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Dr. Smith's Loss Of His Own Child: Does it Explain His Twisted Opinions?
The National Post suggests that Dr. Charles Smith's loss of his own infant child may have a bearing on his judgment in dealing with many of his cases, in a powerful opinion piece published today.
As reported earlier in this Blog, Smith mentioned the his child's death in an interview he gave reporter Christie Blatchford after completing his testimony in a notorious murder trial. (See Smith And the Media: Part One; Why media share some of the blame; October, 2007);
"Dr. Smith is a gentle man, and a religious one", wrote Blatchford.
"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."
Dr. Smith reference to the loss of his child - during his testimony at the Goudge Inquiry - is noted in a National Post opinion piece which appears in today's paper under the heading "The Disgrace of Charles Smith."
(Smith made this reference after Commission Counsel Linda Rothstein questioned him about his professed "frustration" at having to participate in the court process,
"The downside was Court, but Court wasn't every day," Smith replied.
"The upside was, the work is extraordinarily challenging.
It's absolutely fscinating; rewarding beyond that which I can express to you.
How -- let me be personal here. My own experience with the death of a child gave me a certain sense of the -- of the pain that a parent can know and I saw, as well, some value in trying to give parents the best information possible."
The National Post opinion analysis begins with the assertion that, "That Dr. Charles Smith was professionally unfit in his former capacity as a forensic pathologist has now been clear for months."
"An Ontario coroner's inquiry into his practices, released last April, found that Dr. Smith had come to questionable, or downright incorrect, conclusions in 20 of the 45 cases reviewed by the coroner's office," it continues.
"On 13 occasions, his testimony was key to wrongful convictions. And in some cases, his expert evidence led to children being taken away from parents falsely accused of foul-play or homicide.
But what originally appeared to be a simple -- if appalling -- case of an incompetent medical practitioner took a bizarre twist this week when Dr. Smith spoke before an Ontario government-sponsored public inquiry into his actions.
Explaining how and why he came so often to such incorrect conclusions, Dr. Smith offered a panoply of excuses:
He lacked proper training; he was under the impression that his role was to support Crown prosecutors, not offer impartial testimony; the loss of his own infant child clouded his judgment in dealing with cases.
These admissions may help explain some of the more disturbing of Dr. Smith's botched cases.
In January, 1997, for instance, Dr. Smith testified that Brenda Waudby had beaten her two-year-old daughter to death.
Five years later, a crucial piece of forensic evidence (described in news reports as a "pubic-like hair") that had gone missing during the investigation turned up in his desk drawer.
In another case, an autopsy done by Dr. Smith led prosecutors to charge Louise Reynolds with second-degree murder for having killed her seven-year-old daughter.
Ms. Reynolds was held in jail for two years, until further investigation revealed that the child had been mauled to death by a pit bull.
In 1996, Sherry Sherret was convicted of infanticide in the death of her four-month-old son on the basis of Dr. Smith's testimony that the boy had a skull fracture and had been smothered.
Ms. Sherret was jailed and another of her children was sent to Children's Aid and eventually adopted by another family.
In 2006, the boy's body was exhumed and a new autopsy showed that there had been no skull fracture and that Dr. Smith himself had been the cause of marks on the boy's neck.
These "errors" are so extraordinary that they suggest Dr. Smith may actually have wilfully obstructed justice.
His repeated apologies during his Monday testimony and later in the week offer no solace to the families whose lives he shattered.
Indeed, some of the victims may well suspect that behind his contrition is a conscience rendered guilty by truly dark -- and not just accidental-- actions.
The public inquiry into Dr. Smith's record must now dig deeper -- both into what Dr. Smith did, and the reasons that such a pitiful specimen would be entrusted with the fate of those accused of some of the most horrible crimes imaginable."
Well said!
I couldn't agree more.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
As reported earlier in this Blog, Smith mentioned the his child's death in an interview he gave reporter Christie Blatchford after completing his testimony in a notorious murder trial. (See Smith And the Media: Part One; Why media share some of the blame; October, 2007);
"Dr. Smith is a gentle man, and a religious one", wrote Blatchford.
"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."
Dr. Smith reference to the loss of his child - during his testimony at the Goudge Inquiry - is noted in a National Post opinion piece which appears in today's paper under the heading "The Disgrace of Charles Smith."
(Smith made this reference after Commission Counsel Linda Rothstein questioned him about his professed "frustration" at having to participate in the court process,
"The downside was Court, but Court wasn't every day," Smith replied.
"The upside was, the work is extraordinarily challenging.
It's absolutely fscinating; rewarding beyond that which I can express to you.
How -- let me be personal here. My own experience with the death of a child gave me a certain sense of the -- of the pain that a parent can know and I saw, as well, some value in trying to give parents the best information possible."
The National Post opinion analysis begins with the assertion that, "That Dr. Charles Smith was professionally unfit in his former capacity as a forensic pathologist has now been clear for months."
"An Ontario coroner's inquiry into his practices, released last April, found that Dr. Smith had come to questionable, or downright incorrect, conclusions in 20 of the 45 cases reviewed by the coroner's office," it continues.
"On 13 occasions, his testimony was key to wrongful convictions. And in some cases, his expert evidence led to children being taken away from parents falsely accused of foul-play or homicide.
But what originally appeared to be a simple -- if appalling -- case of an incompetent medical practitioner took a bizarre twist this week when Dr. Smith spoke before an Ontario government-sponsored public inquiry into his actions.
Explaining how and why he came so often to such incorrect conclusions, Dr. Smith offered a panoply of excuses:
He lacked proper training; he was under the impression that his role was to support Crown prosecutors, not offer impartial testimony; the loss of his own infant child clouded his judgment in dealing with cases.
These admissions may help explain some of the more disturbing of Dr. Smith's botched cases.
In January, 1997, for instance, Dr. Smith testified that Brenda Waudby had beaten her two-year-old daughter to death.
Five years later, a crucial piece of forensic evidence (described in news reports as a "pubic-like hair") that had gone missing during the investigation turned up in his desk drawer.
In another case, an autopsy done by Dr. Smith led prosecutors to charge Louise Reynolds with second-degree murder for having killed her seven-year-old daughter.
Ms. Reynolds was held in jail for two years, until further investigation revealed that the child had been mauled to death by a pit bull.
In 1996, Sherry Sherret was convicted of infanticide in the death of her four-month-old son on the basis of Dr. Smith's testimony that the boy had a skull fracture and had been smothered.
Ms. Sherret was jailed and another of her children was sent to Children's Aid and eventually adopted by another family.
In 2006, the boy's body was exhumed and a new autopsy showed that there had been no skull fracture and that Dr. Smith himself had been the cause of marks on the boy's neck.
These "errors" are so extraordinary that they suggest Dr. Smith may actually have wilfully obstructed justice.
His repeated apologies during his Monday testimony and later in the week offer no solace to the families whose lives he shattered.
Indeed, some of the victims may well suspect that behind his contrition is a conscience rendered guilty by truly dark -- and not just accidental-- actions.
The public inquiry into Dr. Smith's record must now dig deeper -- both into what Dr. Smith did, and the reasons that such a pitiful specimen would be entrusted with the fate of those accused of some of the most horrible crimes imaginable."
Well said!
I couldn't agree more.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
