Over the past eighteen months I have used this Blog to intensively report on developments relating to Dr. Charles Smith culminating with the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry.
I am now winding up this phase of the Blog - to be replaced eventually by periodic reporting of developments relating to Dr. Smith and related issues as they occur - with an examination of Justice Goudge's findings in the cases reviewed by the Inquiry.
I think it is important to take this closer look at the report in this Blog, because the mainstream media, which has done an admirable job in reporting the inquiry, have gone on to other stories.
Justice Goudge's findings relating to the various cases have been scattered throughout the report.
My approach is to weave together the findings relating to all of the principal actors - so we can get a fuller picture of Justice Goudge's findings as to their conduct;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview reports prepared by Commission staff on the four cases which Justice Goudge refers to in his section called "Diagnosing Asphyxia" - Tiffani's case, Katharina's case, Delaney's case, and Taylor's case - read as follows
Tiffani's case:
Tiffani was born in Kingston,Ontario on March 24, 1993;
Tiffani was the child of Mary and William;
Tiffani died on July 4, 1993 in Glen Miller, Ontario;
Tiffani was three and a half months old at the time of her death;
Criminal proceedings were initiated against Mary and William;
On May 12, 1995, Mary and William pleaded guilty to the offence of failure to provide the necessities of life.
Mary received a suspended sentence and probation of two years (plus three days pre-trial custody) and William received a sentence of five months imprisonment;
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Katharina's case:;
Katharina was born in Toronto, Ontario on March 20, 1992;
Katharina was the only child of Lawrence Babineau and Gabriela Chaparro-Najar; (Ms. Babineau);
Katharina was found dead in her mother's apartment on September 15, 1995, in Toronto at the age of three and a half;
Criminal proceedings were initiated against Ms. Babineau on September 15, 1995;
On November 3, 1997, Ms. Babineau was found not criminally responsible for Katharina's death.
She received an absolute discharge from the Ontario Review Board on December 13, 2001;
The Toronto Catholic Children's Aid Society was involved with this family from October 17, 1994, until September 15, 1995;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaney's case:
Delaney was born in Woodstock, Ontario on December 20, 1992;
Delaney was the child of Olga Policarpo and Fernando Policarpo;
Delaney was pronounced dead on May 23, 1993, at Woodstock General Hospital.
Delaney was five months old at the time of his death;
Criminal proceedings were initiated against Olga Policarpo.
On April 25, 1994, Ms.Policarpo was convicted by a jury of infanticide.
On June 20, 1994, Ms. Policarpo was given a suspended sentence and three years probation;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor's case;
Taylor was born on April 16, 1996, in Thunder Bay.
Taylor was found dead in his cradle on July 31, 1996;
Taylor was three and a half months old at the time of his death;
Taylor lived with his mother and father, Lanny and Laura, in Thunder Bay.
Also living in the home was Laura's son from a previous relationship (Taylor's brother), who was 20 months when Taylor died;
The Children's Aid Society was involved with respect to Taylor's brother following Taylor's death;
Lanny and Laura were charged with second degree murder in relation to Taylor's death on November 30, 1996;
They were also charged with criminal negligence causing death and failure to provide the necessities of life.
On June 30, 1997, Lanny and Laura were discharged on all counts following their preliminary inquiry.
The Crown brought an application in the nature of certiorari to quash the discharges which was dismissed on September 21, 199;
An appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was launched in October 1999 and was ultimately abandoned by the Crown in January 2000;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Justice Goudge, one of the principal reasons Dr. Smith erred in the cases where he wrongfully concluded a child had died a suspicious death because of asphyxia was his misinterpretation of "non-specific findings" such as petechial hemorrhages in the thoracic viscera, congestion and edema of the lungs, cyanosis of the fingernails and cerebral edema, as indications of suspicious death.
But Justice Goudge noted that as early as 1974 forensic pathology textbooks were referring to those criteria as "obsolete" because they can appear on a body for many reasons - and without more evidence cannot be said to be diagnostic of asphyxia.
"Nonetheless, Dr. Smith determined that asphyxia was the cause of death in nine of the 18 cases the Commission studied in detail," he said.
Here are some of Justice Goudge's comments in the four cases referred to above:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffani:
Justice Goudge concludes that all of Dr. Smith's criteria were "non-specific and therefore non-diagnostic" - and that "the diagnosis of asphyxia was not available to him on the basis of the findings."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katharina:
As in Delaney's case (below), the independent experts diagreed with Smith's finding that the cause of death was asphyxia - and said that if he had diagnosed asphyxia based on the circumstantial, rather than the pathology evidence, he should have at least said so in his report.
"Instead, his reports were silent on the issue."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaney:
The panel of independent experts disagreed with Smith's assertion that the pathological evidence established that Delaney's airway had been obstructed.
"According to Dr. Saukko, the toxicology, radiology and histology examinations did not reveal any specific or significant findings that could explain Delaney's death," said Goudge.
"Although the circumstances suggest homicide, there were no pathology findings to substantiate it or exclude it."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor;
This was a case where Smith did not find asphyxia to be the cause of death but determined there was an "asphyxial component" to the death
But Justice Goudge finds that Dr. Smith based this conclusion entirely on non-specific findings and that "there was no other evidence to suggest that asphyxia played a part in Taylor's death.
"Contrary to Dr. Smith's assertion that he did not diagnose asphyxia based on non-specific findings alone, he did exactly that in Taylor's case."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There you have it;
Four cases in which none of the parents should have been put through the agony of being charged criminally with the death of a child;
Look at the consequences:
Tiffani: On May 12, 1995, Mary and William pleaded guilty to the offence of failure to provide the necessities of life.Mary received a suspended sentence and probation of two years (plus three days pre-trial custody) and William received a sentence of five months imprisonment;
Katharina: Criminal proceedings were initiated against Ms. Babineau on September 15, 1995; On November 3, 1997, Ms. Babineau was found not criminally responsible for Katharina's death.
Delaney: On April 25, 1994, Ms.Policarpo was convicted by a jury of infanticide. On June 20, 1994, Ms. Policarpo was given a suspended sentence and three years probation;
Taylor: Lanny and Laura were charged with second degree murder in relation to Taylor's death on November 30, 1996; They were also charged with criminal negligence causing death and failure to provide the necessities of life. On June 30, 1997, Lanny and Laura were discharged on all counts following their preliminary inquiry. The Crown brought an application in the nature of certiorari to quash the discharges which was dismissed on September 21, 1999; An appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was launched in October 1999 and was ultimately abandoned by the Crown in January 2000;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing posts with label tiffani. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tiffani. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Part Ten: Closing Submissions; Affected Families: Crossing The Line: From Coroner's Investigator To Police Agent;
The current focus is on the submissions filed by the "Affected Families Group" - a group of families who were directly affected by the systemic failings which occurred in pediatric forensic pathology in Ontario between 1991 and 2001;
The Group is represented by lawyers Peter Wardle (Wardle, Daley, Bernstein) and Julie M. Kirkpatrick;
Today's focus is on the section in which the Group alleges that Dr. Smith - and others involved in death investigations for the Chief Coroner's Office - crossed the line from impartial death investigator to active participant in a police investigation;
"With the assumption of an advocacy role, there is a danger that medical professionals will “cross the line” into participating in the police investigation," this section begins;
"Dr. Smith admitted that in the early years he considered himself to be supporting the Crown and that in later years he understood the concept of impartiality but was poor in the execution," it continues;
"But it was not just Dr. Smith who fell into this line of thinking.
In the Tyrell case, the Court considered the admissibility of statements made by Tyrell’s caregiver to Dr. Mian and Elaine McLaughlin of the SCAN team.
The trial judge clearly found that they were “persons in authority” and was scathing in his remarks on this point:
"I would reject the statement because of the dramatically unsatisfactory nature of the SCAN (Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect) team evidence, which makes it impossible to know with any degree of certainty what [Tyrell’s caregiver] was told about the purpose of the interview and equally impossible to know what was in fact the real purpose of the interview and also the dramatic and startling contradiction between Dr. Mian and Ms. MacLachlan about the so-called protocol averred by Ms. MacLachlan and also because of the apparent lack of any protocol of system or set of standard procedures or organizational guidelines to ensure that the role of the SCAN team is clear and fairly brought home, not only to interviewees, but also that the very members of the SCAN team itself have some consistent understanding of what its true purpose and function is."
Dr. Dirk Huyer candidly advised the Commission that when reflecting on this possibility of assuming an inappropriate investigatory role in a case, he recognized that “theoretically people would be more willing to tell me that because I’m a physician and I’m in a helping environment.”
In the Tiffani case, police investigators arranged a joint interview of the parents with the investigating coroner present, meeting to “discuss the method of the interview” in advance.
According to the notes of the investigating officer, the discussion was as follows:
Coroner will ask medical background of mother in form used for medical history…will mention interview is taped and get consent….
If at any time interview shows criminality, Coroner will stop… Officer will [issue?] caution and continue interview. Same procedure to follow with husband.
Reference to Dr. Smith’s stature was used as an investigative tool by the police during the interrogation of Nicholas’ mother:
you have to understand that there people, they’re professional who, the pathologist, the head pathologist for Ontario – I mean, this is a man who’s not making idle speculation. This is a man who knows and who has empowered that knowledge to us that his death was not natural. That’s the reality of it.
The evidence suggests that the Ontario Chief Coroner's Office saw itself as “a resource to the system”, meaning the prosecution side of the criminal justice system.
Nowhere is this more evident that in the Barrie case referred to in the course of this Inquiry.
The Affidavit of Staff Sergeant Mark Holden, sworn January 28, 2008, raises significant concerns as set out below:
There were two case conferences with police prior to Dr. Smith meeting with the mother;
"There was communication between Inspector McNeill and Dr. Smith about the fact the house was wire-tapped;
There was a meeting between Inspector McNeill and Dr. Smith immediately before the meeting; and
Dr. Smith immediately reported back to Inspector McNeill, describing the mother’s demeanour as follows: “it was like talking to her about a load of gravel”.
A February 7, 2008 affidavit sworn by Dr. Cairns confirms that he was aware that Dr. Smith’s meeting with the mother was going to be wiretapped and that he didn’t see a problem with it at the time although he does now)."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
The Group is represented by lawyers Peter Wardle (Wardle, Daley, Bernstein) and Julie M. Kirkpatrick;
Today's focus is on the section in which the Group alleges that Dr. Smith - and others involved in death investigations for the Chief Coroner's Office - crossed the line from impartial death investigator to active participant in a police investigation;
"With the assumption of an advocacy role, there is a danger that medical professionals will “cross the line” into participating in the police investigation," this section begins;
"Dr. Smith admitted that in the early years he considered himself to be supporting the Crown and that in later years he understood the concept of impartiality but was poor in the execution," it continues;
"But it was not just Dr. Smith who fell into this line of thinking.
In the Tyrell case, the Court considered the admissibility of statements made by Tyrell’s caregiver to Dr. Mian and Elaine McLaughlin of the SCAN team.
The trial judge clearly found that they were “persons in authority” and was scathing in his remarks on this point:
"I would reject the statement because of the dramatically unsatisfactory nature of the SCAN (Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect) team evidence, which makes it impossible to know with any degree of certainty what [Tyrell’s caregiver] was told about the purpose of the interview and equally impossible to know what was in fact the real purpose of the interview and also the dramatic and startling contradiction between Dr. Mian and Ms. MacLachlan about the so-called protocol averred by Ms. MacLachlan and also because of the apparent lack of any protocol of system or set of standard procedures or organizational guidelines to ensure that the role of the SCAN team is clear and fairly brought home, not only to interviewees, but also that the very members of the SCAN team itself have some consistent understanding of what its true purpose and function is."
Dr. Dirk Huyer candidly advised the Commission that when reflecting on this possibility of assuming an inappropriate investigatory role in a case, he recognized that “theoretically people would be more willing to tell me that because I’m a physician and I’m in a helping environment.”
In the Tiffani case, police investigators arranged a joint interview of the parents with the investigating coroner present, meeting to “discuss the method of the interview” in advance.
According to the notes of the investigating officer, the discussion was as follows:
Coroner will ask medical background of mother in form used for medical history…will mention interview is taped and get consent….
If at any time interview shows criminality, Coroner will stop… Officer will [issue?] caution and continue interview. Same procedure to follow with husband.
Reference to Dr. Smith’s stature was used as an investigative tool by the police during the interrogation of Nicholas’ mother:
you have to understand that there people, they’re professional who, the pathologist, the head pathologist for Ontario – I mean, this is a man who’s not making idle speculation. This is a man who knows and who has empowered that knowledge to us that his death was not natural. That’s the reality of it.
The evidence suggests that the Ontario Chief Coroner's Office saw itself as “a resource to the system”, meaning the prosecution side of the criminal justice system.
Nowhere is this more evident that in the Barrie case referred to in the course of this Inquiry.
The Affidavit of Staff Sergeant Mark Holden, sworn January 28, 2008, raises significant concerns as set out below:
There were two case conferences with police prior to Dr. Smith meeting with the mother;
"There was communication between Inspector McNeill and Dr. Smith about the fact the house was wire-tapped;
There was a meeting between Inspector McNeill and Dr. Smith immediately before the meeting; and
Dr. Smith immediately reported back to Inspector McNeill, describing the mother’s demeanour as follows: “it was like talking to her about a load of gravel”.
A February 7, 2008 affidavit sworn by Dr. Cairns confirms that he was aware that Dr. Smith’s meeting with the mother was going to be wiretapped and that he didn’t see a problem with it at the time although he does now)."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Part Eight: Closing Submissions: Affected Families Group; Default Diagnosis; Assuming Sexual Abuse;
AS DR. MILROY STATED IN HIS EVIDENCE, SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO DO CLINICAL CHILD PROTECTION WORK “SEE THEMSELVES AS ADVOCATES FOR THE CHILD”.
USING THE TERMINOLOGY OFFERED TO THE INQUIRY BY DR. POLLANEN, THE ADVOCACY ROLE IN THIS CONTEXT APPEARS TO HAVE RESULTED IN A “DEFAULT DIAGNOSIS” OF CHILD ABUSE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM CLOSING SUBMISSIONS: AFFECTED FAMILIES GROUP;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Blog is currently looking at the closing written submissions filed by various parties appearing at the Goudge Inquiry which is expected to report on September 30, 2008.
The current focus is on the submissions filed by the "Affected Families Group" - a group of families who were directly affected by the systemic failings which occurred in pediatric forensic pathology in Ontario between 1991 and 2001;
The Group is represented by lawyers Peter Wardle (Wardle, Daley, Bernstein) and Julie M. Kirkpatrick;
Today's focus is on the Group's allegation that Dr. Smith, backed by the Chief Coroner's office, assumed sexual abuse by default in several of the cases being reviewed by the Inquiry;
"Dr. Cairns came to the job of Deputy Chief Coroner in 1991 after presiding over a controversial inquest regarding suspected child abuse," the section begins;
"Addressing this issue became a central feature in his professional work with the Chief Coroner's Office over the next decade," it continues.
"From the perspective of the Chief Coroner's Office, of particular concern to Dr. Cairns were those cases where the Children’s Aid Society had been involved in monitoring families prior to a child’s death:
"…the focus of the joint mortality task force was, what was happening to children when they were being monitored by a Children’s Aid Society. So the focus when we brought all these extra cases was we felt we needed to have a much closer scrutiny of the role that Children’s Aid Societies were playing in deaths of these children. Between 1996 and 1998 we did six systemic inquests all addressing children who had died while they were being supervised by a Children’s Aid Society.
In this work, Dr. Cairns found a ready and willing partner in Dr. Smith, who already worked closely with the SCAN team at the Hospital for Sick Children.
Dr. Cairns became a friend and supporter of Dr. Smith and defended him in the media;
As Dr. Milroy stated in his evidence, some of the people who do clinical child protection work “see themselves as advocates for the child”.
Using the terminology offered to the Inquiry by Dr. Pollanen, the advocacy role in this context appears to have resulted in a “default diagnosis” of child abuse.
Indeed, in the Kassandra case, Dr. Marcella Mian stated to the police that “all she deals with is child abuse, so naturally she would assume abuse.”
The default diagnosis in many of the cases that are before this Inquiry came to be expressed by Dr. Smith in the following terms:
Valin: “in the absence of a reasonable explanation by history, they indicate non-accidental trauma including sexual abuse”
Nicholas: “in the absence of a credible explanation, in my opinion, the post-mortem findings are regarded as resulting from non-accidental injury”
Tiffani: “…of note are the presence of bilateral healing rib fractures which, in the absence of a reasonable explanation, are considered to be non-accidental in nature.”
Amber: “…look for evidence which might prove the babysitter to be innocent”
Dr. Cairns did not appear to understand the dangers of such logic.
His explanation for the opinion in Nicholas was as follows: “Commissioner I think he was making that reasoning in that there was no satisfactory explanation given as to how it may be accidental”.
Yet that form of reasoning has no basis in science.
As Dr. Pollanen explained:
We don’t say ‘in the absence of evidence to the contrary this is cancer.’
What we say is, ‘the findings of the histology are not sufficient to come to a diagnosis; re-biopsy."
Do more investigations to find out."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
USING THE TERMINOLOGY OFFERED TO THE INQUIRY BY DR. POLLANEN, THE ADVOCACY ROLE IN THIS CONTEXT APPEARS TO HAVE RESULTED IN A “DEFAULT DIAGNOSIS” OF CHILD ABUSE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM CLOSING SUBMISSIONS: AFFECTED FAMILIES GROUP;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Blog is currently looking at the closing written submissions filed by various parties appearing at the Goudge Inquiry which is expected to report on September 30, 2008.
The current focus is on the submissions filed by the "Affected Families Group" - a group of families who were directly affected by the systemic failings which occurred in pediatric forensic pathology in Ontario between 1991 and 2001;
The Group is represented by lawyers Peter Wardle (Wardle, Daley, Bernstein) and Julie M. Kirkpatrick;
Today's focus is on the Group's allegation that Dr. Smith, backed by the Chief Coroner's office, assumed sexual abuse by default in several of the cases being reviewed by the Inquiry;
"Dr. Cairns came to the job of Deputy Chief Coroner in 1991 after presiding over a controversial inquest regarding suspected child abuse," the section begins;
"Addressing this issue became a central feature in his professional work with the Chief Coroner's Office over the next decade," it continues.
"From the perspective of the Chief Coroner's Office, of particular concern to Dr. Cairns were those cases where the Children’s Aid Society had been involved in monitoring families prior to a child’s death:
"…the focus of the joint mortality task force was, what was happening to children when they were being monitored by a Children’s Aid Society. So the focus when we brought all these extra cases was we felt we needed to have a much closer scrutiny of the role that Children’s Aid Societies were playing in deaths of these children. Between 1996 and 1998 we did six systemic inquests all addressing children who had died while they were being supervised by a Children’s Aid Society.
In this work, Dr. Cairns found a ready and willing partner in Dr. Smith, who already worked closely with the SCAN team at the Hospital for Sick Children.
Dr. Cairns became a friend and supporter of Dr. Smith and defended him in the media;
As Dr. Milroy stated in his evidence, some of the people who do clinical child protection work “see themselves as advocates for the child”.
Using the terminology offered to the Inquiry by Dr. Pollanen, the advocacy role in this context appears to have resulted in a “default diagnosis” of child abuse.
Indeed, in the Kassandra case, Dr. Marcella Mian stated to the police that “all she deals with is child abuse, so naturally she would assume abuse.”
The default diagnosis in many of the cases that are before this Inquiry came to be expressed by Dr. Smith in the following terms:
Valin: “in the absence of a reasonable explanation by history, they indicate non-accidental trauma including sexual abuse”
Nicholas: “in the absence of a credible explanation, in my opinion, the post-mortem findings are regarded as resulting from non-accidental injury”
Tiffani: “…of note are the presence of bilateral healing rib fractures which, in the absence of a reasonable explanation, are considered to be non-accidental in nature.”
Amber: “…look for evidence which might prove the babysitter to be innocent”
Dr. Cairns did not appear to understand the dangers of such logic.
His explanation for the opinion in Nicholas was as follows: “Commissioner I think he was making that reasoning in that there was no satisfactory explanation given as to how it may be accidental”.
Yet that form of reasoning has no basis in science.
As Dr. Pollanen explained:
We don’t say ‘in the absence of evidence to the contrary this is cancer.’
What we say is, ‘the findings of the histology are not sufficient to come to a diagnosis; re-biopsy."
Do more investigations to find out."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Part Ten: Interrogation Of an Innocent Woman: Backing Up Dr Smith's Opinion At All Costs;
"OUR FILE CONTAINS...A LOT OF INFORMATION INVOLVING THE INITIAL CORONER'S INVESTIGATION, INCLUDING VIDEOTAPED STATEMENTS FROM BOTH ACCUSED TAKEN BY THE REGIONAL CORONER, DR. (BENOIT) BECHARD AND THE POLICE WITHOUT CAUTION, WARNING OR RIGHT TO COUNSEL".
FROM MEMORANDUM SENT BY PROSECUTOR MARY WALSH TO THE CROWN LAW OFFICE EXPRESSING CONCERN THAT THE TORONTO STAR IS SEEKING ACCESS TO THE CROWN'S TIFFANI FILE FOR A SERIES OF ARTICLES ABOUT BABY DEATHS IN ONTARIO.
In Tiffani's case, two parents were charged with manslaughter, and other criminal offences, after Dr. Charles Smith, erroneously concluded, following an exhumation, that the child, born premature at thirty-six weeks, had been asphyxiated.
(The independent expert who studied Tiffani's case for the Chief Coroner's review, reported that, "If Dr. Smith did indicate to the police that he thought the death was strangulation, there was no evidentiary basis to support such suspicion.")
In recent postings we have seen how the police went to extraordinary lengths in their investigations to back up Dr. Smith's expert opinion including obtaining a search warrant to seize a mother's farewell note from her 11-month-old son's casket, and placing an undercover officer into a Narcotic's Anonymous group.
A memorandum found in an "overview" report prepared by Goudge Inquiry staff illustrates yest another extraordinary length that police went to in order back up one of Smith's opinions - using a Coroner to help extract a confession from the parents of Tiffani who was three and a half months old at the time of her death.
The memorandum, sent by prosecutor Sheila Walsh, since deceased, to the Crown Law Office, expresses concern that the Toronto Star is seeking access to the Crown's file in the Tiffani case for a series of articles about baby deaths in Ontario.
Walsh, since deceased, lists several "individuals" who she fears will be exposed to "unfavourable light" if the file is made public, and then goes on to note that it also contains, "a lot of information involving the initial Coroner's investigation, including videotaped statements from both accused taken by the Regional Coroner, Dr. Bechard and the police (Ontario Provincial Police Quinte Detachment H.L.) without caution, warning or right to counsel".
It is no wonder that the government would not have wanted the public to learn that the police had used a Coroner to help obtain confessions from suspects in a serious criminal case, because in Ontario Coroner's are meant to be independent and cannot be seen as agents of the police.
This extraordinary abuse of power and violation of the constitutional rights of the parents is set out in the "overview report" of Tiffani's case prepared by Commission Goudge Inquiry staff, under the heading: "Interview of Mary and William"
"According to the report of Det. Sgt. Henry, following the telephone conference at Dr. Young's office, "It was decided an order would be issued to exhume the body for a second autopsy to be exercised after a complete interview of the parents by Dr. both Dr. Bechard and D/Insp Smith.
The notes of D.Insp Smith indicated that, on July 9, 1993, at 0940, he met with Dr. Bechard, D/Sgt. Henry, and D/Cst Skinner to "discuss method of interview." His notes provided the following with respect to this meeting:
Coroner's case.
Coroner will ask medical background of mother in method used for medical history.
-Will mention the interview is taped + get consent.
-If at any time interview shows criminality, Coroner will stop. Officers will (issue?) caution + continue interview.
Same procedure to follow with the husband.
On July 9, 1993, Dr. Bechard and D/Insp Smith interviewed Mary and William at the Quinte Detachment. The interviews were videotaped. Dr. Bechard and D/Insp. Smith began by telling Mary and William that they did not "really understand the cause" of Tiffani's death and that they wanted to get Mary and William's medical backgrounds. The reports prepared by D/Cst. Skinner provided that the interviews of Mary and William were "mainly for the purposes of past medical background on both subjects & other circumstances leading up to the baby's death."
Mary and William were then interviewed separately."
If the interviews were merely to gather medical information for a Coroner's investigation, this Blogster wonders why the police would be present, why would the parents be questioned as to the cause of Tiffani's death (a prelude to laying charges), why would the interview be videotaped (if not to record evidence for use in court) - and why the parents would be interviewed separately as is the practice for taking confessions in criminal cases?
And, as prosecutor Walsh pointed out - all of this without, "a caution, warning or right to counsel."
Once again the criminal justice system had been twisted out of proportion to back up the erroneous opinions of Dr. Charles Randal Smith - with very serious potential consequences to the parents involved.
This investigatory zeal was bound to raise huge concerns about the objectivity and integrity of the Coroner's system in Ontario.
One of the most important tasks of the Inquiry is to try and win public confidence back;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
FROM MEMORANDUM SENT BY PROSECUTOR MARY WALSH TO THE CROWN LAW OFFICE EXPRESSING CONCERN THAT THE TORONTO STAR IS SEEKING ACCESS TO THE CROWN'S TIFFANI FILE FOR A SERIES OF ARTICLES ABOUT BABY DEATHS IN ONTARIO.
In Tiffani's case, two parents were charged with manslaughter, and other criminal offences, after Dr. Charles Smith, erroneously concluded, following an exhumation, that the child, born premature at thirty-six weeks, had been asphyxiated.
(The independent expert who studied Tiffani's case for the Chief Coroner's review, reported that, "If Dr. Smith did indicate to the police that he thought the death was strangulation, there was no evidentiary basis to support such suspicion.")
In recent postings we have seen how the police went to extraordinary lengths in their investigations to back up Dr. Smith's expert opinion including obtaining a search warrant to seize a mother's farewell note from her 11-month-old son's casket, and placing an undercover officer into a Narcotic's Anonymous group.
A memorandum found in an "overview" report prepared by Goudge Inquiry staff illustrates yest another extraordinary length that police went to in order back up one of Smith's opinions - using a Coroner to help extract a confession from the parents of Tiffani who was three and a half months old at the time of her death.
The memorandum, sent by prosecutor Sheila Walsh, since deceased, to the Crown Law Office, expresses concern that the Toronto Star is seeking access to the Crown's file in the Tiffani case for a series of articles about baby deaths in Ontario.
Walsh, since deceased, lists several "individuals" who she fears will be exposed to "unfavourable light" if the file is made public, and then goes on to note that it also contains, "a lot of information involving the initial Coroner's investigation, including videotaped statements from both accused taken by the Regional Coroner, Dr. Bechard and the police (Ontario Provincial Police Quinte Detachment H.L.) without caution, warning or right to counsel".
It is no wonder that the government would not have wanted the public to learn that the police had used a Coroner to help obtain confessions from suspects in a serious criminal case, because in Ontario Coroner's are meant to be independent and cannot be seen as agents of the police.
This extraordinary abuse of power and violation of the constitutional rights of the parents is set out in the "overview report" of Tiffani's case prepared by Commission Goudge Inquiry staff, under the heading: "Interview of Mary and William"
"According to the report of Det. Sgt. Henry, following the telephone conference at Dr. Young's office, "It was decided an order would be issued to exhume the body for a second autopsy to be exercised after a complete interview of the parents by Dr. both Dr. Bechard and D/Insp Smith.
The notes of D.Insp Smith indicated that, on July 9, 1993, at 0940, he met with Dr. Bechard, D/Sgt. Henry, and D/Cst Skinner to "discuss method of interview." His notes provided the following with respect to this meeting:
Coroner's case.
Coroner will ask medical background of mother in method used for medical history.
-Will mention the interview is taped + get consent.
-If at any time interview shows criminality, Coroner will stop. Officers will (issue?) caution + continue interview.
Same procedure to follow with the husband.
On July 9, 1993, Dr. Bechard and D/Insp Smith interviewed Mary and William at the Quinte Detachment. The interviews were videotaped. Dr. Bechard and D/Insp. Smith began by telling Mary and William that they did not "really understand the cause" of Tiffani's death and that they wanted to get Mary and William's medical backgrounds. The reports prepared by D/Cst. Skinner provided that the interviews of Mary and William were "mainly for the purposes of past medical background on both subjects & other circumstances leading up to the baby's death."
Mary and William were then interviewed separately."
If the interviews were merely to gather medical information for a Coroner's investigation, this Blogster wonders why the police would be present, why would the parents be questioned as to the cause of Tiffani's death (a prelude to laying charges), why would the interview be videotaped (if not to record evidence for use in court) - and why the parents would be interviewed separately as is the practice for taking confessions in criminal cases?
And, as prosecutor Walsh pointed out - all of this without, "a caution, warning or right to counsel."
Once again the criminal justice system had been twisted out of proportion to back up the erroneous opinions of Dr. Charles Randal Smith - with very serious potential consequences to the parents involved.
This investigatory zeal was bound to raise huge concerns about the objectivity and integrity of the Coroner's system in Ontario.
One of the most important tasks of the Inquiry is to try and win public confidence back;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
