(A CBC Fifth Estate investigation appropriately called "Diagnosis: Murder" exposed the enormous harm Dr. Charles Smith caused to innocent parents and caregivers within Ontario's criminal justice system.
The police probe of Lianne Gagnon - after Smith turned an accidental bump on the head into a suspected homicide - comes under intense scrutiny in the documentary, which ran on November, 10, 1999.
This Blogster would love to see the CBC re-run this powerful program before Dr, Smith enters the witness box at the Goudge Inquiry on Monday under compulsion of a subpoena. (This transcript was filed as an exhibit at the Goudge Inquiry);
It makes us look directly at the human cost imposed on innocent people by Dr. Smith - and those who looked the other way as the evidence of his incompetence mounted - as contrasted with the more abstract systemic issues being explored by the Inquiry);
------------
Host Victor Malarek's opening words were gripping.
"Good evening," Malarek began.
"Your young child has died in a household accident.
You've grieved, vowed to keep your memories alive, and for 18 months you've tried to rebuild your life.
And then there's a knock on the door.
Out of nowhere, on the say so of someone you've never met, you're suspected of murdering that beloved child, and from there, although you think they never could, things get far worse.
Couldn't happen?
It could and did, in Ontario, because of a chain of events surrounding a pathologist who's been at the heart of other highly controversial cases;
For legal reasons we can't tell you where our story takes place or the full names of some of those involved, whose lives were turned down by the diagnosis murder."
"Diagnosis: Murder" continues as follows:
"This is Nicholas and his mother Lianne. It's a home video taken four years ago during a happier times. Back then, Lianne was a single mother, living at home with her parents and studying English and history at university, while caring for her baby.
Lianne: What a happy baby.As soon as people were over, he was a clown and showing off, very quick to crawl, to walk.
Malarek: Then one day there was panic.
Lianne: He was playing in the family room and I was sitting on the couch doing some cross stitching. He went to the corner of the room where he had always gone - there was a sewing machine there and a bunch of Windows and he liked to look out the window underneath the sewing machine - and he went under and bumped his head and let out a cry.
Malarek: Lianne rushed over and picked him up.
Lianne: When I took a look at him, his eyes had rolled back, his eyes were closed and he wasn't breathing. Immediately I just thought, OK I've got to get him to somebody who knows how to do CPR;
Malarek: Lianne grabbed Nicholas and ran across the road to a murder. The boy was given CPR and then transported by ambulance to hospital. But a short while later she got the news: Nicholas was dead.
Lianne: Everyone broke down: I was extremely angry and screaming and crying, and I wanted to see him. I didn't believe it. No one believed it. I think, until we just...saw him.
Malarek: Lianne was desperate to find out why her baby died.
Lianne: When they cam back with the autopsy report there was nothing. They came back a few weeks later with a toxicology report - again nothing. We had no closure, we had nothing, we didn't know why he died.
Malarek: The autopsy was done by Dr. Teh-Chun Chen a local pathologist. He's performed close to 3,000 autopsies, including 100 murder cases.
To Dr. Chen (pathologist): My final cause of death was consistent with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.
Malarek: Dr. Chen's report said there were no bone fractures and the boy's skull was normal. although there was mild brain swelling. He couldn't determine the cause of death and felt it was just one of those unexplained things that happen sometimes.
Lianne grieved deeply, but slowly moved on. She met her new partner Pierre and, a year and a half later, was making arrangements for her bridal shower when there was a knock on the door.
Lianne: The two police officers showed up at my door and told me they wanted me to come in to close the case officially, is what they told us. They just wanted me to come in to reiterate my story, just tell them everything had told them initially at the hospital the day of Nicholas' death and everything would be closed. That's what they told us.
Malarek: At the police station Lianne found herself in the middle of a murder investigation where she was the only suspect.
Interrogation: You know what your rights are, your legal rights? OK, I'll go over them with you then and you'll probably recognize some of them.
Lianne: Until we got into the interrogation room, I had no idea, and when we got into the room I noticed That they were setting up a video camera. I told them the story, how he bumped his head and died that night, and when all was said and done, they came out and told us, Well, we don't believe your story and we believe that you had a hand in Nicholas' death, and we need you to tell us the truth.
Interrogation; This is a case of someone who's been pushed further than they can stand, and then in a moment, you snap and do something that you wish you hadn't done. In a very short period of time, you've done something that you can't turn back and undo. But you know it, and the pathologist knows it, and Nicholas knows it.
Malarek: With very little to go on, the police knew the only way to make the murder charge stick was to try to get Lianne to confess.
Interrogation: ...somewhere, and you're at a turning point here where you can talk to us and explain to us how it happened, and we are here to listen...
Lianne: But you're asking me to say something I didn't do."
Next posting: Part Twelve: Interrogation of an innocent woman; Transcript of "Diagnosis: Murder" continues as Dr. Charles Smith gets involved in the investigation of Nicholas' death;
See previous postings related to Nicholas' case:
Nicholas' Case: Questions going to the heart of Dr. Charles Smith's credibility; October, 2007;
Nicholas' Case: Smith accused of "uncivilized conduct" for bringing 11-year-old son to exhumation of 11-month-old baby boy."
Smith and the media: Part Four; Fifth Estate probe triggers plea to Premier Mike Harris for inquiry into Smith cases; Deaf ears; November, 2007;
Goudge Inquiry: Thinking dirty; Dr. Cairns defends the indefensible; November, 2007;
Interrogation of an innocent woman series: January, 2008;
Harold Levy: hlevy15@gmail.com;
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Goudge Inquiry: Why Didn't The Prosecutors Sound The Alarm On Dr. Smith? Another Lost Opportunity;
"AND WHAT ABOUT YOU MS. REGIMBAL?," WARDLE ASKED. "YOU GO ON TO YOUR NEXT CASE, DO YOU LEAVE THE AMBER DECISION AND THAT'S REALLY ALL YOU HAVE TO DO AT THIS POINT? YOU STEP OUT OF THE -- OF THE SCENE, SO TO SPEAK?"
LAWYER PETER WARDLE TO PROSECUTOR TERRI REGIMBAL;
One of the troubling questions that has been raised at the Goudge inquiry is why prosecutors who personally became aware of Dr. Smith's serious deficiencies during trials did not sound the alarm to their colleagues.
Lawyer Peter Wardle, who represents several families affected by Dr. Smith at the Inquiry , put this question directly to Terri Regimbal, the Crown Attorney who prosecuted the 12-year-old baby-sitter for Manslaughter in the Timmins case.
"And what about you Ms. Regimbal?," Wardle asked. "You go on to your next case, do you leave the Amber decision and that's really all you have to do at this point? You step out of the -- of the scene, so to speak?"
Regimbal responded that she sent a copy of Judge Patrick Dunn's searing critique of Dr Smith's evidence to the hospital and attended a meeting of the hospital's Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN) team that had been called to discuss the case.
"I had taken the time -- it's not a short jaunt from Timmins to Toronto," she told Commissioner Steven Goudge. "I'd taken the time to come to Toronto for this meeting to assist them in assessing it and to try to improve the process."
"Apart from that, that was the end of my obligation as I saw it...but that was pretty well all I did."
(See previous posting: Damage control and lost opportunity: The Hospital For Sick Children Suspected Child Abuse And Neglect
(In addition to deflecting the responsibility to deal with Dr. Smith to the hospital, as his employer, Regimbal, also passed the buck to the the babysitter's defence lawyer and to unnamed criminal lawyers.
"I assumed that he (the defence lawyer) would circulate it (Dunn's decision) with friends," and, "I assumed that the criminal lawyers have their network of communication," she told the Inquiry.")
Wardle's probing examination of Regimbal as to whether she should have done more in the circumstances is worth repeating.
MR. PETER WARDLE: But you would have realized, presumably, that Dr. Smith would also, just like you, he'd go onto his next case, right?
MS. TERRI REGIMBAL: Yes.
MR. PETER WARDLE: And you knew he was running this Unit, did you know that, at the Hospital for Sick Children?
MS. TERRI REGIMBAL: I don't know.
MR. PETER WARDLE: All right. You knew he was an expert on Shaken Baby Syndrome.
MS. TERRI REGIMBAL: Certainly.
MR. PETER WARDLE: You knew he would be called by the Crown in the next case that came along.
MS. TERRI REGIMBAL: Presumably.
MR. PETER WARDLE: And did you think you had any obligation to raise any alarm bells about him?
MS. TERRI REGIMBAL: No, I don't think I felt I had an obligation at that point.
I mean, I could assume safely that this reasonable professional man would read this judgment over, that he may take it to heart, and that he may pull up his socks on some of the areas ...
"I suppose had I heard an alarm, I would have possibly written a colleague and said, Now wait a minute, you better ha -- make sure you have this judgment, but I had no reason in January of 1992 -- sixteen (16) years ago -- to think that he wouldn't take this to heart.
There had been, as far as I was aware, no criticisms of him up to this point.
He seemed to be someone who, on the exterior, was -- was willing to learn from this.
He seemed like a reasonable individual that could take criticism."
In fairness to Ms. Regimbal, in January, 1992, Dr. Charles Smith was an icon who was lavished with praise by both his Colleagues at the Hospital for Sick Children's Hospital, and by the top ranks of the Chief Coroner's office.
In her own words to the Inquiry:
MS: TERRI REGIMBAL: "And up to that point, I hadn't really heard any criticisms of Charles Smith. All I'd heard, even from the Deputy Chief Coroner of the Province, was this man's the foremost Canadian expert in pediatric pathology. And I noticed that the doctors even deferred to him, someone even like a ju -- Dr. Jeff Barker --
MR. PETER WARDLE: Mm-hm.
MS. TERRI REGIMBAL: -- who I had so much respect for because he was so experienced and so well respected internationally. He -- it was obvious he
deferred to and had respect to Charle -- for Dr. Charles Smith.
Regimbal wasn't the only prosecutor was not to buy into the myth of Dr. Charles Randal Smith's greatness.
In response to Commissioner Goudge's question as to whether he had a sense of Smith's reputation as a forensic pediatric pathologist during the prosecution of Brenda Waudby in the Jenna case, Crown Attorney Brian Gilkinson, replied:
"(Well), Dr. Smith was accepted to be, I don't know whether you call it the cream of the crop, but he was very, very highly thought of ...and I had no reason to think that Dr. Smith wasn't competent..."
At one point in her testimony, Regimbal suggested that she was unaware of any complaints about Smith from her colleagues.
Could that have been because none of them, like her, were speaking up?
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
LAWYER PETER WARDLE TO PROSECUTOR TERRI REGIMBAL;
One of the troubling questions that has been raised at the Goudge inquiry is why prosecutors who personally became aware of Dr. Smith's serious deficiencies during trials did not sound the alarm to their colleagues.
Lawyer Peter Wardle, who represents several families affected by Dr. Smith at the Inquiry , put this question directly to Terri Regimbal, the Crown Attorney who prosecuted the 12-year-old baby-sitter for Manslaughter in the Timmins case.
"And what about you Ms. Regimbal?," Wardle asked. "You go on to your next case, do you leave the Amber decision and that's really all you have to do at this point? You step out of the -- of the scene, so to speak?"
Regimbal responded that she sent a copy of Judge Patrick Dunn's searing critique of Dr Smith's evidence to the hospital and attended a meeting of the hospital's Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN) team that had been called to discuss the case.
"I had taken the time -- it's not a short jaunt from Timmins to Toronto," she told Commissioner Steven Goudge. "I'd taken the time to come to Toronto for this meeting to assist them in assessing it and to try to improve the process."
"Apart from that, that was the end of my obligation as I saw it...but that was pretty well all I did."
(See previous posting: Damage control and lost opportunity: The Hospital For Sick Children Suspected Child Abuse And Neglect
(In addition to deflecting the responsibility to deal with Dr. Smith to the hospital, as his employer, Regimbal, also passed the buck to the the babysitter's defence lawyer and to unnamed criminal lawyers.
"I assumed that he (the defence lawyer) would circulate it (Dunn's decision) with friends," and, "I assumed that the criminal lawyers have their network of communication," she told the Inquiry.")
Wardle's probing examination of Regimbal as to whether she should have done more in the circumstances is worth repeating.
MR. PETER WARDLE: But you would have realized, presumably, that Dr. Smith would also, just like you, he'd go onto his next case, right?
MS. TERRI REGIMBAL: Yes.
MR. PETER WARDLE: And you knew he was running this Unit, did you know that, at the Hospital for Sick Children?
MS. TERRI REGIMBAL: I don't know.
MR. PETER WARDLE: All right. You knew he was an expert on Shaken Baby Syndrome.
MS. TERRI REGIMBAL: Certainly.
MR. PETER WARDLE: You knew he would be called by the Crown in the next case that came along.
MS. TERRI REGIMBAL: Presumably.
MR. PETER WARDLE: And did you think you had any obligation to raise any alarm bells about him?
MS. TERRI REGIMBAL: No, I don't think I felt I had an obligation at that point.
I mean, I could assume safely that this reasonable professional man would read this judgment over, that he may take it to heart, and that he may pull up his socks on some of the areas ...
"I suppose had I heard an alarm, I would have possibly written a colleague and said, Now wait a minute, you better ha -- make sure you have this judgment, but I had no reason in January of 1992 -- sixteen (16) years ago -- to think that he wouldn't take this to heart.
There had been, as far as I was aware, no criticisms of him up to this point.
He seemed to be someone who, on the exterior, was -- was willing to learn from this.
He seemed like a reasonable individual that could take criticism."
In fairness to Ms. Regimbal, in January, 1992, Dr. Charles Smith was an icon who was lavished with praise by both his Colleagues at the Hospital for Sick Children's Hospital, and by the top ranks of the Chief Coroner's office.
In her own words to the Inquiry:
MS: TERRI REGIMBAL: "And up to that point, I hadn't really heard any criticisms of Charles Smith. All I'd heard, even from the Deputy Chief Coroner of the Province, was this man's the foremost Canadian expert in pediatric pathology. And I noticed that the doctors even deferred to him, someone even like a ju -- Dr. Jeff Barker --
MR. PETER WARDLE: Mm-hm.
MS. TERRI REGIMBAL: -- who I had so much respect for because he was so experienced and so well respected internationally. He -- it was obvious he
deferred to and had respect to Charle -- for Dr. Charles Smith.
Regimbal wasn't the only prosecutor was not to buy into the myth of Dr. Charles Randal Smith's greatness.
In response to Commissioner Goudge's question as to whether he had a sense of Smith's reputation as a forensic pediatric pathologist during the prosecution of Brenda Waudby in the Jenna case, Crown Attorney Brian Gilkinson, replied:
"(Well), Dr. Smith was accepted to be, I don't know whether you call it the cream of the crop, but he was very, very highly thought of ...and I had no reason to think that Dr. Smith wasn't competent..."
At one point in her testimony, Regimbal suggested that she was unaware of any complaints about Smith from her colleagues.
Could that have been because none of them, like her, were speaking up?
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;
Monday, January 21, 2008
The "Confidential Memo" Kingston Police Went To Court To Suppress;
"MAKE NO MISTAKE THE RIGHT PERSON (LOUISE) IS ON TRIAL. IF WE WANT JUSTICE TO BE SERVED, AND HER FOUND GUILITY (SIC); IT IS AN ABSOLUTE MUST THAT WE GE (SIC) ON TRACK, AND WORK TOWARDS THIS COMMON GOAL."
FROM "CONFIDENTIAL MEMO" FROM OFFICER IN CHARGE OF INVESTIGATION OF LOUISE REYNOLDS TO CROWN ATTORNEY;
A confidential memo which the Kingston Regional police force tried to suppress was introduced into evidence at the Goudge inquiry earlier today.
The Charles Smith Blog reported in an earlier posting that Associate Chief Justice Dennis O'Connor had turned down a motion brought by the Kingston Police Service.
The force wanted O'Connor to declare that two documents relating to the prosecution of Sharon's mother cannot be considered by the Goudge inquiry because they are privileged.
(See earlier posting: Goudge Inquiry: Sharon's Case Part Six: Kingston police lose bid to keep out document.)
The document released today was described by O'Connor as a memorandum from a senior officer on the investigation to the Crown Attorneys prosecuting the case".
The memo is dated April 18, 2000.
O'Connor ruled that the memo may shed light on the dangers of "tunnel vision" in criminal investigations and prosecutions where pediatric forensic pathology plays an integral role in proving the case - particularly where there is a disagreement among the experts or the experts are revising their opinions.
The memo is addressed to Crown Attorney Ed Bradley and Assistant Crown Jennifer Ferguson.
It is signed by Det/Sgt. Andy Bird.
"I am writing this short note out of profound concern for the Louise Reynold's matter," it begins.
"Eighteen to twenty hour work days have been the all too common reality of this investigation since 1997.
It has taken its toll on all police officers involved. I'm sure to some degree it has affected your office as well.
However of late, I have detected a certain air of animosity between the Crown and the Police. I have also noted a tinge of hostility between the involved Crowns, and sadly I have noted some bickering among the police officers themselves.
If we are to be successful, we have to work as a team. We have to respect each other's input and views.
Make no mistake the right person (Louise) is on trial. If we want justice to be served, and her found guility (sic); it is an absolute must that we ge (sic) on track, and work towards this common goal.
It would seem that the pre-trial motions to this date, have not really gone as planned. The police officers that have testified all share, a sense of frustration, that they have been hanging in the wind, without Crown support.
Of particular concern to the police and I'm sure the Crown, is the conduct of judge Lally. Very informed sources indicate that his actions at the pre-trial are not isolated incidents. It is these sources opinions (non-police), that if the right people were informed of his mental instability, he would not be on the bench.
This I put to you is a grave concern and something for the Crown's office to address.
The potential for a mis-trial at every bend in the road, with this man, is a very real possibility.
On the plus side, If (and I'm told it is likely) this trial does not go ahead until fall or next spring, fate might dictate that he might not be available, and we would be blessed with a judge whose faculties are intact.
I'm told that there is no doubt that at least Louise's first two statements will make the grade, and that she was lawfully arrested. I'm also advised that common sense has prevailed and yet another police officer (4th) (myself) will not be required to relate the same information.
I wish you luck today! I'm at a funeral, acting as a pall bearer this date. Tomorrow I am having minor surgery (in & out). It is good that you are moving on with other matters after today; Because I would not be available at any rate.
I do appeaciate (sic) being kept abreast of what goes on day-to-day. My voicemail is (number provided) and I do checkt (sic) it.
Hopefully in the near future, we can sit down and discuss, our shared concerns. I definitely (sic) would like to touch on the ones I have related in this memo.
Please don't take offence to what I have written. It is from the heart, and with a common goal in mind.
Signed: Det/Sgt. A. Bird;
Prosecutor Bradley told the Inquiry that he was "surprised" by Bird's letter because he thought that the Crown had been doing "reasonably well" in pre-trial motions, he didn't have any particular concerns about Justice Lally, and he was relating well to his junior counsel on the case.
Rather than sending Bird a written reply, he said he waited a few days before calling him on the phone and assuring him that there was no problem with his co-counsel and that he would, "keep him apprised."
Associate Justice O'Connor rightfully points out that the memo demonstrates "tunnel vision" on the part of the force.
There is also the reality that if Louise Reynolds did not have the support of a team of dedicated lawyers who had the guts to take on the force she might now be serving a life sentence for murdering a daughter who was savaged by a pit bull.
In Canada, the police are supposed to do their job in an even-handed way - and that means considering evidence that points to innocence as well as guilt.
But Louise Reynolds now has reason to believe that the Kingston force was prepared to crush her at all costs.
That must be every innocent person's nightmare...the adversarial system of criminal justice in Ontario at its worse.
The good news is that Prosecutor Bradley - who brought a fresh outlook to a case which had been on-going for several years - didn't share the police obsession with finding Reynolds guilty.
Instead he acted independently in the highest tradition of the prosecution bar - and as the law requires - by withdrawing the charges against Reynolds because there was clearly no reasonable prospect of conviction.
He refused to take orders from the police.
This humble Bloggist is most disturbed by the fact that the police were so determined to find Reynolds guilty - (and to get the lengthy investigation over with) -that they forgot that Louise Reynolds might simply be a bereaved mother whose child had died a horrible death.
Where was their humanity?
Where was their willingness to consider other possibilities than Reynold's guilt?
Louise Reynold's paid a huge personal price for the police force's short-sighted investigation.
What price did the police have to pay?
(See previous posting: Sharon's case: Part Three; Kingston police defended Dr. Charles Smith after murder charge withdrawn);
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
FROM "CONFIDENTIAL MEMO" FROM OFFICER IN CHARGE OF INVESTIGATION OF LOUISE REYNOLDS TO CROWN ATTORNEY;
A confidential memo which the Kingston Regional police force tried to suppress was introduced into evidence at the Goudge inquiry earlier today.
The Charles Smith Blog reported in an earlier posting that Associate Chief Justice Dennis O'Connor had turned down a motion brought by the Kingston Police Service.
The force wanted O'Connor to declare that two documents relating to the prosecution of Sharon's mother cannot be considered by the Goudge inquiry because they are privileged.
(See earlier posting: Goudge Inquiry: Sharon's Case Part Six: Kingston police lose bid to keep out document.)
The document released today was described by O'Connor as a memorandum from a senior officer on the investigation to the Crown Attorneys prosecuting the case".
The memo is dated April 18, 2000.
O'Connor ruled that the memo may shed light on the dangers of "tunnel vision" in criminal investigations and prosecutions where pediatric forensic pathology plays an integral role in proving the case - particularly where there is a disagreement among the experts or the experts are revising their opinions.
The memo is addressed to Crown Attorney Ed Bradley and Assistant Crown Jennifer Ferguson.
It is signed by Det/Sgt. Andy Bird.
"I am writing this short note out of profound concern for the Louise Reynold's matter," it begins.
"Eighteen to twenty hour work days have been the all too common reality of this investigation since 1997.
It has taken its toll on all police officers involved. I'm sure to some degree it has affected your office as well.
However of late, I have detected a certain air of animosity between the Crown and the Police. I have also noted a tinge of hostility between the involved Crowns, and sadly I have noted some bickering among the police officers themselves.
If we are to be successful, we have to work as a team. We have to respect each other's input and views.
Make no mistake the right person (Louise) is on trial. If we want justice to be served, and her found guility (sic); it is an absolute must that we ge (sic) on track, and work towards this common goal.
It would seem that the pre-trial motions to this date, have not really gone as planned. The police officers that have testified all share, a sense of frustration, that they have been hanging in the wind, without Crown support.
Of particular concern to the police and I'm sure the Crown, is the conduct of judge Lally. Very informed sources indicate that his actions at the pre-trial are not isolated incidents. It is these sources opinions (non-police), that if the right people were informed of his mental instability, he would not be on the bench.
This I put to you is a grave concern and something for the Crown's office to address.
The potential for a mis-trial at every bend in the road, with this man, is a very real possibility.
On the plus side, If (and I'm told it is likely) this trial does not go ahead until fall or next spring, fate might dictate that he might not be available, and we would be blessed with a judge whose faculties are intact.
I'm told that there is no doubt that at least Louise's first two statements will make the grade, and that she was lawfully arrested. I'm also advised that common sense has prevailed and yet another police officer (4th) (myself) will not be required to relate the same information.
I wish you luck today! I'm at a funeral, acting as a pall bearer this date. Tomorrow I am having minor surgery (in & out). It is good that you are moving on with other matters after today; Because I would not be available at any rate.
I do appeaciate (sic) being kept abreast of what goes on day-to-day. My voicemail is (number provided) and I do checkt (sic) it.
Hopefully in the near future, we can sit down and discuss, our shared concerns. I definitely (sic) would like to touch on the ones I have related in this memo.
Please don't take offence to what I have written. It is from the heart, and with a common goal in mind.
Signed: Det/Sgt. A. Bird;
Prosecutor Bradley told the Inquiry that he was "surprised" by Bird's letter because he thought that the Crown had been doing "reasonably well" in pre-trial motions, he didn't have any particular concerns about Justice Lally, and he was relating well to his junior counsel on the case.
Rather than sending Bird a written reply, he said he waited a few days before calling him on the phone and assuring him that there was no problem with his co-counsel and that he would, "keep him apprised."
Associate Justice O'Connor rightfully points out that the memo demonstrates "tunnel vision" on the part of the force.
There is also the reality that if Louise Reynolds did not have the support of a team of dedicated lawyers who had the guts to take on the force she might now be serving a life sentence for murdering a daughter who was savaged by a pit bull.
In Canada, the police are supposed to do their job in an even-handed way - and that means considering evidence that points to innocence as well as guilt.
But Louise Reynolds now has reason to believe that the Kingston force was prepared to crush her at all costs.
That must be every innocent person's nightmare...the adversarial system of criminal justice in Ontario at its worse.
The good news is that Prosecutor Bradley - who brought a fresh outlook to a case which had been on-going for several years - didn't share the police obsession with finding Reynolds guilty.
Instead he acted independently in the highest tradition of the prosecution bar - and as the law requires - by withdrawing the charges against Reynolds because there was clearly no reasonable prospect of conviction.
He refused to take orders from the police.
This humble Bloggist is most disturbed by the fact that the police were so determined to find Reynolds guilty - (and to get the lengthy investigation over with) -that they forgot that Louise Reynolds might simply be a bereaved mother whose child had died a horrible death.
Where was their humanity?
Where was their willingness to consider other possibilities than Reynold's guilt?
Louise Reynold's paid a huge personal price for the police force's short-sighted investigation.
What price did the police have to pay?
(See previous posting: Sharon's case: Part Three; Kingston police defended Dr. Charles Smith after murder charge withdrawn);
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Part Nine: Interrogation of An Innocent Woman: Part Nine; How Far Will Police Go To Convict The Innocent?
In previous postings in this series we saw how the Sudbury police were so desperate to find evidence against Lianne Gagnon to back up the Chief Coroner's Office's suspicions that she was responsible for her 11-month-old son's death that they obtained a warrant to seize a farewell letter that she had left in Nicholas' casket.
This is not the only example of the extraordinary length that police officers went to in bid to get evidence against Dr. Smith's victims: The Peterborough police force planted an undercover officer in a bid to get a confession from Brenda Waudby after Smith came up with a time of death (later proven wrong) that implicated her.
(Waudby was arrested and charged with murdering Baby Jenna; Years later the teenage male babysitter pleaded guilty to killing her. Brian Gilkinson, Waudby's prosecutor, will testify at the Goudge Inquiry later today);
Here is the story my colleague Peter Edwards and I wrote on the excess of police power in the Waudby case.
It backs up a comment by Rubin Hurricane Carter - former Executive Director of the Association In Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, as to how hard the authorities have to work to convict an innocent person.
It appeared in the Toronto Star on April 12, 2002;
Brenda Waudby badly needed a friend, and the woman with the
blonde, scraggly hair who sat next to her at her Narcotics
Anonymous meeting seemed to fill the bill.
Waudby was trying to cope with the sudden death of her
21-month-old daughter, Jenna, who died just hours after Waudby
dropped her off at a babysitter.
She was also fighting to shake a cocaine addiction, and she
and her common-law husband were breaking up.
So Waudby desperately needed someone to confide in during the
spring of 1997, and the woman who introduced herself at the
meeting as Ramona Speigel seemed to need her, too.
"I felt sorry for her," Waudby recalled. "She was an addict.
She was in the same boat as everybody else. She was genuine. She
was a nice woman."
Waudby grew to value her as a trusted friend, close enough to
bring to her mother's home and baby Jenna's grave.
It was not until five months later that Waudby discovered that
her friend, who had attended Narcotics Anonymous meetings off
and on during that time, wasn't Ramona Speigel at all.
She was really Maja Schlegel, a Toronto undercover officer
sent to Narcotics Anonymous to gather information on her
regarding Jenna's death.
Waudby found herself staring at Schlegel in disbelief as she
was charged with second-degree murder.
She also found herself wondering how police could be allowed
to infiltrate a closed-doors therapy group that she thought was
confidential, and to confiscate counselling records.
"I just shook my head," Waudby recalled.
"She apologized to me. She said she was sorry that she had to
do it."
A crown attorney threw out the charge against Waudby as
unfounded before it reached trial, after reviewing medical
reports indicating she was not with her daughter at the time the
fatal injuries were inflicted.
Peterborough police Chief Terry McLaren declined to comment,
saying the case is still under investigation.
Requests for interviews with Toronto police Chief Julian
Fantino and Schlegel were referred to Staff Inspector Bruce
Smollet, who said the undercover operation at Narcotics
Anonymous would have been approved by Peterborough police, who
headed the case.
Smollet said Toronto police have no written policy against
undercover operations in counselling groups, and would not
comment on whether they have infiltrated other Narcotics
Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
"You've got to be really careful on this one," Smollet said.
"Maja ... didn't go into these groups looking into the groups
themselves. She was in there as an undercover officer with the
subject, so that the actual content of the group was not a
concern of hers."
This winter, five years after Jenna's death, there was finally
a break in the case.
The new evidence had nothing to do with Waudby and her
counselling files.
It was a single dark, curly strand of hair or fibre - which
was never tested or used as evidence - that fell into police
hands when they removed it from the office of Toronto
pathologist Dr. Charles Smith last December.
Yesterday, after the strand was examined at the Centre of
Forensic Sciences in Toronto, the case was reviewed in
Peterborough by a group that included a group that included
McLaren, Ontario deputy chief coroner Dr. James Cairns, centre
director Dr. Ray Prime, and prosecutor Brian Gilkinson.
Cairns declined to comment on the results of forensic testing
on the strand, citing the ongoing investigation.
Meanwhile, the undercover operation at Narcotics Anonymous -
dubbed Project Jenna by investigators - has driven at least
three recovering drug addicts besides Waudby out of the
counselling group, according to the woman who was her NA
sponsor.
"I was shocked, angry and disillusioned," said Waudby's
sponsor, a professional woman and recovering drug addict.
"It's (police infiltrating meetings) never been an issue
before, and I've never heard of it happening."
Narcotics Anonymous is modelled on Alcoholics Anonymous.
A spokesperson for Alcoholics Anonymous North America said he
has never heard of undercover police officers planted in an AA
meeting.
The Narcotics Anonymous Web page said the group uses
"confidential self-disclosure" to help wean addicts from
drugs.
"NA has only one mission: to provide an environment in which
addicts can help one another stop using drugs and find a new way
to live," it states.
Waudby said she was further shocked to read a newspaper report
that the officer who posed as her friend for five months was
honoured as the city's Police Officer of the Year for 1998, in a
gala ceremony sponsored by the Toronto Board of Trade.
A police news release on the award stated:
"The officer maintained contact with the suspect every day,
gaining her confidence, and a month later, the suspect confessed
to the murder of her child."
After The Star questioned police about the operation, the Web
site carrying the news release was altered this week to delete
the text, "the suspect confessed to the murder of her child."
Smollet said the deletion was made because it would be
"absolutely unfair" to Waudby to leave the impression that
she had confessed to murdering her daughter.
Reports and transcripts of the undercover operation refer to
Waudby repeatedly arguing that she was innocent and that she
suspected the child's babysitter of the killing.
On Sept. 5, 1997 - the day Waudby received a copy of the
coroner's report on Jenna's death - a police bugging device in
the undercover officer's apartment recorded Waudby repeatedly
stating she didn't beat her daughter.
Ironically, it also recorded Waudby saying that she thought
she was going to be wrongly charged with murder.
Waudby: I have this funny feeling I'm going down for murder,
eh.
Schlegel: What happened then?
Waudby: Wednesday morning?
Schlegel: Um hum.
Waudby: Got her up out of the crib. Cuddled up with her. Found
that she was tired. Put her back to down and let her cry herself
to sleep ...
Schlegel: (unintelligible) You didn't shake her?
Waudby: Nope.
On Sept. 7, 1997, Waudby was riding in the undercover
officer's green Chevrolet Corsica, which had been bugged as
well. Waudby complained that she thought people from her old
drug-taking days were out to get her.
Waudby: (Expletive) man. I wish you were a cop. I wouldn't
have any worries.
Schlegel: Sorry.
Waudby: Or are you one of them?
Schlegel: Can't do 'er, sorry.
Waudby: (Laughing) Or are you one of the ...
(Talking at the same time - unintelligible.)
Schlegel: Fake I'm an addict (laughing). You never know.
Waudby: I don't know. (Person's name) works for them.
Schlegel: Well, there ya go.
Waudby: On drug squad nonetheless.
Schlegel: They may be able to hire me onto the drug squad.
Waudby: Hire you as an informant. You'd have to
(unintelligible).
Schlegel: I don't think I'm into ratting, thank you.
Their final taped conversation was at 9: 58 a.m. Sept. 17,
1997, when Schlegel called Waudby to tell her that Schlegel's
sister had been critically injured in a car accident.
Schlegel sounded distressed, saying, "The best I can say is
I'm going to call you when I get a chance, okay?"
The next day, Waudby was arrested for second-degree murder,
and she saw the woman she believed was her friend at the
Peterborough police station, as one of her arresting officers.
"I felt horrible." Waudby recalled. "I feel like the system
violated me personally."
Waudby said she felt violated again Sept. 28, 1999, when
police seized her psychiatric records from the Etobicoke office
of Dr. Mark Ben-Aron.
The raid came three months after charges were dropped and
focused on a psychiatric assessment that had been ordered by her
lawyer before the charges were dropped.
Ben-Aron said in an interview that he protested to the officer
who took the records that they were protected both by
patient-doctor and lawyer-client privilege, since Ben-Aron had been
retained by Waudby's lawyer.
"When police came in, I was distressed," Ben-Aron said.
"The issue was much greater than me. The issue here is in
terms of the protection of the inherent rights of the
individual."
The court order from a justice of the peace did not require
the records to be sealed, but Ben-Aron sealed them anyway.
He said he can't help but worry about them.
"I worried that someone might unseal it and then reseal it,"
the psychiatrist said. "That's human nature."
Other counselling records from Waudby were seized on Feb. 7,
1997, from 4Cast, Four Counties Addiction Services Team Inc.,
where she had been getting one-on-one therapy at the same time
she was attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings.
Waudby said she's still receiving counselling but would never
attend a group session again.
She said she even has trouble opening up in one-on-one
sessions, noting she balked when her current therapist asked her
to put her thoughts down on paper.
She said she only hopes that the tiny hair or fibre tested
finally points police away from her and toward her daughter's
real killer.
"They had tunnel vision, and it was me and me alone who they
saw in the tunnel."
Harold Levy: hlevy15@gmail.com;
This is not the only example of the extraordinary length that police officers went to in bid to get evidence against Dr. Smith's victims: The Peterborough police force planted an undercover officer in a bid to get a confession from Brenda Waudby after Smith came up with a time of death (later proven wrong) that implicated her.
(Waudby was arrested and charged with murdering Baby Jenna; Years later the teenage male babysitter pleaded guilty to killing her. Brian Gilkinson, Waudby's prosecutor, will testify at the Goudge Inquiry later today);
Here is the story my colleague Peter Edwards and I wrote on the excess of police power in the Waudby case.
It backs up a comment by Rubin Hurricane Carter - former Executive Director of the Association In Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, as to how hard the authorities have to work to convict an innocent person.
It appeared in the Toronto Star on April 12, 2002;
Brenda Waudby badly needed a friend, and the woman with the
blonde, scraggly hair who sat next to her at her Narcotics
Anonymous meeting seemed to fill the bill.
Waudby was trying to cope with the sudden death of her
21-month-old daughter, Jenna, who died just hours after Waudby
dropped her off at a babysitter.
She was also fighting to shake a cocaine addiction, and she
and her common-law husband were breaking up.
So Waudby desperately needed someone to confide in during the
spring of 1997, and the woman who introduced herself at the
meeting as Ramona Speigel seemed to need her, too.
"I felt sorry for her," Waudby recalled. "She was an addict.
She was in the same boat as everybody else. She was genuine. She
was a nice woman."
Waudby grew to value her as a trusted friend, close enough to
bring to her mother's home and baby Jenna's grave.
It was not until five months later that Waudby discovered that
her friend, who had attended Narcotics Anonymous meetings off
and on during that time, wasn't Ramona Speigel at all.
She was really Maja Schlegel, a Toronto undercover officer
sent to Narcotics Anonymous to gather information on her
regarding Jenna's death.
Waudby found herself staring at Schlegel in disbelief as she
was charged with second-degree murder.
She also found herself wondering how police could be allowed
to infiltrate a closed-doors therapy group that she thought was
confidential, and to confiscate counselling records.
"I just shook my head," Waudby recalled.
"She apologized to me. She said she was sorry that she had to
do it."
A crown attorney threw out the charge against Waudby as
unfounded before it reached trial, after reviewing medical
reports indicating she was not with her daughter at the time the
fatal injuries were inflicted.
Peterborough police Chief Terry McLaren declined to comment,
saying the case is still under investigation.
Requests for interviews with Toronto police Chief Julian
Fantino and Schlegel were referred to Staff Inspector Bruce
Smollet, who said the undercover operation at Narcotics
Anonymous would have been approved by Peterborough police, who
headed the case.
Smollet said Toronto police have no written policy against
undercover operations in counselling groups, and would not
comment on whether they have infiltrated other Narcotics
Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
"You've got to be really careful on this one," Smollet said.
"Maja ... didn't go into these groups looking into the groups
themselves. She was in there as an undercover officer with the
subject, so that the actual content of the group was not a
concern of hers."
This winter, five years after Jenna's death, there was finally
a break in the case.
The new evidence had nothing to do with Waudby and her
counselling files.
It was a single dark, curly strand of hair or fibre - which
was never tested or used as evidence - that fell into police
hands when they removed it from the office of Toronto
pathologist Dr. Charles Smith last December.
Yesterday, after the strand was examined at the Centre of
Forensic Sciences in Toronto, the case was reviewed in
Peterborough by a group that included a group that included
McLaren, Ontario deputy chief coroner Dr. James Cairns, centre
director Dr. Ray Prime, and prosecutor Brian Gilkinson.
Cairns declined to comment on the results of forensic testing
on the strand, citing the ongoing investigation.
Meanwhile, the undercover operation at Narcotics Anonymous -
dubbed Project Jenna by investigators - has driven at least
three recovering drug addicts besides Waudby out of the
counselling group, according to the woman who was her NA
sponsor.
"I was shocked, angry and disillusioned," said Waudby's
sponsor, a professional woman and recovering drug addict.
"It's (police infiltrating meetings) never been an issue
before, and I've never heard of it happening."
Narcotics Anonymous is modelled on Alcoholics Anonymous.
A spokesperson for Alcoholics Anonymous North America said he
has never heard of undercover police officers planted in an AA
meeting.
The Narcotics Anonymous Web page said the group uses
"confidential self-disclosure" to help wean addicts from
drugs.
"NA has only one mission: to provide an environment in which
addicts can help one another stop using drugs and find a new way
to live," it states.
Waudby said she was further shocked to read a newspaper report
that the officer who posed as her friend for five months was
honoured as the city's Police Officer of the Year for 1998, in a
gala ceremony sponsored by the Toronto Board of Trade.
A police news release on the award stated:
"The officer maintained contact with the suspect every day,
gaining her confidence, and a month later, the suspect confessed
to the murder of her child."
After The Star questioned police about the operation, the Web
site carrying the news release was altered this week to delete
the text, "the suspect confessed to the murder of her child."
Smollet said the deletion was made because it would be
"absolutely unfair" to Waudby to leave the impression that
she had confessed to murdering her daughter.
Reports and transcripts of the undercover operation refer to
Waudby repeatedly arguing that she was innocent and that she
suspected the child's babysitter of the killing.
On Sept. 5, 1997 - the day Waudby received a copy of the
coroner's report on Jenna's death - a police bugging device in
the undercover officer's apartment recorded Waudby repeatedly
stating she didn't beat her daughter.
Ironically, it also recorded Waudby saying that she thought
she was going to be wrongly charged with murder.
Waudby: I have this funny feeling I'm going down for murder,
eh.
Schlegel: What happened then?
Waudby: Wednesday morning?
Schlegel: Um hum.
Waudby: Got her up out of the crib. Cuddled up with her. Found
that she was tired. Put her back to down and let her cry herself
to sleep ...
Schlegel: (unintelligible) You didn't shake her?
Waudby: Nope.
On Sept. 7, 1997, Waudby was riding in the undercover
officer's green Chevrolet Corsica, which had been bugged as
well. Waudby complained that she thought people from her old
drug-taking days were out to get her.
Waudby: (Expletive) man. I wish you were a cop. I wouldn't
have any worries.
Schlegel: Sorry.
Waudby: Or are you one of them?
Schlegel: Can't do 'er, sorry.
Waudby: (Laughing) Or are you one of the ...
(Talking at the same time - unintelligible.)
Schlegel: Fake I'm an addict (laughing). You never know.
Waudby: I don't know. (Person's name) works for them.
Schlegel: Well, there ya go.
Waudby: On drug squad nonetheless.
Schlegel: They may be able to hire me onto the drug squad.
Waudby: Hire you as an informant. You'd have to
(unintelligible).
Schlegel: I don't think I'm into ratting, thank you.
Their final taped conversation was at 9: 58 a.m. Sept. 17,
1997, when Schlegel called Waudby to tell her that Schlegel's
sister had been critically injured in a car accident.
Schlegel sounded distressed, saying, "The best I can say is
I'm going to call you when I get a chance, okay?"
The next day, Waudby was arrested for second-degree murder,
and she saw the woman she believed was her friend at the
Peterborough police station, as one of her arresting officers.
"I felt horrible." Waudby recalled. "I feel like the system
violated me personally."
Waudby said she felt violated again Sept. 28, 1999, when
police seized her psychiatric records from the Etobicoke office
of Dr. Mark Ben-Aron.
The raid came three months after charges were dropped and
focused on a psychiatric assessment that had been ordered by her
lawyer before the charges were dropped.
Ben-Aron said in an interview that he protested to the officer
who took the records that they were protected both by
patient-doctor and lawyer-client privilege, since Ben-Aron had been
retained by Waudby's lawyer.
"When police came in, I was distressed," Ben-Aron said.
"The issue was much greater than me. The issue here is in
terms of the protection of the inherent rights of the
individual."
The court order from a justice of the peace did not require
the records to be sealed, but Ben-Aron sealed them anyway.
He said he can't help but worry about them.
"I worried that someone might unseal it and then reseal it,"
the psychiatrist said. "That's human nature."
Other counselling records from Waudby were seized on Feb. 7,
1997, from 4Cast, Four Counties Addiction Services Team Inc.,
where she had been getting one-on-one therapy at the same time
she was attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings.
Waudby said she's still receiving counselling but would never
attend a group session again.
She said she even has trouble opening up in one-on-one
sessions, noting she balked when her current therapist asked her
to put her thoughts down on paper.
She said she only hopes that the tiny hair or fibre tested
finally points police away from her and toward her daughter's
real killer.
"They had tunnel vision, and it was me and me alone who they
saw in the tunnel."
Harold Levy: hlevy15@gmail.com;
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Part Eight: Interrogation Of An Innocent Woman: Comparison with Mullins-Johnson case; Reference To Smith To Extract Confession;
The police interrogations of Lianne Gagnon and Bill Mullins-Johnson (an innocent man) had one thing in common: In each of them the police used the fact that Dr. Charles Smith and other "experts" had been involved in the case in their bid to extract a confession.
In Nicholas' case, for example, Sergeant West tells Lianne:
"That's the end of it – you have to understand that these people, they’re professionals 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.
And I – I mean, I don’t ant to sit here and have, you know, endless rounds of speculation of what kind of natural things we both know that’s not true.
It wasn’t a natural death."
Similarly, the following exchange occurs during the post-arrest interrogation of Mullins-Johnson:
"Detective WELTON - Someone put too much pressure on her neck and chest, she couldn’t breathe and she died.
BILL - I didn’t do it.
. . . . .
Detective WELTON - Doctors are experts".
Later in the interrogation, Detective Welton returns to the same theme that experts are infallible(so why not confess?), as follows:
"Detective WELTON - Sometimes these things happen.
BILL - I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it.
Detective WELTON - More and more points to you.
BILL - I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it.
Detective WELTON - The experts are pointing towards you.
BILL - Could there be a small error in [the time of her] death? (There turned out to be a huge error in the expert's calculation of the time of Valin's death. H.L.);
Detective WELTON - Very small, it’s between 8:00 and 10:00 pm.
BILL - Could be wrong.
Detective WELTON - They can narrow it down pretty good. They can’t pinpoint exactly, but pretty close. They do it by taking her temperature. (If only that was the case! H.L.)
BILL - All I know is I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it.
For the benefit of the readers of this Blog, here is a portion of the interrogation of Bill Mullins-Johnson - an innocent man - by Sault Ste. Marie police.
To this Blogster it is notable that Mullins-Johnson does not at any time ask for a lawyer.
How many people in police custody after being charged with first-degree murder would allow the police to question them without the protection of a lawyer?
Likewise, Lianne Gagnon allows the police to question her thoroughly without either a lawyer or her parents being present - until the point where the two officers lean on her a bit too hard.
By way of context, at 6:30 p.m. Sgt. Welton arrested the Appellant for the first degree murder and aggravated sexual assault of Valin.
Mullins-Johnson called to his brother Paul (Valin's father) to find him a lawyer, and kept repeating “I didn’t do nothing”.
Once in the police car, he was described by the officers as crying, sobbing and hysterical.
En route to the police station, police notes indicate that he said:
– I didn’t do it
– I wouldn’t hurt that little girl
– You got nothing, you got fuck all, what have you got on me man, nothing, you got fuck all
– I didn’t touch her, she went to bed and that’s that.
At 6:40 p.m., in the booking room, the Appellant was told how Valin died, and at what time.
He replied:
I was doing dishes, watching TV. I put John to bed at 8:00.
Valin went to bed by herself. I was the only other person in the house.
He was then allowed to speak to his lawyer on the telephone.
At 7:07 p.m., Mr. Mullins-Johnson was spoken to by Sgt. Welton and P.C. Martynuck in an interview room.
Unfortunately, neither this interview nor any of the later ones were taped in any way.
Rather, as P.C. Martynuck wrote in her willsay, she recorded them “in her notebook to the best of [her] ability”.
Throughout this interview the Appellant continually protested his innocence.
Here is a portion of the transcript:
Detective WELTON - Could you help us in who did it?
BILL - Wasn’t me, wasn’t me, didn’t do it, didn’t do it. (pause) I just want to go to sleep.
. . . . .
Detective WELTON - Did you ever touch Valin?
BILL - Thought never crossed my mind.
Detective WELTON - Is there anything you want to ask me?
BILL - No.
Detective WELTON - Was Valin a good kid?
BILL - Sometimes, she had a zest for life.
Detective WELTON - Do you understand why you’re here?
BILL - Yeah, but I don’t want to be here.
. . . . .
Detective WELTON - What are you thinking?
BILL - Police force is a disgrace.
Detective WELTON - Why?
BILL - Cause it’s a disgrace. I’m innocent, I’m innocent.
Detective WELTON - But you don’t want to help us in who did it if it wasn’t you?
BILL - I’m innocent, I didn’t do anything
. . . . .
Detective WELTON - You live there Bill, why would anyone do this?
BILL - Sick, deranged.
Detective WELTON - Someone like that probably needs help.
BILL - (whispers) - Yeah
Detective WELTON - Do you get along with Kim?
BILL - Yeah;
Detective WELTON - What about Paul?
BILL - I live there don’t I. I wouldn’t live there if we didn’t get along.
The interview concluded at 7:34 pm. ..
At 10:26 p.m., the two officers tried again. The interview began:
Detective WELTON - How do you feel?
BILL - I didn’t do it.24
. . . . .
Detective WELTON - We know you did it.
BILL - I didn’t do it.
Detective WELTON - You know the sexual assault stuff happened.
BILL - I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it, I could be doing life for something I didn’t do.
Detective WELTON - If you didn’t do it, who did?
BILL - I put John to bed, went by Valin and shut the door, went down, did dishes.
. . . . .
Detective WELTON - Did you take a shower today?
BILL - Yeah.
Detective WELTON - I just asked, that’s all. What are you thinking?
BILL - Why this is happening. I didn’t do it man, I didn’t do it.
Detective WELTON - You know Valin has passed away.
BILL - Yeah, I know. I don’t know how.
Detective WELTON - What were you wearing last night?
BILL - This and this (indicating clothes he had on).
Detective WELTON - Who got the kids in bath and pyjamas?
BILL - Kim did.
Detective WELTON - If I told you Bill, that ah, someone has been sexually assaulting Valin for a long time, who would I talk to?
BILL - It wasn’t me.
I didn’t do it.
I don’t know.
I never ever sexually touched those kids in anyway.
The thought never crossed my mind.
I lost a niece man.
I know for a fact I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it, didn’t do it.
If you said someone’s been assaulting her I want to know.
Detective WELTON - We don’t know the family.
BILL - I don’t know. Valin is precious. Valin was, she is, how would I say this, Valin would go with anyone, she loved everyone. She’d go off with strangers.
. . . . .
Detective WELTON - Valin is a tiny girl.
BILL - She loved her Uncle Bill, she loved me because she loved me for me, she’d see me down the road, run up to me and say she loved me.
And all of that is gone?
People are saying I did it.
I’ll go to court for it. I didn’t do it.
I didn’t fuckin do it. I’ve been to court for 2 years, I’ll fuckin do it (Bill is very irate and upset at this point).
BILL - I’d never hurt a child.
Detective WELTON - If you want to tell me about you, go ahead.
BILL - Kids love me unconditionally. I love being around kids. I watch TV with them, especially Valin. She loved cartoons. I don’t know how she died.
Detective WELTON - She died of suffocation.
BILL - Kim told me she died when she puked.
Detective WELTON - Someone put too much pressure on her neck and chest, she couldn’t breathe and she died.
BILL - I didn’t do it.
. . . . .
Detective WELTON - Doctors are experts.
BILL - I don’t know. If she died between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. (20:00 - 22:00 hours) I would have heard something.
I was there, left between 1:30 and 3:00 a.m. (01:30 and 03:00 hours).
Detective WELTON - Don’t get upset.
BILL - I didn’t do it.
Detective WELTON - Is it possible or have you ever done something and not remembered it?
BILL - No possibility, never happened.
Detective WELTON - Never blacked out?
BILL - Never, I’ll tell the Crown to fuck off.
If you want me to go to court and jail for society I will.
I loved her unconditionally. I’ll go to jail for her, but I didn’t do it. You’ve got to fuckin prove it.
I didn’t do it. I didn’t do it.
This hurt[s] too much.
Detective WELTON - I know it.
BILL - I dreamt about Valin.
She was at the cell door.
I just want whoever did this to be where I am, because I didn’t do it.
. . . . .
Detective WELTON -Black out, didn’t black out?
BILL - No, I put John to bed, shut Valin’s door, went downstairs, watched TV and did the dishes.
The Appellant asked Sgt. Welton:
BILL - Do you think this could be crib death?
Detective WELTON - No.
BILL - Freak accident?
Detective WELTON - No, this was someone using force.
BILL - I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it. I’m scared man, I don’t want to go to Kingston, I don’t want P.C. I don’t want no wacko ward.
Detective WELTON - Sometimes these things happen.
BILL - I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it.
Detective WELTON - More and more points to you.
BILL - I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it.
Detective WELTON - The experts are pointing towards you.
BILL - I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it. I don’t know what happened to her, if I knew, I would tell you. I wouldn’t go down for this for someone else. I want to go to bed. ..
The Appellant, who at this point was crying and, as was apparent to the police, very upset, was asked to review the interview that he had given to Sgt. Welton that morning. He did so and added:
BILL - When Valin was on the couch she covered up herself with a blanket.
She got it from the corner.
Detective WELTON - One of those ones you’d use [on] kids.
BILL - It was the one she was wrapped in, I used it on the couch. She was tired and walked up staggering. She was that tired.
P.C. Martynuck recorded that the Appellant “started crying softly when reading about finding Valin’s body”.
The Appellant reiterated that no one went upstairs while he was babysitting. The conversation continued:
BILL - Could there be a small error in [the time of her] death?
Detective WELTON - Very small, it’s between 8:00 and 10:00 pm.
BILL - Could be wrong.
Detective WELTON - They can narrow it down pretty good. They can’t pinpoint exactly, but pretty close. They do it by taking her temperature.
BILL - All I know is I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it.
At 11:17 pm. Sgt. Welton confronted the Appellant with the allegation that he had sexually assaulted Valin’s sister Jean.
The Appellant vehemently denied this as well.
Finally, at 11:47 pm, the officers gave up their questioning of him.
On Monday morning, Sgt. Welton and P.C. Martynuck spoke to the Appellant again:
Detective WELTON - We thought we’d give you opportunity to tell us.
BILL - I didn’t do it, I know I didn’t do it.
Detective WELTON - Well we talked about it.
BILL - I didn’t do it man, you know I didn’t.
Detective WELTON - All the evidence says you did it.
BILL - I didn’t do it.
The officers left the cell are at 7:35 a.m. and as they did so the Mullins-Johnson yelled at them:
"I didn’t do it."
In these two cases, the police played Smith and the "experts" who backed up his opinions like a trump card when they questioned their suspects;
There is a serious question as to how many others may have decided to plead guilty to lesser offences in relation to their dead children after their lawyer's warned them that they would likely be convicted of murder - and go to prison for life - after the judge or jury heard evidence from the renowned Dr. Smith.
Who could blame them?
Harold Levy...hlevy@gmail.com;
In Nicholas' case, for example, Sergeant West tells Lianne:
"That's the end of it – you have to understand that these people, they’re professionals 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.
And I – I mean, I don’t ant to sit here and have, you know, endless rounds of speculation of what kind of natural things we both know that’s not true.
It wasn’t a natural death."
Similarly, the following exchange occurs during the post-arrest interrogation of Mullins-Johnson:
"Detective WELTON - Someone put too much pressure on her neck and chest, she couldn’t breathe and she died.
BILL - I didn’t do it.
. . . . .
Detective WELTON - Doctors are experts".
Later in the interrogation, Detective Welton returns to the same theme that experts are infallible(so why not confess?), as follows:
"Detective WELTON - Sometimes these things happen.
BILL - I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it.
Detective WELTON - More and more points to you.
BILL - I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it.
Detective WELTON - The experts are pointing towards you.
BILL - Could there be a small error in [the time of her] death? (There turned out to be a huge error in the expert's calculation of the time of Valin's death. H.L.);
Detective WELTON - Very small, it’s between 8:00 and 10:00 pm.
BILL - Could be wrong.
Detective WELTON - They can narrow it down pretty good. They can’t pinpoint exactly, but pretty close. They do it by taking her temperature. (If only that was the case! H.L.)
BILL - All I know is I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it.
For the benefit of the readers of this Blog, here is a portion of the interrogation of Bill Mullins-Johnson - an innocent man - by Sault Ste. Marie police.
To this Blogster it is notable that Mullins-Johnson does not at any time ask for a lawyer.
How many people in police custody after being charged with first-degree murder would allow the police to question them without the protection of a lawyer?
Likewise, Lianne Gagnon allows the police to question her thoroughly without either a lawyer or her parents being present - until the point where the two officers lean on her a bit too hard.
By way of context, at 6:30 p.m. Sgt. Welton arrested the Appellant for the first degree murder and aggravated sexual assault of Valin.
Mullins-Johnson called to his brother Paul (Valin's father) to find him a lawyer, and kept repeating “I didn’t do nothing”.
Once in the police car, he was described by the officers as crying, sobbing and hysterical.
En route to the police station, police notes indicate that he said:
– I didn’t do it
– I wouldn’t hurt that little girl
– You got nothing, you got fuck all, what have you got on me man, nothing, you got fuck all
– I didn’t touch her, she went to bed and that’s that.
At 6:40 p.m., in the booking room, the Appellant was told how Valin died, and at what time.
He replied:
I was doing dishes, watching TV. I put John to bed at 8:00.
Valin went to bed by herself. I was the only other person in the house.
He was then allowed to speak to his lawyer on the telephone.
At 7:07 p.m., Mr. Mullins-Johnson was spoken to by Sgt. Welton and P.C. Martynuck in an interview room.
Unfortunately, neither this interview nor any of the later ones were taped in any way.
Rather, as P.C. Martynuck wrote in her willsay, she recorded them “in her notebook to the best of [her] ability”.
Throughout this interview the Appellant continually protested his innocence.
Here is a portion of the transcript:
Detective WELTON - Could you help us in who did it?
BILL - Wasn’t me, wasn’t me, didn’t do it, didn’t do it. (pause) I just want to go to sleep.
. . . . .
Detective WELTON - Did you ever touch Valin?
BILL - Thought never crossed my mind.
Detective WELTON - Is there anything you want to ask me?
BILL - No.
Detective WELTON - Was Valin a good kid?
BILL - Sometimes, she had a zest for life.
Detective WELTON - Do you understand why you’re here?
BILL - Yeah, but I don’t want to be here.
. . . . .
Detective WELTON - What are you thinking?
BILL - Police force is a disgrace.
Detective WELTON - Why?
BILL - Cause it’s a disgrace. I’m innocent, I’m innocent.
Detective WELTON - But you don’t want to help us in who did it if it wasn’t you?
BILL - I’m innocent, I didn’t do anything
. . . . .
Detective WELTON - You live there Bill, why would anyone do this?
BILL - Sick, deranged.
Detective WELTON - Someone like that probably needs help.
BILL - (whispers) - Yeah
Detective WELTON - Do you get along with Kim?
BILL - Yeah;
Detective WELTON - What about Paul?
BILL - I live there don’t I. I wouldn’t live there if we didn’t get along.
The interview concluded at 7:34 pm. ..
At 10:26 p.m., the two officers tried again. The interview began:
Detective WELTON - How do you feel?
BILL - I didn’t do it.24
. . . . .
Detective WELTON - We know you did it.
BILL - I didn’t do it.
Detective WELTON - You know the sexual assault stuff happened.
BILL - I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it, I could be doing life for something I didn’t do.
Detective WELTON - If you didn’t do it, who did?
BILL - I put John to bed, went by Valin and shut the door, went down, did dishes.
. . . . .
Detective WELTON - Did you take a shower today?
BILL - Yeah.
Detective WELTON - I just asked, that’s all. What are you thinking?
BILL - Why this is happening. I didn’t do it man, I didn’t do it.
Detective WELTON - You know Valin has passed away.
BILL - Yeah, I know. I don’t know how.
Detective WELTON - What were you wearing last night?
BILL - This and this (indicating clothes he had on).
Detective WELTON - Who got the kids in bath and pyjamas?
BILL - Kim did.
Detective WELTON - If I told you Bill, that ah, someone has been sexually assaulting Valin for a long time, who would I talk to?
BILL - It wasn’t me.
I didn’t do it.
I don’t know.
I never ever sexually touched those kids in anyway.
The thought never crossed my mind.
I lost a niece man.
I know for a fact I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it, didn’t do it.
If you said someone’s been assaulting her I want to know.
Detective WELTON - We don’t know the family.
BILL - I don’t know. Valin is precious. Valin was, she is, how would I say this, Valin would go with anyone, she loved everyone. She’d go off with strangers.
. . . . .
Detective WELTON - Valin is a tiny girl.
BILL - She loved her Uncle Bill, she loved me because she loved me for me, she’d see me down the road, run up to me and say she loved me.
And all of that is gone?
People are saying I did it.
I’ll go to court for it. I didn’t do it.
I didn’t fuckin do it. I’ve been to court for 2 years, I’ll fuckin do it (Bill is very irate and upset at this point).
BILL - I’d never hurt a child.
Detective WELTON - If you want to tell me about you, go ahead.
BILL - Kids love me unconditionally. I love being around kids. I watch TV with them, especially Valin. She loved cartoons. I don’t know how she died.
Detective WELTON - She died of suffocation.
BILL - Kim told me she died when she puked.
Detective WELTON - Someone put too much pressure on her neck and chest, she couldn’t breathe and she died.
BILL - I didn’t do it.
. . . . .
Detective WELTON - Doctors are experts.
BILL - I don’t know. If she died between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. (20:00 - 22:00 hours) I would have heard something.
I was there, left between 1:30 and 3:00 a.m. (01:30 and 03:00 hours).
Detective WELTON - Don’t get upset.
BILL - I didn’t do it.
Detective WELTON - Is it possible or have you ever done something and not remembered it?
BILL - No possibility, never happened.
Detective WELTON - Never blacked out?
BILL - Never, I’ll tell the Crown to fuck off.
If you want me to go to court and jail for society I will.
I loved her unconditionally. I’ll go to jail for her, but I didn’t do it. You’ve got to fuckin prove it.
I didn’t do it. I didn’t do it.
This hurt[s] too much.
Detective WELTON - I know it.
BILL - I dreamt about Valin.
She was at the cell door.
I just want whoever did this to be where I am, because I didn’t do it.
. . . . .
Detective WELTON -Black out, didn’t black out?
BILL - No, I put John to bed, shut Valin’s door, went downstairs, watched TV and did the dishes.
The Appellant asked Sgt. Welton:
BILL - Do you think this could be crib death?
Detective WELTON - No.
BILL - Freak accident?
Detective WELTON - No, this was someone using force.
BILL - I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it. I’m scared man, I don’t want to go to Kingston, I don’t want P.C. I don’t want no wacko ward.
Detective WELTON - Sometimes these things happen.
BILL - I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it.
Detective WELTON - More and more points to you.
BILL - I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it.
Detective WELTON - The experts are pointing towards you.
BILL - I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it. I don’t know what happened to her, if I knew, I would tell you. I wouldn’t go down for this for someone else. I want to go to bed. ..
The Appellant, who at this point was crying and, as was apparent to the police, very upset, was asked to review the interview that he had given to Sgt. Welton that morning. He did so and added:
BILL - When Valin was on the couch she covered up herself with a blanket.
She got it from the corner.
Detective WELTON - One of those ones you’d use [on] kids.
BILL - It was the one she was wrapped in, I used it on the couch. She was tired and walked up staggering. She was that tired.
P.C. Martynuck recorded that the Appellant “started crying softly when reading about finding Valin’s body”.
The Appellant reiterated that no one went upstairs while he was babysitting. The conversation continued:
BILL - Could there be a small error in [the time of her] death?
Detective WELTON - Very small, it’s between 8:00 and 10:00 pm.
BILL - Could be wrong.
Detective WELTON - They can narrow it down pretty good. They can’t pinpoint exactly, but pretty close. They do it by taking her temperature.
BILL - All I know is I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it.
At 11:17 pm. Sgt. Welton confronted the Appellant with the allegation that he had sexually assaulted Valin’s sister Jean.
The Appellant vehemently denied this as well.
Finally, at 11:47 pm, the officers gave up their questioning of him.
On Monday morning, Sgt. Welton and P.C. Martynuck spoke to the Appellant again:
Detective WELTON - We thought we’d give you opportunity to tell us.
BILL - I didn’t do it, I know I didn’t do it.
Detective WELTON - Well we talked about it.
BILL - I didn’t do it man, you know I didn’t.
Detective WELTON - All the evidence says you did it.
BILL - I didn’t do it.
The officers left the cell are at 7:35 a.m. and as they did so the Mullins-Johnson yelled at them:
"I didn’t do it."
In these two cases, the police played Smith and the "experts" who backed up his opinions like a trump card when they questioned their suspects;
There is a serious question as to how many others may have decided to plead guilty to lesser offences in relation to their dead children after their lawyer's warned them that they would likely be convicted of murder - and go to prison for life - after the judge or jury heard evidence from the renowned Dr. Smith.
Who could blame them?
Harold Levy...hlevy@gmail.com;
Part Seven: Interrogation of An Innocent Mother: Inspector Keetch's Heart-felt Apology;
"SO, YOU KNOW, IT WAS, KIND OF, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ME TO APOLOGIZE FOR,
KIND OF, WHAT I HAD PUT THEM THROUGH; MY ACTIONS.
AND, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T NECESSARILY CONDONED ON BEHALF OF THE POLICE SERVICE. I WAS NEVER ASKED TO DO THIS.
I JUST MADE A DECISION INDIVIDUALLY THAT I WANTED TO GO AND APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT THE FAMILY HAD BEEN PUT THROUGH."
INSPECTOR ROBERT KEETCH IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION POSED BY COMMISSION COUNSEL MARK SANDLER;
During the course of his testimony at the Goudge Inquiry, Commission Counsel Mark Sandler asked Detective Sergeant (Now Inspector) Robert Keetch about a personal apology he (Keetch) had made to Maurice Gagnon, Lianne's father.
(Sandler told Keetch that the apology had been, "very well received and appreciated" by Mr. Gagnon);
Here is Keetch's reply:
"There was ongoing correspondence between Maurice and myself relative to the investigation right from, you know, right
throughout it, and it was -- I can't give you the exact date, but it was the Christmas prior to my being transferred back to uniform.
And I'd been reading a lot of the correspondence in the news relative to Dr. Smith and had, kind of, come to a realization in my own mind that Lianne wasn't responsible for Nicholas' death or there was no -- you know, nothing to medically support that belief.
And, you know, I kind of harboured a lot of guilt in relation to what I had done, I guess, on behalf of the police service to that family, in relation
to the investigation.
The fact that we had, you know, done a disinterment, done a second autopsy, done an
interrogation of -- of Lianne.
And, you know, kind of, throughout that time frame, until Dr. Smith's opinions and reputation began to crumble, kind of, maintained that belief that Lianne was responsible for Nicholas' death.
So when I, kind of, resolved in my mind that there was no basis to form that opinion, I called Maurice.
And he had always extended a willingness to sit and discuss the case with me because I think he was, kind of, equally interested, as interested as I was in, you know, kind of, finding out what had happened to Nicholas and why he had died on that particular day.
So this -- I'm -- kind of armed with that information, I met Maurice and the two (2) of us, kind of, sat and had coffee just before Christmas at a local Tim Hortons and, you know, kind of spent a couple of hours going over the investigation; my apologizing.
And I mean, Maurice probably has one (1) of the best understandings of Dr. Smith and, kind of, the investigations that are subject to this Inquiry and he, kind of, updated me in relation to that.
So, you know, it was, kind of, an opportunity for me to apologize for,
kind of, what I had put them through; my actions.
And, you know, it wasn't necessarily condoned on behalf of the police service. I was never asked to do this.
I just made a decision individually that I wanted to go and apologize for what the family had been put through.
Inspector Keetch's apology has the ring of true feeling and humanity.
It is so different from the so-called apology for certain undefined errors made by Dr. Charles Smith through his lawyer at the outset of the Inquiry.
Inspector Keetch did not express his apology impersonally through a lawyer or wait until the Inquiry began.
He sought out Maurice Gagnon as an individual - and not as a police officer - and not on behalf of the force.
He had clearly agonized over the effect his investigation had on the Gagnon family and was trying to learn as much as he could from the experience.
Perhaps I have an apology to make to Inspector Keetch and other members of his force who investigated Nicholas' sudden death.
While I have been deservedly critical of some of their investigative techniques, there is no suggestion that they did not truly believe - once the Chief Coroner's Office and Dr. Smith got into the act - that Lianne was responsible for Nicholas' death.
I should have acknowledged that.
The reality is that in 1995, Dr. Charles Smith was still Dr. Charles Randal Smith, the internationally renowned "forensic" pathologist - Director of the prestigious Ontario Forensic Pediatric Pathology Unit at the famed Hospital For Sick Children in Toronto - and he knew more about children's death's than anyone else.
If that wasn't enough, to Keetch and his fellow officers it was apparent that Smith's opinion was backed up by the top brass in the Chief Coroner's Office .
To be fair, Inspector Keetch and his colleagues didn't know - as we know conclusively today, that the Emperor had no clothes."
One final point.
There was one person who knew about the 1991 Timmins case and other cases bungled by Smith and tried to get then Chief Coroner Dr. James Young and top officials of the Harris government - including former Premier Mike Harris himself - but no one would listen.
That person was Maurice Gagnon.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com.
KIND OF, WHAT I HAD PUT THEM THROUGH; MY ACTIONS.
AND, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T NECESSARILY CONDONED ON BEHALF OF THE POLICE SERVICE. I WAS NEVER ASKED TO DO THIS.
I JUST MADE A DECISION INDIVIDUALLY THAT I WANTED TO GO AND APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT THE FAMILY HAD BEEN PUT THROUGH."
INSPECTOR ROBERT KEETCH IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION POSED BY COMMISSION COUNSEL MARK SANDLER;
During the course of his testimony at the Goudge Inquiry, Commission Counsel Mark Sandler asked Detective Sergeant (Now Inspector) Robert Keetch about a personal apology he (Keetch) had made to Maurice Gagnon, Lianne's father.
(Sandler told Keetch that the apology had been, "very well received and appreciated" by Mr. Gagnon);
Here is Keetch's reply:
"There was ongoing correspondence between Maurice and myself relative to the investigation right from, you know, right
throughout it, and it was -- I can't give you the exact date, but it was the Christmas prior to my being transferred back to uniform.
And I'd been reading a lot of the correspondence in the news relative to Dr. Smith and had, kind of, come to a realization in my own mind that Lianne wasn't responsible for Nicholas' death or there was no -- you know, nothing to medically support that belief.
And, you know, I kind of harboured a lot of guilt in relation to what I had done, I guess, on behalf of the police service to that family, in relation
to the investigation.
The fact that we had, you know, done a disinterment, done a second autopsy, done an
interrogation of -- of Lianne.
And, you know, kind of, throughout that time frame, until Dr. Smith's opinions and reputation began to crumble, kind of, maintained that belief that Lianne was responsible for Nicholas' death.
So when I, kind of, resolved in my mind that there was no basis to form that opinion, I called Maurice.
And he had always extended a willingness to sit and discuss the case with me because I think he was, kind of, equally interested, as interested as I was in, you know, kind of, finding out what had happened to Nicholas and why he had died on that particular day.
So this -- I'm -- kind of armed with that information, I met Maurice and the two (2) of us, kind of, sat and had coffee just before Christmas at a local Tim Hortons and, you know, kind of spent a couple of hours going over the investigation; my apologizing.
And I mean, Maurice probably has one (1) of the best understandings of Dr. Smith and, kind of, the investigations that are subject to this Inquiry and he, kind of, updated me in relation to that.
So, you know, it was, kind of, an opportunity for me to apologize for,
kind of, what I had put them through; my actions.
And, you know, it wasn't necessarily condoned on behalf of the police service. I was never asked to do this.
I just made a decision individually that I wanted to go and apologize for what the family had been put through.
Inspector Keetch's apology has the ring of true feeling and humanity.
It is so different from the so-called apology for certain undefined errors made by Dr. Charles Smith through his lawyer at the outset of the Inquiry.
Inspector Keetch did not express his apology impersonally through a lawyer or wait until the Inquiry began.
He sought out Maurice Gagnon as an individual - and not as a police officer - and not on behalf of the force.
He had clearly agonized over the effect his investigation had on the Gagnon family and was trying to learn as much as he could from the experience.
Perhaps I have an apology to make to Inspector Keetch and other members of his force who investigated Nicholas' sudden death.
While I have been deservedly critical of some of their investigative techniques, there is no suggestion that they did not truly believe - once the Chief Coroner's Office and Dr. Smith got into the act - that Lianne was responsible for Nicholas' death.
I should have acknowledged that.
The reality is that in 1995, Dr. Charles Smith was still Dr. Charles Randal Smith, the internationally renowned "forensic" pathologist - Director of the prestigious Ontario Forensic Pediatric Pathology Unit at the famed Hospital For Sick Children in Toronto - and he knew more about children's death's than anyone else.
If that wasn't enough, to Keetch and his fellow officers it was apparent that Smith's opinion was backed up by the top brass in the Chief Coroner's Office .
To be fair, Inspector Keetch and his colleagues didn't know - as we know conclusively today, that the Emperor had no clothes."
One final point.
There was one person who knew about the 1991 Timmins case and other cases bungled by Smith and tried to get then Chief Coroner Dr. James Young and top officials of the Harris government - including former Premier Mike Harris himself - but no one would listen.
That person was Maurice Gagnon.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
