Tuesday, February 22, 2011

CHARLES SMITH: (PART 1); THE FACTUAL ADMISSIONS THAT LED TO HIS REMOVAL FROM THE COLLEGE; (NONE OF WHICH ACKNOWLEDGE INTENT TO HARM HIS VICTIMS);


"Dr. Smith exaggerated his experience, or conversely, failed to disclose his lack of experience in the area of forensic pathology. Dr. Smith offered opinions outside of his area of expertise. Dr. Smith gave evidence that was unbalanced, overly dogmatic or failed to acknowledge uncertainty or controversy, and which was speculative, unsubstantiated and not based on pathology findings;"

STATEMENT OF FACTS; COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO;

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND: On February 1, 2011, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario found that Charles Smith had committed acts of professional misconduct and that he was incompetent - and revoked his license to practice medicine in the province. Smith admitted a series of allegations which were filed with the Court. I am printing this statement of facts which Smith admitted in its entirety as this is an important part of the public record. It will be noted that Smith stops short of admitting any intent to harm his victims. (I will be publishing series of six victim impact statements filed with the College in their entirety beginning tomorrow.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STATEMENT OF FACTS ADMITTED BY FORMER DR. CHARLES SMITH;

In particular, in multiple cases:

a) Dr. Smith failed to gather relevant information, undertake
appropriate investigations, and properly detail relevant
information;

b) Dr. Smith, expressed opinions about the cause of injuries or death
that were either contrary to or not supported by the pathology
evidence at the time the opinion was first expressed or were no
longer supported after receipt of additional information;

c) Dr. Smith, formed erroneous opinions about the cause of death based
on non-specific findings, and he misinterpreted autopsy
findings;

d) Dr. Smith referenced aspects of the social history of the parents
or caregivers of the deceased child which were irrelevant to the
pathology;

e) Dr. Smith opined on the manner of death rather than exclusively on
the pathological cause of death;

f) Dr. Smith failed to respond to communications from coroners, Crown
Attorneys, police officers and other pathologists in an appropriate
and timely manner. Furthermore, Dr. Smith attempted to unfairly
shift responsibility for these failures to others. These failures
compromised the administration of justice;

g) Dr. Smith failed to create, maintain and preserve pathology
materials relevant to criminal investigations in the manner
expected of a pathologist acting pursuant to the Coroners Act.
These failures compromised the administration of justice;

h) Dr. Smith exaggerated his experience, or conversely, failed to
disclose his lack of experience in the area of forensic pathology.
Dr. Smith offered opinions outside of his area of expertise. Dr.
Smith gave evidence that was unbalanced, overly dogmatic or failed
to acknowledge uncertainty or controversy, and which was
speculative, unsubstantiated and not based on pathology findings;

i) Dr. Smith failed to provide his opinions to coroners, the police,
Crown Attorneys and/or the Court in a manner that met the standard
expected of a forensic pathologist in Ontario at the time. He gave
his evidence in a manner that was misleading, overly casual,
unfairly critical of other experts or unscientific. In other cases
he acted as an advocate rather than expressing an unbiased opinion.
Dr. Smith failed to adequately prepare for court; and

j) Dr. Smith failed to respond to inquiries from regulating bodies,
including the CPSO, with the candour expected of a member regarding
his involvement in certain of the cases under investigation. This
lack of candour prevented the regulating bodies from exercising the
degree of oversight that might otherwise have been exercised.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The admitted facts can be found on the College site at:

http://www.cpso.on.ca/docsearch/details.aspx?view=4&id=%2031811

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com

Monday, February 21, 2011

THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG MAKES LIST OF "TOP 25 FORENSICS BLOGS." LINK PROVIDED FOR ACCESS TO THE LIST;

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am delighted to announce to our readers - many of whom contribute the information which is the basis for this blog - that the Charles Smith Blog has been named as one of the "Top 25 Forensic Blogs," by Criminal Justice Degree Schools. To qualify for inclusion, a forensics blog must provide "great insights" into forensic careers "as well as interesting news and information about the field of forensics." Criminal Justice Degree Schools is an excellent resource for people who are interested in criminal justice education including forensics education and careers I am honoured to be included. The list can be found at:

http://www.criminaljusticedegreeschools.com/top-forensics-blogs/.

HAROLD LEVY: PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;

RICHARD WINFREY SR. (KEITH PIKETT, JOHN PRESTON, AND THE OTHER PROPONENTS OF THE PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC " DOG SCENT LINEUP;") RADLEY BALKO;


"Canine testimony can also play a key role in murder cases. Last September the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned the 2004 murder conviction of Richard Winfrey Sr. because the case against him was based on an unreliable, pseudoscientific "scent lineup" in which Fort Bend County Deputy Sheriff Keith Pikett (now retired) claimed his team of bloodhounds alerted to the murder victim's scent on Winfrey's clothing. Pikett and his dogs have assisted in thousands of criminal investigations by police departments all over Texas. As late as last year, prosecutors were trying to use the results from one of Pikett's scent lineups to retry Anthony Graves after a federal appeals court threw out his murder conviction. Graves, who served 18 years on death row, has since been exonerated and freed.

Pikett is now the target of a class-action lawsuit brought by people who say they were wrongly detained or convicted based on his dogs' alerts. Similar questions have been raised about the methods used by the late John Preston, a former Pennsylvania state trooper who found a second career as a freelance dog handler in police investigations, mainly in Florida. Preston's dog helped convict dozens of Floridians in the 1980s. At least three murder convictions secured through Preston's testimony have since been overturned."

RADLEY BALKO: REASON; Radley Balko is a senior editor at Reason magazine.
PHOTO: KEITH PIKETT;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND: DOG-SCENT JUNK SCIENCE CASES; It is possible that dozens of people have been convicted of the most serious crimes because courts allowed testimony by "dog handlers" such as Keith Pikett and John Preston - and the junk-science upon which their so-called "expert" opinions are based. We are following activity in both the criminal and civil court and in the political arena where there is pressure on state governments to conduct probes of all of Pikett's and Preston's cases. Cases visited thus far include Richard Winfrey Jr., Bill Dillon, Calvin Lee Miller, Michael Buchanek, and Gary Bennett;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"For the first few years I had her, I was impressed by my late dog Harper's uncanny ability to assess people's character. She hated every crappy landlord and bad roommate,"
Radley Balko's post published earlier today on "Reason" begins, under the heading, "The Mind of a Police Dog: How misconceptions about dogs can lead to abuse of humans."

"Barked at them. Snarled at them. Wouldn't go near them,"
Balko continues.

"But if I brought home a date I liked, Harper, a Shar Pei/Labrador mix, would curl up right next to the woman and turn on the charm. It took me several years to figure out that my dog wasn't a good judge of character; she was just good at reading me. She liked the people I liked and disliked the people who rubbed me the wrong way. For dogs descended from lines bred for protection and companionship, this talent makes sense. A dog adept at distinguishing friend from foe was likely to be kept around and bred, and one very good way to tell friend from foe is to read your master's body language.

My confusion about what was going on in Harper's head reflects a common misconception that is also apparent in the ways dogs are used in criminal investigations. When we think dogs are using their well-honed noses to sniff out drugs or criminal suspects, they may actually be displaying a more recently evolved trait: an urgent desire to please their masters, coupled with the ability to read their cues.

Several studies and tests have shown that drug-sniffing dogs, scent hounds, and even explosive-detecting dogs are not nearly as accurate as they have been portrayed in court. A recent Chicago Tribune survey of traffic stops by suburban police departments from 2007 to 2009, for example, found that searches turned up contraband in just 44 percent of the cases where police dogs alerted to the presence of narcotics. (An alert is a signal, such as barking or sitting, that dogs are trained to display when they detect the target scent.) In stops involving Hispanic drivers, the dogs' success rate was just 27 percent. The two largest departments the Tribune surveyed—the Chicago Police Department and the Illinois State Police—said they don't even keep track of such information.

But don't blame the dogs; their noses work fine. In fact, the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency recently conceded, after 12 years and millions of dollars of research, that the canine snout, fine-tuned by millions of years of evolution, is still far more sensitive and reliable than any technology man has been able to muster when it comes to detecting explosives in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

The problem is our confusion about when dogs are picking up a scent and when they are responding to cues from their handlers. The Economist's "Babbage" blog summarizes a recent study led by Lisa Lit, a neurologist (and former dog handler) at the University of California-Davis, that demonstrates the startling consequences of that confusion:

[Researchers] asked 18 professional dog handlers and their mutts to complete two sets of four brief searches. Thirteen of those who participated worked in drug detection, three in explosives detection, and two worked in both. The dogs had been trained to use one of two signals to indicate to their handlers that they had detected something. Some would bark, others would sit.

The experimental searches took places in the rooms of a church, and each team of dog and human had five minutes allocated to each of the eight searches. Before the searches, the handlers were informed that some of the search areas might contain up to three target scents, and also that in two cases those scents would be marked by pieces of red paper.

What the handlers were not told was that two of the targets contained decoy scents, in the form of unwrapped, hidden sausages, to encourage the dogs' interest in a false location. Moreover, none of the search areas contained the scents of either drugs or explosives. Any "detections" made by the teams thus had to be false. Recorders, who were blind to the study, noted where handlers indicated that their dogs had raised alerts.

The results? Dog/handler teams correctly completed a search with no alerts in just 21 of the 144 walk-throughs. The other 123 searches produced an astounding 225 alerts, every one of them false. Even more interesting, the search points designed to trick the handlers (marked by the red slips of paper) were about twice as likely to trigger false alerts as the search points designed to trick the dogs (by luring them with sausages). This phenomenon is known as the "Clever Hans effect," after a horse that won fame in the early 1900s by stomping out the answers to simply arithmetic questions with his hoof. Hans was indeed clever, but he couldn't do math. Instead he was reading subtle, unintentional cues from the audience and his trainer, who would tense up as Hans began to click his hoof, then relax once Hans hit the answer.

In her wonderfully written (but strangely titled) book Inside of a Dog, Columbia University psychology professor Alexandra Horowitz further illustrates how humans can unconsciously influence canine behavior. She describes various tests in which researchers measure the problem-solving skills of domestic dogs in comparison to wolves. The tests include activities in which dogs and wolves are tasked with finding a ball or treat hidden in a room, tucked behind a screen, or sealed in a container. When the task involves minimal human contact, domestic dogs perform about as well as their more primitive cousins. But the more the experiments incorporate interaction with humans, the more poorly domesticated dogs fare. They tend to give up, then simply wait for the human researcher to get the prize for them. Horowitz explains:

By standard intelligence tests, the dogs have failed...I believe, by contrast, that they have succeeded magnificently. They have applied a novel tool to the task. We are that tool....We solve the puzzles of closed doors and empty water dishes....We humans are brilliant enough to extract hopelessly tangled leashes from around trees.…Dogs are terrific at using humans to solve problems, but not as good at solving problems when we're not around.

It is hard to overstate the implications of these findings for the use of dogs in police work. The dogs who failed Lit's scent tests did not lose their sense of smell. But in the process of domesticating dogs, we have bred into them a trait that tends to trump most others: a desire to please us—and toward that end, an ability to read us and a tendency to rely on us to help them solve their problems. Any training program that does not take this tendency into account will produce dogs who frequently issue false alerts.

The consequences of those mistakes are profound. As my colleague Jacob Sullum has explained, the U.S. Supreme Court says a dog sniff is not invasive enough to qualify as a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, so police do not need a warrant or probable cause to have a dog smell your luggage or your car. At the same time, however, the courts treat an alert by a drug-sniffing dog as probable cause for an actual, no-question-about-it search, the kind that involves going through your pockets, opening your luggage, looking in your trunk, and perusing your personal belongings. The problem is that a dog barking or sitting may be responding not to a smell but to his handler's hunch about a suspect's guilt. The reason we have a Fourth Amendment is precisely to prevent searches based on hunches.

The consequences of misusing police dogs go well beyond unconstitutional searches. A drug dog's alert can help establish a connection between a suspect's property and drug activity, allowing police to seize the property for possible forfeiture. Even if the owner is never charged with a crime, the burden is on him to go to court to win back what was his, a process that often costs more than the property is worth. In a case I reported last year, for example, college student Anthony Smelley had $17,500 in cash that he'd won in an accident settlement seized when police in Indiana pulled him over and a drug dog alerted to Smelley's car. It took Smelley more than a year to win the cash back in court, even though a subsequent hand search turned up no illegal substances.

Canine testimony can also play a key role in murder cases. Last September the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned the 2004 murder conviction of Richard Winfrey Sr. because the case against him was based on an unreliable, pseudoscientific "scent lineup" in which Fort Bend County Deputy Sheriff Keith Pikett (now retired) claimed his team of bloodhounds alerted to the murder victim's scent on Winfrey's clothing. Pikett and his dogs have assisted in thousands of criminal investigations by police departments all over Texas. As late as last year, prosecutors were trying to use the results from one of Pikett's scent lineups to retry Anthony Graves after a federal appeals court threw out his murder conviction. Graves, who served 18 years on death row, has since been exonerated and freed.

Pikett is now the target of a class-action lawsuit brought by people who say they were wrongly detained or convicted based on his dogs' alerts. Similar questions have been raised about the methods used by the late John Preston, a former Pennsylvania state trooper who found a second career as a freelance dog handler in police investigations, mainly in Florida. Preston's dog helped convict dozens of Floridians in the 1980s. At least three murder convictions secured through Preston's testimony have since been overturned.

In 2006 University of North Carolina law professor Richard Myers conducted a statistical analysis (PDF) of police dog accuracy tests and concluded that the animals were not reliable enough to produce probable cause for a search, let alone serve as the cornerstone of a conviction. At least five states have banned or restricted the use of scent lineups in criminal cases, but they are still frequently used in courtrooms across the country.

Dogs can be valuable investigative tools. They are great, for example, at following a scent in searches for suspects or sniffing out survivors after a disaster. The bomb-detecting dogs in Iraq and Afghanistan are successful because their handlers have no preconceptions about where bombs may lie. Indeed, they are putting their lives in the dogs' paws. With no cues from their masters to cloud their judgment, the dogs are free to go about their task unbiased. But while Canis domesticus retains many of its wilder relative's sensory abilities, it is in many ways a man-made animal. When we don't take that reality into account, a dog can be worse than useless. But that's not the dog's fault. It's ours."


The post can be found at:

http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/21/the-mind-of-a-police-dog

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;

LINDY CHAMBERLAIN: THE PUBLIC DEMAND FOR A WOMAN TO SHOW "EMOTION" CAN LEAD TO A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE; A COLUMNIST'S POINT OF VIEW; THE AGE;


"In our recent legal history, there are two striking examples of women caught in the media spotlight who did not ''emote'' in an acceptable manner, who didn't, in short, "act" like they were "supposed" to. The most infamous, of course, is the case of Lindy Chamberlain. Accused of killing her infant, Azaria, at Uluru in 1980, Chamberlain remained stoic and defiant in court and in the face of intense media scrutiny, which only heightened suspicions about her.

More recently, Joanne Lees, who survived a terrifying ordeal in the outback, and whose boyfriend Peter Falconio was murdered, was also distrusted because of her emotional restraint. In a 2006 interview on Enough Rope, Andrew Denton asked Lees about the criticism she endured because of her controlled public demeanour.

Lees said: "I chose to sort of grieve in private, or - and I guess all I can say is I was a victim of a violent and serious crime and had no support or guidance. I didn't know there was a rule-book or a manual on how to behave. As far as I'm concerned, I was just being myself, and that's all anyone can do in that situation."

She added that it was "the Yorkshire way" to refrain from overt public grieving."

GABRIELLA COSLOVICH: THE AGE:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND: WIKIPEDIA): Michael and Lindy Chamberlain's first daughter, Azaria, was born on June 11, 1980. When Azaria was two months old, Michael and Lindy Chamberlain took their three children on a camping trip to Ayers Rock, arriving on August 16, 1980. On the night of August 17, Chamberlain reported that the child had been taken from her tent by a dingo. A massive search was organised, but all that was found were remains of some of the bloody clothes, which confirmed the death of baby Azaria. Her body has never been discovered. Although the initial coronal inquiry supported the Chamberlains' account of Azaria's disappearance, Lindy Chamberlain was later prosecuted for the murder of her child on the basis of the finding of the baby's jumpsuit and of tests that appeared to indicate the presence of blood found in the Chamberlains' car. This forensic gathering convicted her of murder on October 29, 1982, and sentenced her to life imprisonment; the theory was that she slit the child's throat and hid the body. Michael Chamberlain was convicted as an accessory to murder. Shortly after her conviction, Lindy Chamberlain gave birth to her fourth child, Kahlia, on November 17, 1982, in prison. An appeal against her conviction was rejected by the High Court in February, 1984. New evidence emerged on February 2, 1986 when a remaining item of Azaria's clothing was found partially buried near Uluru in an isolated location, adjacent to a dingo lair. This was the matinee jacket which the police had maintained for years did not exist. Five days later, Chamberlain was released. The Northern Territory Government publicly said it was because "she had suffered enough." In view of inconsistencies in the earlier blood testing which gave rise to potential reasonable doubts about the propriety of her conviction and as DNA testing was not as advanced in the early 1980s it emerged that the 'baby blood' found in her car could have been any substance, Lindy Chamberlain's life sentence was remitted by the Northern Territory Government and a Royal Commission began to investigate the matter in 1987. Chamberlain's conviction was overturned in September, 1988 and another inquest in 1995 returned an open verdict. In recent years there have been fatal dingo attacks on children, one famous instance being at the holiday resort at Fraser Island.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: It's hard to imagine a more reasonable request than Lindy Chamberlain's bid for a new death certificate which will record the truth - that Azaria was killed by a dingo. To lose a child in those circumstances is bad enough. To be branded as her killer on the basis of ignorance, fear-mongering, faulty police investigation, erroneous expert evidence and a wanting court process, makes matters all the worse. This is compounded by an oppressive prosecution in which Lindy Chamberlain did not have the opportunity to access and conduct tests on key pieces of forensic evidence before her trial. A refusal by the authorities to take such a simple, warranted step, would only be seen as furthering the injustice inflicted on Lindy Chamberlain and her family. It is no answer to say she has been pardoned or that her conviction has been quashed. There will understandably be no closure from the legal process and its dreadful consequences for her until the public record - the death certificate - is corrected. That can't happen soon enough.

HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In a week when important local and international news was not exactly lacking (and I'm not referring here to the latest moist instalment of the Hurley-Warne love-in) Julia Gillard's tears made front page news across the country. Front page." the column by Gabriella Coslovich published in The Age on February 12, 2011 begins, under the heading, "Women damned if they show emotion, damned if they don't."

"Finally, the Prime Minister, who has endured criticism and ridicule for her flat and forced performances, let loose. She ''broke down'' and cried in Parliament while giving a speech about Queensland's floods. And, in a theatrically patriotic flourish, she heightened the drama by solemnly unfurling a muddied Australian flag,"
the column continues.

"Her tribute to the Queensland flood victims was described in the media as ''heartfelt'', ''genuine'' and as the first display of ''real emotion''. Photos of Gillard looking grim, drawn and pale supported the evaluations.
Advertisement: Story continues below

There was more than a hint of triumphalism in some of the media coverage. We had bayed for raw emotion, and finally we'd got it. Gillard is human after all! Although some continued to doubt it, seeing the tears-and-flag double-act as yet another contrived performance, choreographed and coached by spin doctors.

But I'm no political expert and it's not my role to appraise Gillard's performance as leader. What concerns me is the fanatical demand for emotion on-cue and the notion that there is a "proper" way to express our feelings.

There's a double standard at work here - we say we want honest and candid behaviour, but when we see it, we don't necessarily like it, as Tony Abbott discovered to his detriment this week.

When it comes to women, the expectation of ''appropriate'' behaviour is magnified. In the workplace, women risk being seen as ''over-emotional''. But if they dare to assert themselves they may also be tarnished with the "aggressive'' tag.

In their social roles, however, women are expected to be nurturing, maternal and emotionally expressive.

In our recent legal history, there are two striking examples of women caught in the media spotlight who did not ''emote'' in an acceptable manner, who didn't, in short, "act" like they were "supposed" to. The most infamous, of course, is the case of Lindy Chamberlain. Accused of killing her infant, Azaria, at Uluru in 1980, Chamberlain remained stoic and defiant in court and in the face of intense media scrutiny, which only heightened suspicions about her.

More recently, Joanne Lees, who survived a terrifying ordeal in the outback, and whose boyfriend Peter Falconio was murdered, was also distrusted because of her emotional restraint. In a 2006 interview on Enough Rope, Andrew Denton asked Lees about the criticism she endured because of her controlled public demeanour.

Lees said: "I chose to sort of grieve in private, or - and I guess all I can say is I was a victim of a violent and serious crime and had no support or guidance. I didn't know there was a rule-book or a manual on how to behave. As far as I'm concerned, I was just being myself, and that's all anyone can do in that situation."

She added that it was "the Yorkshire way" to refrain from overt public grieving.

Different cultures express emotions differently. There's the oblique and compliant manner of some Asian cultures, the extravagant expressiveness of the Latins and the thoroughly gushing ways of some Americans. Talk-show queen Oprah Winfrey was in Australia recently, and she excelled in whipping crowds into an emotional frenzy - were these emotions for real?

In the era of reality television, tabloid talk-shows and the internet, trumped-up emotions are pervasive. On social media sites, people present themselves in hyped-up, sexed-up and manufactured ways. It's becoming more complicated to decide what is "sincere".

Some people are indeed better than others at being empathetic, and of knowing the most appropriate way to respond in different situations. Psychologists talk about "emotional intelligence", or "EI", and have devised ways of measuring it. Emotionally intelligent people are skilled at understanding and managing their own feelings and those of others - Queensland Premier Anna Bligh is a pertinent example. But unlike IQ, emotional intelligence is not static - it can be developed. Abbott, in refraining from throttling the TV reporter who had baited him about his "shit happens" comment, was at least trying to manage his emotions.

When I saw photos of the lachrymose and ashen-faced Gillard, I couldn't help feeling that she was distressed by more than the floods. I know it's part of the rough and tumble of political life, but it can't be easy being subjected to relentless scrutiny and censure for everything from your house-keeping skills to your ability to "appear" authentic.

And I understand that she is partly to blame for the prurient interest in her ability to emote - or not. She did, unfortunately, encourage the character dissection when she raised the notion of the ''real Julia'' versus the primped and staged one.

Humans are hard-wired to evaluate, assess and judge others, it's part of our survival mechanism. But perhaps we could step back a little and remember that people are different and that their abilities and ways of dealing with emotions vary, too.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The story can be found at:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/women-damned-if-they-show-emotion-damned-if-they-dont-20110211-1aqkw.html


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;

Sunday, February 20, 2011

THE DEATH PENALTY; U.S. "AMERICA LOSES ITS URGE TO KILL" REPORTS SIMON MANN OF "THE AGE. (AUSTRALIA);"

"But the real ''game changer'' has been DNA, featuring in 17 of 90 death-row exonerations since the early 1990s and fuelling concerns about innocence in the minds of the public.

Even in Texas, the ''perennial leader in executions'', DNA evidence and other investigation errors are giving authorities pause. DNA tests have recently shown that a single strand of hair that placed Claude Jones at the scene of a murder did not belong to him. But Jones was executed in 2000. And last October, Anthony Graves was released after 16 years on death row when a review ''found not one piece of credible evidence'' linking him to the murder of a woman and her children.

Texas, responsible for nearly four out of every 10 executions since 1976, is now supporting a state-wide DNA case review through the Innocence Project of Texas."

REPORTER SIMON MANN; THE AGE;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Last year, 46 people were executed in America, less than half the number in 1999, the peak year since the US Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976," the Age story by reporter Simon Mann published on Fenruary 12, 2011 begins, under the heading, "America losing the urge to kill."

''The death penalty is putting millions [of dollars] into getting one execution per state per year, if that,'' says Richard Dieter, of the Death Penalty Information Centre. ''It's just totally symbolic, totally political and that's an expensive thing to keep operating just because it plays well in sound bites,''
the story continues.

"Five people have been put to death in 2011, including Wednesday's execution of a Missouri man who raped and killed an 11-year-old girl in 1991. Another six cases have been stayed, some because of challenges to lethal injection protocols, while the sentence of a second Missouri man was commuted after supporters produced evidence of his possible innocence.

Plenty of wary politicians are citing mounting opposition to the death penalty, but increasingly they are advocating a pragmatic response to yawning state deficits, too.

A Maryland study suggested that a death sentence - with all the trials, appeals and incarceration it entailed - cost the state $US3 million, and more if the courts ultimately spared the prisoner, whereas a life sentence cost $US1 million.

An Indiana study put the cost differential as high as 10 times, while an investigation by New Jersey, which abolished the death penalty in 2007, found death sentences had cost taxpayers an extra $US253 million since 1983.

''That's not the end of the story,'' Mr Dieter tells The Saturday Age, ''but it is, in a time of financial crises, a foot in the door in terms of raising this issue. If you say 'I have a proposal to save the state millions of dollars', then you're going to get a hearing, at the very least.''

Cost was clearly a factor in New Mexico's decision two years ago to ditch the death penalty, as in Illinois, where legislators recently voted it out for new cases. (The Illinois governor is mulling whether to sign the bill.)

A similar move in Connecticut in 2009 was vetoed, but incoming governor Dan Malloy has said he will sign the bill.

Meanwhile, Maryland's governor has proposed an end to capital punishment in his state, where just five people have been executed since 1976.

Should all three states follow through, it would take to 18 those that have dropped capital punishment. Of the 32 remaining states, 20 have executed a total of just 10 people in the past two years. Several have not had an execution in more than five years.

A recent decision by some foreign-owned drug companies to withdraw sodium thiopental for use in executions has cast additional doubt over the system, although some states are considering locally made alternatives.

''In a nation where the prison system is so overused that the currency of imprisonment is largely devalued, the death penalty allows juries to make an emphatically punitive statement,'' says David Garland, a professor of law and sociology at New York University.

''Politicians give voters what they want by enacting capital punishment statutes, even when they will never be enforced [and] prosecutors use the threat of a death penalty as leverage to elicit plea bargains and co-operation.''

Increasingly at play, too, is the reluctance of victims' families to clamour for an eye for an eye, fearing lengthy appeals will anchor their hurt for years to come. As a result, prosecutors increasingly are urging life sentences ahead of the death penalty.

But the real ''game changer'' has been DNA, featuring in 17 of 90 death-row exonerations since the early 1990s and fuelling concerns about innocence in the minds of the public.

Even in Texas, the ''perennial leader in executions'', DNA evidence and other investigation errors are giving authorities pause. DNA tests have recently shown that a single strand of hair that placed Claude Jones at the scene of a murder did not belong to him. But Jones was executed in 2000. And last October, Anthony Graves was released after 16 years on death row when a review ''found not one piece of credible evidence'' linking him to the murder of a woman and her children.

Texas, responsible for nearly four out of every 10 executions since 1976, is now supporting a state-wide DNA case review through the Innocence Project of Texas.

Should more and more states opt out of the death penalty, some opponents contemplate that the Supreme Court could rule that it violates the Eighth Amendment, which bans ''cruel and unusual punishments''.

That may be many years down the road, but impartial observers such as Richard Dieter are adamant that the trends are ''not a blip''. ''They're a constant,'' he says. ''They're a change in the popular view of the death penalty. It's not opposition, but it is scepticism, a frustration with it, a disbelief that it can really be fixed.''


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The story can be found at:

http://www.theage.com.au/world/america-losing-the-urge-to-kill-20110211-1aql8.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;

Saturday, February 19, 2011

CHARLES SMITH; MY RESPONSE TO GLOBE COLUMNIST CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD'S RECENT COLUMN LAMENTING ONTARIO'S LOSS OF THE FORMER DOCTOR AND HIS PROTECTORS;


"I personally do not want to live in a province which has a justice system who's officials stick their necks out, as Blatchford suggests Smith did. I think our justice system works best when its officials like coroners, pathologists, prosecutors, and police respect their power and just do their jobs in an honest, neutral, fair and objective way. That's how we best serve deceased children and society."

HAROLD LEVY: PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND: The Goudge inquiry focused largely on the flawed work of Charles Smith — formerly the province's chief pediatric pathologist and a self-styled member of the prosecution team — whose "errors" led to innocent people being branded as child murderers. (He has since been thrown out of the medical profession in Ontario);

The 1,000-page report by Justice Stephen Goudge slammed Smith, along with Ontario's former chief coroner and his deputy, for their roles in wrongful prosecutions and asked the province to consider compensation.

The provincial coroner's office found evidence of errors in 20 of 45 autopsies Smith did over a 10-year period starting in the early 1990s. Thirteen resulted in criminal charges.

William Mullins-Johnson, who was among those cases, spent 12 years in prison for the rape and murder of his four-year-old niece, whose death was later attributed to natural causes.

In another case, Smith concluded a mother had stabbed her seven-year-old girl to death when it turned out to have been a dog mauling.

The inquiry heard that Smith's failings included hanging on to crucial evidence, "losing" evidence which showed his opinion was wrong and may have assisted the accused person, misstating evidence, chronic tardiness, and the catastrophic misinterpretation of findings.

The cases, along with other heart-rending stories of wrongful prosecutions based in part on Smith's testimony, also raised a host of issues about Ontario's pediatric forensic pathology system and the reliance of the courts on expert evidence."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: While I understand Christie Blatchford's dismay over the tragic scalding death of 19-month old Miguel Fernandes and the province's response to it, I simply cannot accept her idolization of Smith as a white knight who, backed by the Coroner's office, went beyond the call of duty. (Blatchford commends him for being willing "to stick his neck out" to protect children.) Blatchford gets off on a false start when she describes Smith as a "legitimate pediatric pathologist." Blatchford fails to mention that Smith was not qualified as a "forensic pathologist" and was therefore utterly unqualified to give crucial opinions in criminal trials on issues such as the cause, time and manner of death. Worse, in his evidence in court he purported to have this knowledge as he bad-mouthed the opinions and reputations of those true experts who actually had the knowledge - and in the process was responsible for the wrongful conviction of numerous innocent parents and caregivers. Blatchford also misses the boat when she describes Smith as having accrued "considerable hands on experience." I remember being quite surprised to discover that when Smith was appointed head of the Ontario Pediatric Forensic pathology Unit around 1991 he had hardly performed any suspicious death autopsies - and I am still baffled as to why he would have been offered the important position and as to why, given his lack of qualifications and experience, he would have accepted it. Blatchford correctly notes that Smith filled a vacuum in Ontario - but she is far too kind when she presumes it was out of compassion for dead children. I suspect that Smith, a run of the mill doctor at the time used that vacuum to artificially construct a reputation, and masterfully, through misrepresentation, to create himself into a God of the forensic world. I also take issue with her lament that the old star system in which the office of the Chief Coroner was doing "some considerable good." In the words of Justice Stephen Goudge, who presided over an independent public Inquiry which investigated many of Smith's cases: "In the end, as Chief Coroner, Dr. (James) Young must bear the ultimate responsibility for the failure of oversight. As he rose to take on more senior positions, he proved unable to exercise the authority of the position he already held: to ensure vigilant oversight of Dr. Smith. When he finally did act, it was to protect the reputation of his office, and not out of concern that individuals and the public interest may already have been harmed. Sadly, the de facto oversight of Dr. Smith that resulted was far too little, far too late." Far from being a white knight, Smith abused his important, trusted role in Ontario's justice system, as he routinely lied, twisted, "lost evidence" that would show accused persons were innocent, and discredited other explanations of a child's death that pointed away from guilt. How was Smith showing his love of children when he came up with his opinion in case after case that a child's death was murder - when in fact, the child had tragically died of natural causes? (Instead of allowing parents to grieve he turned them into pariahs.) In some of the cases, he had caused the injuries to the child's body during the autopsy which he testified were evidence that the child had been murdered. In the Waudby case, the real murderer - a teenager with psychological problems - went free for years because Smith, who saw himself as a member of the prosecution team, as Blatchford acknowledges, opined a time of death which meant that only Baby Jenna's mother could have committed the brutal crime. How did all of this serve Ontario's justice system in what Blatchford would have us believe were the good old days? I personally do not want to live in a province which has a justice system who's officials stick their necks out, as Blatchford suggests Smith did. I think our justice system works best when its officials like coroners, pathologists, prosecutors, and police respect their roles and their power and just do their jobs in an honest, neutral, fair and objective way. That's how we best serve deceased children and society. We can see from the Smith saga, with all of the human cost and the assault on confidence in the criminal justice system what happens when this is not the case.

HAROLD LEVY: PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;

CHARLES SMITH: GLOBE AND MAIL COLUMNIST CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD'S MISGUIDED NOSTALGIA FOR FORMER DOCTOR CHARLES SMITH AND HIS PROTECTORS;


"He was a legitimate pediatric pathologist, and as child deaths and child abuse generally became a bigger issue both to the public and as a matter of policy in the 1980s, Mr. Smith, then working at Toronto’s Sick Children’s Hospital, stepped into the vacuum nature always abhors.

He was willing to do autopsies on children; he was willing to testify in court, an alarming prospect for many of his colleagues, cross-examination by a good defence lawyer being fraught with peril, and he was willing to lecture – and yes, it was about a discipline in which he had not a whit of training, but where he’d accrued some considerable hands-on experience.

In fairness to him, Mr. Smith was willing to stick his neck out at a time when virtually no one else in his corner of the planet was."

COLUMNIST CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD; THE GLOBE AND MAIL;

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND: The Goudge inquiry focused largely on the flawed work of Charles Smith — formerly the province's chief pediatric pathologist and a self-styled member of the prosecution team — whose "errors" led to innocent people being branded as child murderers. (He has since been thrown out of the medical profession in Ontario);

The 1,000-page report by Justice Stephen Goudge slammed Smith, along with Ontario's former chief coroner and his deputy, for their roles in wrongful prosecutions and asked the province to consider compensation.

The provincial coroner's office found evidence of errors in 20 of 45 autopsies Smith did over a 10-year period starting in the early 1990s. Thirteen resulted in criminal charges.

William Mullins-Johnson, who was among those cases, spent 12 years in prison for the rape and murder of his four-year-old niece, whose death was later attributed to natural causes.

In another case, Smith concluded a mother had stabbed her seven-year-old girl to death when it turned out to have been a dog mauling.

The inquiry heard that Smith's failings included hanging on to crucial evidence, "losing" evidence which showed his opinion was wrong and may have assisted the accused person, misstating evidence, chronic tardiness, and the catastrophic misinterpretation of findings.

The cases, along with other heart-rending stories of wrongful prosecutions based in part on Smith's testimony, also raised a host of issues about the forensic pediatric pathology system in Ontario and the reliance of the courts on expert evidence."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: My preference tends to lean toward allowing my readers to make up their own minds. I will therefore leave my own views on this column to a subsequent post - subject to the not-so-subtle clue in the headline that I regard Christie Blatchford's nostalgia for the former doctor and his protectors in the chief coroner's office as misguided.

HAROLD LEVY: PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chrstie Blatchford's column published in the Globe and Mail on February 19, 2011, under the heading "In the justice system now people are afraid of their own shadows," is accompanied by copies of family photographs of deceased baby Miguel Fernandes, provided by his grandmother, Maria Fernandes, and the following background information. "She is the father's mother. A North York woman who shopped for a CD while her baby lay dying of excruciating burns to 40% of his tiny body was found guilty Monday, Feb. 14, 2011 of manslaughter. The judge found that Melissa Alexander left 19-month-old Miguel Fernandes home alone, then lied to his father, Sergio Fernandes, assuring him that their child's injuries were not serious because she applied ointment and gauze on the toddler. - Copies of family photographs of deceased baby Miguel Fernandes, provided by his grandmother, Maria Fernandes. She is the father's mother. A North York woman who shopped for a CD while her baby lay dying of excruciating burns to 40% of his tiny body was found guilty Monday, Feb. 14, 2011 of manslaughter. The judge found that Melissa Alexander left 19-month-old Miguel Fernandes home alone, then lied to his father, Sergio Fernandes, assuring him that their child's injuries were not serious because she applied ointment and gauze on the toddler."

"There’s a tendency now in the courts to avoid the use of that nasty word “strangulation," the column begins.

“Neck compression” is the new favoured term," it continues.

"It’s a nice, neutral, passive term, merely a description of the mechanism of death. Strangulation is an active word uncomfortably suggestive of, well, wrongdoing. Tragically, Sally’s neck was compressed; ergo, she died. Now Bill may be charged in her death, but best for all if the S word can be eschewed; it’s negative, loaded, judgmental. Jurors might even be inflamed by it.

This is all part of the new, post-Charles Smith world order.

The sins of Ontario’s disgraced pathologist are well-documented and well-known and have attained the status of an article of faith such that Mr. Smith, recently stripped of his licence to practise, is routinely denounced.

Much of this is proper and richly deserved; I would not say otherwise. After all, it was on the strength of this man’s allegedly expert court testimony, in part, that people were wrongly sent to jail or saw their lives and reputations shattered.

But the popular story is usually told without nuance and without any recognition of how his rise to stardom and fall to earth has altered the criminal justice system and rendered many of its participants timid.

Mr. Smith came to power in a province and country where there was no domestic training for forensic pathologists and where the specialty itself was little valued; training and certification were available only in other countries, particularly the United States.

He was a legitimate pediatric pathologist, and as child deaths and child abuse generally became a bigger issue both to the public and as a matter of policy in the 1980s, Mr. Smith, then working at Toronto’s Sick Children’s Hospital, stepped into the vacuum nature always abhors.

He was willing to do autopsies on children; he was willing to testify in court, an alarming prospect for many of his colleagues, cross-examination by a good defence lawyer being fraught with peril, and he was willing to lecture – and yes, it was about a discipline in which he had not a whit of training, but where he’d accrued some considerable hands-on experience.

In fairness to him, Mr. Smith was willing to stick his neck out at a time when virtually no one else in his corner of the planet was.

Ultimately, of course, and in the absence of any instruction that this was not his job, he also grew to consider himself less a doctor or scientist and more a member of the prosecutorial team. In short, he became an advocate, and if his advocacy was for babies and children who had ended up dead, sometimes in suspicious circumstances and too often despite the various children’s aid agencies that were supposed to be looking out for them, it was still wrong-headed and not a good thing.

This brings me in a roundabout way to the story I’ve been writing about all week, the scalding death of 19-month-old Miguel Fernandes; the fact that the Catholic Children’s Aid Society had been involved with this family for all of Miguel’s short life, and how Miguel’s mother, Melissa Alexander, came to be convicted, this week, of manslaughter in the baby’s death, a charge that came about when a preliminary hearing judge knocked the charge down from second-degree murder, a decision that senior prosecutors never appealed.

It might be demonstrated in the end that the CCAS acted with reasonable prudence in this case, though I have trouble imagining how, given the wretched way this little boy died, and certainly, it seems the agency didn’t act with boldness. It might be argued that the decision of the preliminary hearing judge was just fine; it may be even be said that was why prosecutors didn’t appeal it. The answers to these questions probably won’t be known publicly, for the system, which was once merely opaque, is now deliberately secretive.

What I know is this: Until the case came for trial before Ontario Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy, who was as scrupulously fair and even-handed as anyone could want but considerably less mealy-mouthed than most of the other justice system participants, no one in the system seemed particularly aggrieved that a helpless 22-pound baby had died in such an awful manner.

It seems to me that people in the justice system, and I mean this broadly, are scared of their own shadows now.

Among prosecutors, this has taken the form of a false egalitarianism, where Crown attorneys are deemed equally good and each gets a share of big cases; gone the old star system. In the office of the Ontario chief coroner – which once did some considerable good – and at the attorney-general’s office, no one wants to be the next Mr. Smith or be a backer of the next Mr. Smith.

The result is that no one will stick a foot over the line, let alone stick out his neck – compressed or otherwise – not for anyone, not even a dead boy."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The column can be found at:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/christie-blatchford/in-the-post-charles-smith-world-justice-seems-tempered-by-fear/article1913832/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.co