THESE "ERRORS" ARE SO EXTRAORDINARY THAT THEY SUGGEST DR. SMITH MAY ACTUALLY HAVE WILFULLY OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. HIS REPEATED APOLOGIES DURING HIS MONDAY TESTIMONY AND LATER IN THE WEEK OFFER NO SOLACE TO THE FAMILIES WHOSE LIVES HE SHATTERED. INDEED, SOME OF THE VICTIMS MAY WELL SUSPECT THAT BEHIND HIS CONTRITION IS A CONSCIENCE RENDERED GUILTY BY TRULY DARK -- AND NOT JUST ACCIDENTAL-- ACTIONS.
THE NATIONAL POST;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout his testimony at the Goudge Inquiry Dr. Charles Smith would only admit to having made "errors" and "mistakes" and nothing more.
Although Justice Goudge cannot make findings of civil and criminal liability it will be interesting to see if he accepts Dr. Smith's benign characterization of his actions in his report which is to be issued October 1.
The National Post certainly had trouble accepting Dr. Smith's semantics (as do I) in an editorial which ran on Saturday, February 2, 2008, under the heading "The disgrace of Charles Smith."
"That Dr. Charles Smith was professionally unfit in his former capacity as a forensic pathologist has now been clear for months," the editorial began.
"An Ontario coroner's inquiry into his practices, released last April, found that Dr. Smith had come to questionable, or downright incorrect, conclusions in 20 of the 45 cases reviewed by the coroner's office," it continued.
"On 13 occasions, his testimony was key to wrongful convictions. And in some cases, his expert evidence led to children being taken away from parents falsely accused of foul-play or homicide.
But what originally appeared to be a simple -- if appalling -- case of an incompetent medical practitioner took a bizarre twist this week when Dr. Smith spoke before an Ontario government-sponsored public inquiry into his actions.
Explaining how and why he came so often to such incorrect conclusions, Dr. Smith offered a panoply of excuses: He lacked proper training; he was under the impression that his role was to support Crown prosecutors, not offer impartial testimony; the loss of his own infant child clouded his judgment in dealing with cases. These admissions may help explain some of the more disturbing of Dr. Smith's botched cases.
In January, 1997, for instance, Dr. Smith testified that Brenda Waudby had beaten her two-year-old daughter to death. Five years later, a crucial piece of forensic evidence (described in news reports as a "pubic-like hair") that had gone missing during the investigation turned up in his desk drawer.
In another case, an autopsy done by Dr. Smith led prosecutors to charge Louise Reynolds with second-degree murder for having killed her seven-year-old daughter. Ms. Reynolds was held in jail for two years, until further investigation revealed that the child had been mauled to death by a pit bull.
In 1996, Sherry Sherret was convicted of infanticide in the death of her four-month-old son on the basis of Dr. Smith's testimony that the boy had a skull fracture and had been smothered. Ms. Sherret was jailed and another of her children was sent to Children's Aid and eventually adopted by another family. In 2006, the boy's body was exhumed and a new autopsy showed that there had been no skull fracture and that Dr. Smith himself had been the cause of marks on the boy's neck.
These "errors" are so extraordinary that they suggest Dr. Smith may actually have wilfully obstructed justice. His repeated apologies during his Monday testimony and later in the week offer no solace to the families whose lives he shattered. Indeed, some of the victims may well suspect that behind his contrition is a conscience rendered guilty by truly dark -- and not just accidental-- actions.
The public inquiry into Dr. Smith's record must now dig deeper -- both into what Dr. Smith did, and the reasons that such a pitiful specimen would be entrusted with the fate of those accused of some of the most horrible crimes imaginable."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
COUNTDOWN: 24 DAYS TO GO; WILL DR. CHARLES SMITH'S PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY BE OVERSHADOWED IN GOUDGE REPORT BY MOUNTAINS OF SYSTEMIC FACTORS?
"SYSTEMIC CAUSES: ALWAYS AN AMORPHOUS UNDERTAKING SINCE VIGILANT REVIEW, BY ITS VERY MINUTIAE, CAN TOTALLY MISS THE ONUS OF THE THING, BITING OFF SO MUCH UPON WHICH TO CHEW THAT THE CULPRITS ARE NEVER SPIT UP FOR PROPER CENSURE. DUCK THE BUCK BY SPREADING RESPONSIBILITY AROUND."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"PATHOLOGY IS AN INEXACT SCIENCE, HE ADDED. WHICH IS TRUE. BUT SMITH WAS RARELY LESS THAN EXACTING ON THE STAND."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROSIE DIMANNO; TORONTO STAR;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This question is posed by my former colleague at the Toronto Star - and one of my favourite scribes - Rosie DiManno, in a column which ran on November 13, 2007, under the heading "Disgraced Pathologist Only The Start: Fallout from the inquiry into Smith's work likely to cast a shadow over chief coroner, among others."
This is a valid question: Ontario's forensic pathology system was under-funded and poorly managed during the Smith years, and Dr. Smith can hardley be blamed for everything that plagued the system;
"Disgraced: "To bring shame or discredit upon; to remove from favour or position." (Webster's definition)," Rosie's column, began;
"That is the adjective most commonly applied to Dr. Charles Smith these days, routinely so in media reports, and repeatedly by some of the same journalists who were reverential and lionizing of the famous pathologist not too long ago," it continued.
"There had developed a cult of awe around the man – not unlike the groupie obeisance that now surrounds James Lockyer, crusading defender of the unjustly convicted.
At some point during the public inquiry into pediatric forensic pathology that got underway yesterday, Lockyer – among those granted standing, representing the constituency of wrongfully convicted – will get his shot at Smith. So will a phalanx of other lawyers; the hearing room is jammed with legalists.
"Disgraced" is the dialectic currency, the anti-honorific, appended to Smith, certainly since the probe was ordered seven months ago by the province, after an investigation of 45 child deaths – in which Smith conducted autopsies or provided expert testimony – detonated what had been suspicions of forensic righteousness run amok and allegedly poor oversight by the coroner's office of their kids' knight-errant.
Coroner's inquests never affix blame, one reason why many doubt their usefulness although jury recommendations are widely adopted in the hope of preventing similar deaths. And this inquiry is essentially an inquest squared, scrutinizing the wherefores of a system that failed to corral Smith before so many lives were damaged.
Systemic causes: Always an amorphous undertaking since vigilant review, by its very minutiae, can totally miss the onus of the thing, biting off so much upon which to chew that the culprits are never spit up for proper censure. Duck the buck by spreading responsibility around.
Smith may have done wrong; indeed, he palpably did, since his damning conclusions, re-visited, have resulted in some convictions reversed. Twenty of his cases form the basis of this inquiry.
Senior management at the Coroner's Office of Ontario – the coroners who supervise the pathologists, especially – will predictably, maybe rightfully, get smacked around on the witness stand. It should be noted, however, that most coroners are administrators; they're not the laboratory rats looking down a microscope or examining wounds. They look at paper, more often than not.
If in thrall to Smith, they weren't alone. Crown attorneys, with no motivation for disparaging their own expert witness, were just as eagerly deceived. Even defence counsel failed to aggressively rebut because the professional bona fides, the body of work, was so daunting. As now seems apparent, many of those vindications on behalf of harmed children, dead children, were false indictments amounting to a hill of beans, bad forensics and a massively unwarranted reputation.
I suspect a house will be made to fall on the heads of former chief coroner Dr. James Young and soon-retiring deputy chief coroner Dr. Jim Cairns for lapses in "quality control" and failure to adequately investigate concerns about Smith's post-mortem reports when they first arose. I can't jump ahead of the evidence so will refrain from commenting now.
But Smith certainly made a pre-emptive manoeuvre yesterday, having his lawyer read an apology into the record as the inquiry began. Dr. Smith "regrets."
Dr. Smith acknowledges he made a number of mistakes "for which he is truly sorry."
Yet Smith pointedly emphasized he worked "at the direction of the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario." He explicitly criticized the "informational disconnect" and lack of "integration" in a criminal investigation.
Pathology is an inexact science, he added. Which is true. But Smith was rarely less than exacting on the stand."
Well said Rosie;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"PATHOLOGY IS AN INEXACT SCIENCE, HE ADDED. WHICH IS TRUE. BUT SMITH WAS RARELY LESS THAN EXACTING ON THE STAND."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROSIE DIMANNO; TORONTO STAR;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This question is posed by my former colleague at the Toronto Star - and one of my favourite scribes - Rosie DiManno, in a column which ran on November 13, 2007, under the heading "Disgraced Pathologist Only The Start: Fallout from the inquiry into Smith's work likely to cast a shadow over chief coroner, among others."
This is a valid question: Ontario's forensic pathology system was under-funded and poorly managed during the Smith years, and Dr. Smith can hardley be blamed for everything that plagued the system;
"Disgraced: "To bring shame or discredit upon; to remove from favour or position." (Webster's definition)," Rosie's column, began;
"That is the adjective most commonly applied to Dr. Charles Smith these days, routinely so in media reports, and repeatedly by some of the same journalists who were reverential and lionizing of the famous pathologist not too long ago," it continued.
"There had developed a cult of awe around the man – not unlike the groupie obeisance that now surrounds James Lockyer, crusading defender of the unjustly convicted.
At some point during the public inquiry into pediatric forensic pathology that got underway yesterday, Lockyer – among those granted standing, representing the constituency of wrongfully convicted – will get his shot at Smith. So will a phalanx of other lawyers; the hearing room is jammed with legalists.
"Disgraced" is the dialectic currency, the anti-honorific, appended to Smith, certainly since the probe was ordered seven months ago by the province, after an investigation of 45 child deaths – in which Smith conducted autopsies or provided expert testimony – detonated what had been suspicions of forensic righteousness run amok and allegedly poor oversight by the coroner's office of their kids' knight-errant.
Coroner's inquests never affix blame, one reason why many doubt their usefulness although jury recommendations are widely adopted in the hope of preventing similar deaths. And this inquiry is essentially an inquest squared, scrutinizing the wherefores of a system that failed to corral Smith before so many lives were damaged.
Systemic causes: Always an amorphous undertaking since vigilant review, by its very minutiae, can totally miss the onus of the thing, biting off so much upon which to chew that the culprits are never spit up for proper censure. Duck the buck by spreading responsibility around.
Smith may have done wrong; indeed, he palpably did, since his damning conclusions, re-visited, have resulted in some convictions reversed. Twenty of his cases form the basis of this inquiry.
Senior management at the Coroner's Office of Ontario – the coroners who supervise the pathologists, especially – will predictably, maybe rightfully, get smacked around on the witness stand. It should be noted, however, that most coroners are administrators; they're not the laboratory rats looking down a microscope or examining wounds. They look at paper, more often than not.
If in thrall to Smith, they weren't alone. Crown attorneys, with no motivation for disparaging their own expert witness, were just as eagerly deceived. Even defence counsel failed to aggressively rebut because the professional bona fides, the body of work, was so daunting. As now seems apparent, many of those vindications on behalf of harmed children, dead children, were false indictments amounting to a hill of beans, bad forensics and a massively unwarranted reputation.
I suspect a house will be made to fall on the heads of former chief coroner Dr. James Young and soon-retiring deputy chief coroner Dr. Jim Cairns for lapses in "quality control" and failure to adequately investigate concerns about Smith's post-mortem reports when they first arose. I can't jump ahead of the evidence so will refrain from commenting now.
But Smith certainly made a pre-emptive manoeuvre yesterday, having his lawyer read an apology into the record as the inquiry began. Dr. Smith "regrets."
Dr. Smith acknowledges he made a number of mistakes "for which he is truly sorry."
Yet Smith pointedly emphasized he worked "at the direction of the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario." He explicitly criticized the "informational disconnect" and lack of "integration" in a criminal investigation.
Pathology is an inexact science, he added. Which is true. But Smith was rarely less than exacting on the stand."
Well said Rosie;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
COUNTDOWN: 25 DAYS TO GO: MAURICE GAGNON'S FIGHT FOR ANSWERS; AN EXTRAORDINARY TRIBUTE;
The following letter appeared recently in the Sudbury Star in connection with the paper's publication of Maurice Gagnon's expectations of the Goudge Inquiry. (See this Blog; "Countdown; 26 days to go; What Maurice Gagnon and his family want to hear from Justice Goudge.")
The letter is self-explanatory - and after reading it several times yesterday I still can't get it out of my mind.
"Way to go Dad, it seems from the diferent stories written about this case that Maurice Gagnon spent litteraly years fighting first to protect his daughter and also vindicate the death of his grandson and he also single handedly brought attention to many simular cases which finaly has given proper closure to several families who went through hell and back because of one single human being, a coroner yes, yet still just a man who put all these families through hell over and above what they were going through with the loss of their beloved children.My mother went through a simular thing back in 1995 when our brother was killed and she could not get one straight answer so she hired a private detective who got the answers for her however by then she had terminal cancer we believe caused from the torture of losing her son and everyone hiding the true answers as to what happened to him. She got her answers just three months before she died and I thank God for that. The reason I brought that up is Maurice Gagnon is my father, my mother and him seperated and divorced 1965, so again way to go Dad and I find it almost erie how both my parents went through the same sort of hell at the same time for different children....May those children rest in peace and I truly hope that each and every family member of this raw horrible ordeal that these families went through finaly find closure because without it one could be enveloped in a living hell that could actualy kill them litteraly.....Lorraine Gagnon;"
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
The letter is self-explanatory - and after reading it several times yesterday I still can't get it out of my mind.
"Way to go Dad, it seems from the diferent stories written about this case that Maurice Gagnon spent litteraly years fighting first to protect his daughter and also vindicate the death of his grandson and he also single handedly brought attention to many simular cases which finaly has given proper closure to several families who went through hell and back because of one single human being, a coroner yes, yet still just a man who put all these families through hell over and above what they were going through with the loss of their beloved children.My mother went through a simular thing back in 1995 when our brother was killed and she could not get one straight answer so she hired a private detective who got the answers for her however by then she had terminal cancer we believe caused from the torture of losing her son and everyone hiding the true answers as to what happened to him. She got her answers just three months before she died and I thank God for that. The reason I brought that up is Maurice Gagnon is my father, my mother and him seperated and divorced 1965, so again way to go Dad and I find it almost erie how both my parents went through the same sort of hell at the same time for different children....May those children rest in peace and I truly hope that each and every family member of this raw horrible ordeal that these families went through finaly find closure because without it one could be enveloped in a living hell that could actualy kill them litteraly.....Lorraine Gagnon;"
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
COUNTDOWN: 26 DAYS TO GO; WHAT MAURICE GAGNON AND HIS FAMILY WANT TO HEAR FROM JUSTICE GOUDGE;
"NEVER AGAIN SHOULD AN ONTARIO PARENT OR CAREGIVER BE CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED FOR CHILD ABUSE SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE OF A SO-CALLED MEDICAL EXPERT, SUDBURY'S MAURICE GAGNON SAYS," THE STORY BEGINS;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Gagnon views expectations of the Goudge Inquiry deserve the utmost respect.
The ordeal of the Gagnon family at the hands of Dr. Charles Smith, The Chief Coroner's Office, and the Sudbury Police Service was addressed in a series on this Blog which appeared daily under the heading "Interrogation Of An Innocent Mother" between Jan. 7, 2008 and Jan. 14 2008.
Maurice Gagnon spent years at enormous personal and financial cost trying to convince government officials and bureaucrats to examine Smith and the harm that he was causing to his family and others - his pleas falling sadly on deaf ears.
But he never gave up - and the ultimate calling of the Goudge Inquiry by the Ontario Government is a tribute to his insistence.
His expectations are set out in an article by reporter Denis St. Pierre which ran in Thursday's Sudbury Star under the heading "Must never happen again: family; Report on disgraced pathologist due Oct. 1."
"Never again should an Ontario parent or caregiver be criminally prosecuted for child abuse solely on the evidence of a so-called medical expert, Sudbury's Maurice Gagnon says," the story begins;
"Gagnon and his family hope a judge from the province's highest court will make such a recommendation to the Ontario government in four weeks' time.
On Oct. 1, Justice Stephen Goudge of the Ontario Court of Appeal will release his final report from a public inquiry into the province's system of pediatric forensic pathology. The Goudge inquiry began in April 2007 and was triggered by numerous cases mishandled by disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith.
Prior to the inquiry's launch, the provincial coroner's office found evidence of errors in 20 of 45 autopsies performed by Smith over a 10- year period. Thirteen of those cases resulted in criminal charges. Meanwhile, an internal review is continuing into Smith's earlier cases from 1981 to 1991.
The Goudge inquiry's mandate was to conduct a systemic review and assessment of policies, procedures, practices, accountability, oversight and other issues related to pediatric forensic pathology and its use in investigations and criminal proceedings from 1981 to 2001. The Liberal government directed the commissioner to make recommendations to address systemic failings and enhance public confidence in pediatric forensic pathology.
It was the faulty conclusions of Dr. Charles Smith that prompted police and child-welfare authorities to take action against Maurice Gagnon's daughter, Lianne, in 1997.
Contradicting other medical experts, Smith wrongly concluded in 1997 that the 1995 death of Lianne's 11-month-old son was the result of foul play, with the mother the likely suspect.
As in other cases mishandled by Smith, the pathologist's erroneous opinions led to a police investigation, accusations of murder and intervention of the Children's Aid Society. After months of fighting back by the Gagnon family, Smith's conclusions were discredited and the criminal investigation against Lianne was dropped.
Ultimately, the relentless crusade by Maurice Gagnon not only exonerated his daughter, it also helped expose Smith's catastrophic failings in other cases where caregivers were unjustly accused, even convicted and imprisoned.
Ideally, Gagnon said Wednesday, one of the commissioner's recommendations on Oct. 1 will aim to prevent more wrongful prosecutions based strictly on such evidence, Maurice Gagnon says.
"I don't know if (Goudge) will have the will to put it in there, but what I would like to see is that no one can be prosecuted on one expert's opinion alone, as the only piece of evidence," he said.
That's what Smith was doing. The only thing they had in those cases was his opinion -- nothing to support that opinion -- and the Crown would go ahead with a prosecution. So I'm hoping (Goudge) recommends that, if that's all you've got you can't prosecute; you've got to have some corroborating evidence."
Gagnon said he also would like the report to recommend that child welfare authorities avoid relying solely on such opinions in taking action against caregivers.
"I think the Children's Aid Society should fall under the same kind of guidelines, so if that's all you've got -- somebody's opinion -- that's not enough to go after somebody. You have to look into it a little more than that."
Gagnon said his family, which sat through part of the inquiry hearings in Toronto, also would like to see the commissioner voice an opinion, if not pass judgment, on the attitudes and veracity of some key witnesses, such as Smith and two of the province's former chief coroners who worked with Smith.
"It would be nice if the commissioner said something about that," he said. "I'm not sure how far he can go in making statements, but those are things I'd like for him to comment on."
Once the report is released, Gagnon added, the province's attorney general "should pursue criminal charges against Smith, or at least look at the possibility of doing that."
In April, of this year, Justice Goudge recommended the provincial government set up a process of compensation for victims of Smith's faulty work, as well as widen its review of child-death cases.
Premier Dalton McGuinty has said he would wait for the Goudge report before considering any expansion of the review into child deaths.
As for compensation for victims -- many of whom already have launched civil lawsuits against the province -- Gagnon said he expects the government will be willing to reach out-of-court settlements.
"We're hoping the government, since they've owned up to their responsibility in this thing already, that they will make offers rather than making us go through the courts and go through this stuff all over again," he said. "But I really don't think they'll force this into the courts."
Wishful thinking?
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Gagnon views expectations of the Goudge Inquiry deserve the utmost respect.
The ordeal of the Gagnon family at the hands of Dr. Charles Smith, The Chief Coroner's Office, and the Sudbury Police Service was addressed in a series on this Blog which appeared daily under the heading "Interrogation Of An Innocent Mother" between Jan. 7, 2008 and Jan. 14 2008.
Maurice Gagnon spent years at enormous personal and financial cost trying to convince government officials and bureaucrats to examine Smith and the harm that he was causing to his family and others - his pleas falling sadly on deaf ears.
But he never gave up - and the ultimate calling of the Goudge Inquiry by the Ontario Government is a tribute to his insistence.
His expectations are set out in an article by reporter Denis St. Pierre which ran in Thursday's Sudbury Star under the heading "Must never happen again: family; Report on disgraced pathologist due Oct. 1."
"Never again should an Ontario parent or caregiver be criminally prosecuted for child abuse solely on the evidence of a so-called medical expert, Sudbury's Maurice Gagnon says," the story begins;
"Gagnon and his family hope a judge from the province's highest court will make such a recommendation to the Ontario government in four weeks' time.
On Oct. 1, Justice Stephen Goudge of the Ontario Court of Appeal will release his final report from a public inquiry into the province's system of pediatric forensic pathology. The Goudge inquiry began in April 2007 and was triggered by numerous cases mishandled by disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith.
Prior to the inquiry's launch, the provincial coroner's office found evidence of errors in 20 of 45 autopsies performed by Smith over a 10- year period. Thirteen of those cases resulted in criminal charges. Meanwhile, an internal review is continuing into Smith's earlier cases from 1981 to 1991.
The Goudge inquiry's mandate was to conduct a systemic review and assessment of policies, procedures, practices, accountability, oversight and other issues related to pediatric forensic pathology and its use in investigations and criminal proceedings from 1981 to 2001. The Liberal government directed the commissioner to make recommendations to address systemic failings and enhance public confidence in pediatric forensic pathology.
It was the faulty conclusions of Dr. Charles Smith that prompted police and child-welfare authorities to take action against Maurice Gagnon's daughter, Lianne, in 1997.
Contradicting other medical experts, Smith wrongly concluded in 1997 that the 1995 death of Lianne's 11-month-old son was the result of foul play, with the mother the likely suspect.
As in other cases mishandled by Smith, the pathologist's erroneous opinions led to a police investigation, accusations of murder and intervention of the Children's Aid Society. After months of fighting back by the Gagnon family, Smith's conclusions were discredited and the criminal investigation against Lianne was dropped.
Ultimately, the relentless crusade by Maurice Gagnon not only exonerated his daughter, it also helped expose Smith's catastrophic failings in other cases where caregivers were unjustly accused, even convicted and imprisoned.
Ideally, Gagnon said Wednesday, one of the commissioner's recommendations on Oct. 1 will aim to prevent more wrongful prosecutions based strictly on such evidence, Maurice Gagnon says.
"I don't know if (Goudge) will have the will to put it in there, but what I would like to see is that no one can be prosecuted on one expert's opinion alone, as the only piece of evidence," he said.
That's what Smith was doing. The only thing they had in those cases was his opinion -- nothing to support that opinion -- and the Crown would go ahead with a prosecution. So I'm hoping (Goudge) recommends that, if that's all you've got you can't prosecute; you've got to have some corroborating evidence."
Gagnon said he also would like the report to recommend that child welfare authorities avoid relying solely on such opinions in taking action against caregivers.
"I think the Children's Aid Society should fall under the same kind of guidelines, so if that's all you've got -- somebody's opinion -- that's not enough to go after somebody. You have to look into it a little more than that."
Gagnon said his family, which sat through part of the inquiry hearings in Toronto, also would like to see the commissioner voice an opinion, if not pass judgment, on the attitudes and veracity of some key witnesses, such as Smith and two of the province's former chief coroners who worked with Smith.
"It would be nice if the commissioner said something about that," he said. "I'm not sure how far he can go in making statements, but those are things I'd like for him to comment on."
Once the report is released, Gagnon added, the province's attorney general "should pursue criminal charges against Smith, or at least look at the possibility of doing that."
In April, of this year, Justice Goudge recommended the provincial government set up a process of compensation for victims of Smith's faulty work, as well as widen its review of child-death cases.
Premier Dalton McGuinty has said he would wait for the Goudge report before considering any expansion of the review into child deaths.
As for compensation for victims -- many of whom already have launched civil lawsuits against the province -- Gagnon said he expects the government will be willing to reach out-of-court settlements.
"We're hoping the government, since they've owned up to their responsibility in this thing already, that they will make offers rather than making us go through the courts and go through this stuff all over again," he said. "But I really don't think they'll force this into the courts."
Wishful thinking?
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Thursday, September 4, 2008
COUNTDOWN: 27 DAYS TO GO;
Before embarking on the summer break I listed some of the following questions that lingered in my mind after the final witness to the Goudge Inquiry had been called, the final closing submissions had been delivered and there was nothing yet to be done except for Commissioner Goudge to issue his report;
"WHAT HAPPENED OVER THE YEARS? HOW COULD ONE PERSON HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR SO MANY MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE HOW DID DR. SMITH GET TO ENJOY ALL THE POWER THAT HE DEMONSTRATED BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF COURT? WHO DO WE BELIEVE? WHO DO WE DISBELIEVE? WHO DO WE TRUST? WHO DON'T WE TRUST? HAVE WE REGAINED CONFIDENCE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM? WILL WE EVER? WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN BEFORE OUR CONFIDENCE IS RESTORED? WHAT CHANGES HAVE TO BE MADE IN OUR COURT SYSTEM TO PREVENT MORE INNOCENT PARENTS AND CAREGIVERS FROM BEING INVESTIGATED AND CHARGED WITH MURDERING CHILDREN? WHAT DID WE LEARN FROM GOUDGE? WAS IT WORTH IT? WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NOW? HOW CAN WE COMPENSATE DR. SMITH'S WRONGLY CONVICTED VICTIMS? DO WE ACCEPT HIS EXCUSES? JUST ERRORS? JUST MISTAKES? NO INTENT TO HARM ANYONE? NO ONE TAUGHT HIM OTHERWISE? OTHER PATHOLOGISTS WOULD HAVE REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSIONS? THE STATE OF PATHOLOGY WAS AT FAULT - NOT HIM? OTHERS WERE AT FAULT FOR FAILING TO SUPERVISE HIM...
As October the 1st, the release date, draws near I plan to deal with some of these questions - and others raised by our readers - in more depth.
To begin with there is the matter of compensation to Dr. Smith's victims; Government lawyers have told Commissioner Goudge in no uncertain language that he must not raise the matter of compensation in any way, shape or form because it is not mentioned in Inquiry's terms of reference.
WHAT DO OUR READERS EXPECT OF JUSTICE GOUDGE ON THIS CRUCIAL ISSUE? CAN HE REMAIN SILENT ON THE NEED FOR THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT TO QUICKLY ESTABLISH A PROCESS TO ADDRESS THE SUFFERING EXPERIENCED BY INNOCENT INDIVIDUALS TURNED INTO PARIAHS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES, ARRESTED, PUT ON TRIAL, IN SOME CASES SENT TO PRISON FOR THE MOST HEINOUS OF CRIMES, AFTER BEING INVESTIGATED OR CHARGED WITH MURDERING THEIR VERY OWN CHILDREN BY THE STATE'S AGENTS? CAN HIS INQUIRY RETAIN ITS MORAL INTEGRITY IF HE DOES NOT FIND SOME WAY TO ADDRESS THE NEED TO FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO QUICKLY FACILITATE GENEROUS COMPENSATION FOR THESE PEOPLE? HOW SHOULD THEY BE COMPENSATED?
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
"WHAT HAPPENED OVER THE YEARS? HOW COULD ONE PERSON HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR SO MANY MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE HOW DID DR. SMITH GET TO ENJOY ALL THE POWER THAT HE DEMONSTRATED BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF COURT? WHO DO WE BELIEVE? WHO DO WE DISBELIEVE? WHO DO WE TRUST? WHO DON'T WE TRUST? HAVE WE REGAINED CONFIDENCE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM? WILL WE EVER? WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN BEFORE OUR CONFIDENCE IS RESTORED? WHAT CHANGES HAVE TO BE MADE IN OUR COURT SYSTEM TO PREVENT MORE INNOCENT PARENTS AND CAREGIVERS FROM BEING INVESTIGATED AND CHARGED WITH MURDERING CHILDREN? WHAT DID WE LEARN FROM GOUDGE? WAS IT WORTH IT? WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NOW? HOW CAN WE COMPENSATE DR. SMITH'S WRONGLY CONVICTED VICTIMS? DO WE ACCEPT HIS EXCUSES? JUST ERRORS? JUST MISTAKES? NO INTENT TO HARM ANYONE? NO ONE TAUGHT HIM OTHERWISE? OTHER PATHOLOGISTS WOULD HAVE REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSIONS? THE STATE OF PATHOLOGY WAS AT FAULT - NOT HIM? OTHERS WERE AT FAULT FOR FAILING TO SUPERVISE HIM...
As October the 1st, the release date, draws near I plan to deal with some of these questions - and others raised by our readers - in more depth.
To begin with there is the matter of compensation to Dr. Smith's victims; Government lawyers have told Commissioner Goudge in no uncertain language that he must not raise the matter of compensation in any way, shape or form because it is not mentioned in Inquiry's terms of reference.
WHAT DO OUR READERS EXPECT OF JUSTICE GOUDGE ON THIS CRUCIAL ISSUE? CAN HE REMAIN SILENT ON THE NEED FOR THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT TO QUICKLY ESTABLISH A PROCESS TO ADDRESS THE SUFFERING EXPERIENCED BY INNOCENT INDIVIDUALS TURNED INTO PARIAHS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES, ARRESTED, PUT ON TRIAL, IN SOME CASES SENT TO PRISON FOR THE MOST HEINOUS OF CRIMES, AFTER BEING INVESTIGATED OR CHARGED WITH MURDERING THEIR VERY OWN CHILDREN BY THE STATE'S AGENTS? CAN HIS INQUIRY RETAIN ITS MORAL INTEGRITY IF HE DOES NOT FIND SOME WAY TO ADDRESS THE NEED TO FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO QUICKLY FACILITATE GENEROUS COMPENSATION FOR THESE PEOPLE? HOW SHOULD THEY BE COMPENSATED?
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
CHARLES SMITH BLOG IS BACK IN ACTION: GOUDGE INQUIRY REPORT TO BE RELEASED OCTOBER 1;
This Blog is back in action!
In a recent message to our readers I noted that I had been forced to delay my return to Canada from France because my son-in-law Steve Satov had become seriously ill while separately vacationing with his family in the South of France.
The good news is that the infection which had invades Steve's body has been eliminated by the anti-biotics, Steve's open heart surgery in Marseilles went extremely well, Steve and his family were able to return to Toronto on a commercial airliner on Saturday - and my wife and I are finally home;
The timing could not have been more fortuitous as just hours ago the Goudge Commission released an announcement that its report would be released on October 1 at noon - after being forwarded to the government;
Here is the official notice;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INQUIRY REPORT TO BE RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC ON OCTOBER 1, 2008
The Hon. Stephen T. Goudge, Commissioner of the Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario, plans to release his report to the public at 12 noon on Wednesday, October 1, 2008.
The Report is expected to be transmitted to Attorney General Chris Bentley shortly before the public release.
The public release is expected to take place at a media news conference in the Toronto Ballroom at the Metropolitan Hotel, 108 Chestnut Street in Toronto.
The Report will be available on this web page at the time of release - 12 Noon, October 1, 2008.
Printed copies and CD-Roms will be available for purchase at Publications Ontario outlets after the date of release.
Public hearings were held from November 12, 2007 to February 29, 2008. Closing submissions were heard on March 31 and April 1, 2008.
Transcripts are available on this web page.
In addition to the hearings, the Inquiry conducted a comprehensive research program. The research papers are posted on this website.
The Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario was established by the Government of Ontario under the Public Inquiries Act on April 25, 2007. The Honourable Stephen T. Goudge was appointed Commissioner.
The Inquiry's mandate was to conduct a systemic review and an assessment of the policies, procedures, practices, accountability and oversight mechanisms, quality control measures and institutional arrangements of pediatric forensic pathology in Ontario from 1981 to 2001 as they relate to its practice and use in investigations and criminal proceedings. The Commissioner was asked to make recommendations to address systemic failings and restore and enhance public confidence in pediatric forensic pathology in Ontario.
The Commission's mandate did not include reporting on any individual cases that have been or may be subject to a criminal investigation or proceeding. However, members of the Commission met privately with individuals or families affected by practices in Ontario's pediatric forensic pathology system between 1981 and 2001. These meetings were not part of the formal hearing process. There are no transcripts of the meetings."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the next month I hope to hear from our readers as to their expectations of the Goudge report - and what they would like to see Commissioner Goudge recommend.
I will undoubtedly have some input of my own;
Best wishes,
Harold Levy;
In a recent message to our readers I noted that I had been forced to delay my return to Canada from France because my son-in-law Steve Satov had become seriously ill while separately vacationing with his family in the South of France.
The good news is that the infection which had invades Steve's body has been eliminated by the anti-biotics, Steve's open heart surgery in Marseilles went extremely well, Steve and his family were able to return to Toronto on a commercial airliner on Saturday - and my wife and I are finally home;
The timing could not have been more fortuitous as just hours ago the Goudge Commission released an announcement that its report would be released on October 1 at noon - after being forwarded to the government;
Here is the official notice;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INQUIRY REPORT TO BE RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC ON OCTOBER 1, 2008
The Hon. Stephen T. Goudge, Commissioner of the Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario, plans to release his report to the public at 12 noon on Wednesday, October 1, 2008.
The Report is expected to be transmitted to Attorney General Chris Bentley shortly before the public release.
The public release is expected to take place at a media news conference in the Toronto Ballroom at the Metropolitan Hotel, 108 Chestnut Street in Toronto.
The Report will be available on this web page at the time of release - 12 Noon, October 1, 2008.
Printed copies and CD-Roms will be available for purchase at Publications Ontario outlets after the date of release.
Public hearings were held from November 12, 2007 to February 29, 2008. Closing submissions were heard on March 31 and April 1, 2008.
Transcripts are available on this web page.
In addition to the hearings, the Inquiry conducted a comprehensive research program. The research papers are posted on this website.
The Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario was established by the Government of Ontario under the Public Inquiries Act on April 25, 2007. The Honourable Stephen T. Goudge was appointed Commissioner.
The Inquiry's mandate was to conduct a systemic review and an assessment of the policies, procedures, practices, accountability and oversight mechanisms, quality control measures and institutional arrangements of pediatric forensic pathology in Ontario from 1981 to 2001 as they relate to its practice and use in investigations and criminal proceedings. The Commissioner was asked to make recommendations to address systemic failings and restore and enhance public confidence in pediatric forensic pathology in Ontario.
The Commission's mandate did not include reporting on any individual cases that have been or may be subject to a criminal investigation or proceeding. However, members of the Commission met privately with individuals or families affected by practices in Ontario's pediatric forensic pathology system between 1981 and 2001. These meetings were not part of the formal hearing process. There are no transcripts of the meetings."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the next month I hope to hear from our readers as to their expectations of the Goudge report - and what they would like to see Commissioner Goudge recommend.
I will undoubtedly have some input of my own;
Best wishes,
Harold Levy;
Saturday, August 9, 2008
A MESSAGE TO ALL OF OUR READERS;
Dear readers;
In my last message I announced a seasonal break and my intention to begin resume publication early in August with a series of posts leading up to the release of the Goudge report early in September.
Unfortunately, I have had to cancel my return flight from France (August 4) as my son-in-law, Steve Satov, who was vacationing in a different part of France with my daughter and their two young sons, has become seriously ill:
Marleen and I have been looking after the boys while our daughter has been staying in the hospital since Steve was taken to hospital in Avignon about three weeks ago. We will remain in France until Steve has had his surgery and can safely fly home;
This is a very tense time as Steve is scheduled to have open heart surgery on Monday at Hopital La Timone here in Marseille.
Steve has received enormous support from friends and relatives...he is a strong athletic almost 40-year-old...and he has received phenomenal care both in Avignon and here at La Timone, which has great expertise in treating heart disease;
So dear readers, I trust you will understand why this Blog will not return for several more weeks - hopefully in early September around the time that the Goudge report is released;
In the meantime, be well and enjoy the rest of the summer:
Best wishes, Harold Levy;
In my last message I announced a seasonal break and my intention to begin resume publication early in August with a series of posts leading up to the release of the Goudge report early in September.
Unfortunately, I have had to cancel my return flight from France (August 4) as my son-in-law, Steve Satov, who was vacationing in a different part of France with my daughter and their two young sons, has become seriously ill:
Marleen and I have been looking after the boys while our daughter has been staying in the hospital since Steve was taken to hospital in Avignon about three weeks ago. We will remain in France until Steve has had his surgery and can safely fly home;
This is a very tense time as Steve is scheduled to have open heart surgery on Monday at Hopital La Timone here in Marseille.
Steve has received enormous support from friends and relatives...he is a strong athletic almost 40-year-old...and he has received phenomenal care both in Avignon and here at La Timone, which has great expertise in treating heart disease;
So dear readers, I trust you will understand why this Blog will not return for several more weeks - hopefully in early September around the time that the Goudge report is released;
In the meantime, be well and enjoy the rest of the summer:
Best wishes, Harold Levy;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
