LARRY SWEARINGEN: TEXAS TRIBUNE REPORTER BRANDI GRISSOM: SCIENTIFIC DATA MAY FINALLY GET ITS DAY IN COURT; SETUP ALLEGED;

"The timing of Ms. Trotter’s death was not a major issue during his trial in 2000. Mr. Swearingen’s lawyers focused on avoiding the death penalty by disproving the state’s theories that he had also raped and kidnapped her. When appellate lawyers took over the case, they began to question the condition of Ms. Trotter’s body. Crime scene video showed a corpse that was fairly well preserved with the exception of the head and neck, where decomposition and insect activity were evident. Her clothes were remarkably clean. And although it was late fall, few leaves had dropped onto her body.

Initially, defense lawyers focused on the development of insect larvae on the body. One scientist who evaluated the bugs estimated that the body had been placed in the woods in mid-December, about a week after Mr. Swearingen was put behind bars. Theories about the insects, though, were discarded when it was discovered that specimens were gathered and stored incorrectly.

But scientists who had examined the entomological evidence noticed something else troubling about the autopsy report: Ms. Trotter’s organs were heavy and intact. Human bodies decay quickly after death; organs liquefy and disintegrate within days. In a January 2007 affidavit, Dr. James Arends, an entomologist, wrote that the autopsy report indicated Ms. Trotter died after Dec. 11 — the day Mr. Swearingen was jailed.

Defense lawyers asked at least seven doctors, including Dr. Carter, the medical examiner who conducted the initial autopsy, to examine the videos, photographs, organ tissue and microscopic evidence from Ms. Trotter’s body. Each one determined that she died while Mr. Swearingen was behind bars.

“Everything adds up to an individual who certainly has not been dead” for more than three weeks, said Dr. Lloyd White, the Tarrant County deputy medical examiner. “That’s just not possible.”

Mr. Swearingen’s lawyer, James Rytting, said the state’s circumstantial evidence paled when stacked against the mounds of scientific data. “We’re talking about a setup in this case,” Mr. Rytting said."

REPORTER BRANDI GRISSOM; TEXAS TRIBUNE; PUBLISHED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES;

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

BACKGROUND: Larry Swearingen was sentenced to death in 2000 for the murder of Melissa Trotter in 1998. Melissa Trotter went missing on 8 December 1998. Larry Swearingen was arrested three days later, and has been incarcerated ever since. The body of Melissa Trotter was found in a forest on 2 January 1999. Larry Swearingen was tried for her murder, and sentenced to death. He maintains his innocence of the murder. Several forensic experts have provided statements and testimony that support his claim. One of these experts, Dr Joyce Carter, is the former Chief Medical Examiner of Harris County in Texas who performed the autopsy of Melissa Trotter and testified at Larry Swearingen’s trial that in her opinion, Melissa Trotter had died 25 days before her body was found. In an affidavit signed in 2007, Dr Carter stated that she had looked again at the case and changed her opinion. She concluded that Melissa Trotter’s body had been left in the forest within two weeks of it being found. If accurate, this would mean that the body was dumped at a time when Larry Swearingen was already in custody.

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

CONROE — "Sandy and Charles Trotter already suspected the worst," the Texas Tribune story by reporter Brandi Grissom published earlier today in the New York Times begins, under the heading, "In Death Row Case, Scientific Data May Finally Get Its Day in Court."

"For 25 days, dozens of police officers, friends and family in slickers and rubber boots had tromped through the damp Piney Woods around Lake Conroe searching for any sign of their 19-year-old daughter, Melissa," the story continues.

"Hundreds of fliers were strewn across the suburbs north of Houston. On Christmas Day, Mrs. Trotter had appeared on the local news pleading for anyone with information about their daughter to come forward. Nothing."

"Then, on Jan. 2, 1999, hunters in the Sam Houston National Forest happened on a nightmarish scene: a petite woman’s corpse splayed on a mat of leaves, twigs and pine needles, her face badly decomposed, her chest exposed, a green sweater shoved up to her neck, a stark white sock on a foot that had worn the tennis shoe lying next to the body. Her fingernails were still decorated in green and red polish for the holidays. The leg of a pair of pantyhose was knotted around her throat.

For the Trotters, the news was devastating. “Her theme when she was a leader of the Rainbow Girls was the Serenity Prayer and ‘love thy neighbor,’ ” Mrs. Trotter said. “So that was kind of a tough deal.”

Larry Swearingen, an inmate at the Montgomery County Jail and the prime suspect in Melissa Trotter’s disappearance, did not take the news well either. “She was my friend,” he said.

Ms. Trotter had disappeared from Montgomery Community College on Dec. 8, 1998. Mr. Swearingen was among the last people to see her alive. Police arrested him on unrelated outstanding warrants three days after she went missing and immediately fingered him as the culprit. Evidence on her body and a pile of circumstantial evidence implicated Mr. Swearingen. A jury convicted him of kidnapping, raping and killing the teenager and sentenced him to death in 2000.

Since his conviction, though, at least 10 different reports from more than a half-dozen scientists have concluded that Ms. Trotter’s body tells a different story. Their examinations of her internal organs show that she was killed while Mr. Swearingen was behind bars. The inmate’s lawyers have pleaded with courts for years to review the science. So far, those efforts have failed. But after the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals last week issued a third stay of execution, Mr. Swearingen, a former electrician and father of five, and his lawyers hope they will get to present their evidence in court and exonerate him.

“I don’t want to die, not in here,” Mr. Swearingen, 40, said during a recent interview on death row. “I don’t want to be a pin cushion for the state.”

Mr. Swearingen, who has a criminal history, does not deny that he knew Ms. Trotter or that he saw her on Dec. 8. But almost immediately after his arrest, he started behaving as if he had something to hide. He asked a friend to lie and say she had been with him that day. And Mr. Swearingen wrote a barely intelligible anonymous letter in Spanish, a language he did not know, with details about the crime scene, trying to redirect investigators’ attention to someone who was Hispanic. “Only the guilty lie and connive to do things like that,” Mr. Trotter said.

The state found much more circumstantial evidence that implicated Mr. Swearingen. His parents’ neighbors found shreds of paper in the street that turned out to be Ms. Trotter’s class schedule and insurance documents. Mr. Swearingen’s landlord said he had found half a pair of pantyhose at his trailer that matched the half tied around Ms. Trotter’s neck.

Police found two of her hairs, which had been yanked from her head, inside Mr. Swearingen’s truck. State experts testified in court that fibers on Ms. Trotter’s body and clothes matched those from Mr. Swearingen’s jacket, truck and bedroom. The police also found cigarette butts at Mr. Swearingen’s trailer that matched the brand Ms. Trotter smoked.

Mr. Swearingen's stay of execution.

At trial, Montgomery County prosecutors told jurors that Mr. Swearingen had been angry with Ms. Trotter because she had stood him up for a lunch date. They said he kidnapped her, took her back to his trailer, raped her, strangled her and dumped her body in the woods. “I think the evidence was his undoing,” said Mike Tiffin, the assistant district attorney who led the prosecution.

Accusations of a Setup

Mr. Swearingen, who has maintained his innocence from the start, insisted that Ms. Trotter was alive when they parted on the community college campus.

“The district attorney took evidence of a friendship and turned it into a murder,” he said.

The timing of Ms. Trotter’s death was not a major issue during his trial in 2000. Mr. Swearingen’s lawyers focused on avoiding the death penalty by disproving the state’s theories that he had also raped and kidnapped her. When appellate lawyers took over the case, they began to question the condition of Ms. Trotter’s body. Crime scene video showed a corpse that was fairly well preserved with the exception of the head and neck, where decomposition and insect activity were evident. Her clothes were remarkably clean. And although it was late fall, few leaves had dropped onto her body.

Initially, defense lawyers focused on the development of insect larvae on the body. One scientist who evaluated the bugs estimated that the body had been placed in the woods in mid-December, about a week after Mr. Swearingen was put behind bars. Theories about the insects, though, were discarded when it was discovered that specimens were gathered and stored incorrectly.

But scientists who had examined the entomological evidence noticed something else troubling about the autopsy report: Ms. Trotter’s organs were heavy and intact. Human bodies decay quickly after death; organs liquefy and disintegrate within days. In a January 2007 affidavit, Dr. James Arends, an entomologist, wrote that the autopsy report indicated Ms. Trotter died after Dec. 11 — the day Mr. Swearingen was jailed.

Defense lawyers asked at least seven doctors, including Dr. Carter, the medical examiner who conducted the initial autopsy, to examine the videos, photographs, organ tissue and microscopic evidence from Ms. Trotter’s body. Each one determined that she died while Mr. Swearingen was behind bars.

“Everything adds up to an individual who certainly has not been dead” for more than three weeks, said Dr. Lloyd White, the Tarrant County deputy medical examiner. “That’s just not possible.”

Mr. Swearingen’s lawyer, James Rytting, said the state’s circumstantial evidence paled when stacked against the mounds of scientific data. “We’re talking about a setup in this case,” Mr. Rytting said.

Both Mr. Swearingen and Mr. Rytting concede that some of Mr. Swearingen’s actions after his arrest, particularly the letter in Spanish, were foolish. But Mr. Swearingen said the letter was meant only to prod his lawyers, who wanted him to make a plea deal, to investigate whether someone else killed Ms. Trotter. And he said crime scene details in the letter — written months after the body was discovered — came from the autopsy report that he had read.

Cigarette butts police found were the same brand Ms. Trotter smoked, but DNA on them did not match hers. The torn-up papers that neighbors found on the street showed up nearly a week after Mr. Swearingen was arrested — trash trucks had been by twice in that time. And Mr. Swearingen said Ms. Trotter had been in his truck when the two had gone out on previous occasions, so it made sense for the hair and fibers to match.

The torn pantyhose leg was discovered on Jan. 6, four days after Ms. Trotter’s body was found with a pantyhose leg around the neck. On Dec. 15 and Dec. 18, the police had spent hours rummaging through the trailer, looking for evidence, but did not find the pantyhose.

What’s more, lawyers argued in court pleadings, DNA tests on blood found under Ms. Trotter’s fingernails belonged to a man — but not to Mr. Swearingen.

Barrage of Experts

Prosecutors in Montgomery County do not buy the setup theory, and the courts have rejected repeated pleas from Mr. Swearingen’s lawyers to review the scientific evidence.

In a November 2009 court ruling, Melinda Harmon, a judge in the United States District Court, wrote that Mr. Swearingen should have discovered and presented the forensic evidence years earlier. But she did not only deny his plea based on procedure; Ms. Harmon wrote that the scientists’ reports were not credible because they each reviewed different kinds of evidence. Some looked at microscopic tissue samples, some examined photos and video, and others looked at bugs. “This is not a case where Mr. Swearingen’s evidence is so compelling that a court cannot have confidence in the outcome of his trial,” she wrote.

Yet in a rare move last week, the notoriously pro-prosecution Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed Mr. Swearingen’s scheduled Aug. 18 execution and ordered a lower court to review his claims of actual innocence.

For Mr. Swearingen and his lawyers, the stay was a big victory. “This stay acknowledges powerful scientific evidence of innocence,” Mr. Rytting said.

Bill Delmore, the Montgomery County assistant district attorney who is now leading the state’s case against Mr. Swearingen, dismisses the litany of expert opinions. He is confident that the state’s case remains strong. “It is very frustrating to have to deal with this constant barrage of differing expert opinions that I often don’t understand,” he said.

The Trotters, meanwhile, remain convinced that Mr. Swearingen killed their daughter. And they are ready for it all to end — his appeals and his life. Sandy Trotter said she dreads a court hearing in which scientists and lawyers will trudge through the gory details of her daughter’s death and her decaying, infested body — a body that she watched grow from infancy to womanhood and then be buried in her mother’s wedding dress."

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

THE STORY CAN BE FOUND AT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/us/07ttswearingen.html?_r=1

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

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 found at:

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

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html

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

DEREK TICE: (ONE OF NORFOLK FOUR); INNOCENT MAN FINALLY FREE; COERCED CONFESSIONS TRUMPED FORENSIC EVIDENCE POINTING TO THE REAL KILLER; PBS

"Tice's complicated road to exoneration was profiled in our November 2010 film The Confessions, which investigated the problematic way Tice's case -- and the cases of three other men, a group known as the "Norfolk Four" -- were handled by Virginia's justice system. All four Navy men underwent long interrogations before breaking under pressure, admitting they took part in Moore-Bosko's violent death. It wasn't until 1999, after the Norfolk Four were incarcerated, that another inmate named Omar Ballard confessed that he committed the crime alone. Ballard's DNA matched evidence found at the scene of Moore-Bosko's death, while no physical evidence could connect the Norfolk Four to the crime.

"It's a victory for me, but there's still three other guys," Tice said upon hearing the news. The guys, Joe Dick Jr., Eric Wilson and Danial Williams, have all filed appeals to the Virginia Supreme Court after a lower court dismissed earlier petitions in March."

PBS;

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

"Derek Tice, who was convicted of the 1997 rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko, is officially a free man after Norfolk Circuit Court Judge Charles Poston dropped two felony charges against him as recommended by special prosecutor D.J. Hansen, who originally tried the case," the PBS story published on August 4, 2011, under the heading, "The Confessions: One of the "Norfolk Four" Cleared of Rape/Murder Charges," begins.

"Tice claims he was convicted based on a confession coerced by then-Norfolk, Va. detective Robert Glenn Ford, who is now in jail on charges unrelated to the Norfolk Four case," the story continues.

"In April, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Tice's confession -- the only evidence linking him to the crime -- should have been thrown out of court. The state had until late August to re-file charges against him.

Tice's complicated road to exoneration was profiled in our November 2010 film The Confessions, which investigated the problematic way Tice's case -- and the cases of three other men, a group known as the "Norfolk Four" -- were handled by Virginia's justice system. All four Navy men underwent long interrogations before breaking under pressure, admitting they took part in Moore-Bosko's violent death. It wasn't until 1999, after the Norfolk Four were incarcerated, that another inmate named Omar Ballard confessed that he committed the crime alone. Ballard's DNA matched evidence found at the scene of Moore-Bosko's death, while no physical evidence could connect the Norfolk Four to the crime.

"It's a victory for me, but there's still three other guys," Tice said upon hearing the news. The guys, Joe Dick Jr., Eric Wilson and Danial Williams, have all filed appeals to the Virginia Supreme Court after a lower court dismissed earlier petitions in March.

Due to a conditional pardon by then-Gov. Tim Kaine 2009, the three men are no longer in prison but still have convictions on their records, meaning they are ineligible for some kinds of employment and required to register as sex offenders."

The story can be found at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/2011/08/the-confessions-one-of-the-norfolk-four-cleared-of-rapemurder-charges.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 found at:

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

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html

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

HANK SKINNER; NEW EXECUTION DATE SET (NOVEMBER 9, 2011) - EVEN THOUGH HE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN ACCESS TO CRUCIAL DNA EVIDENCE. MARTINSVILLE BULETIN;

"Although the Supreme Court’s ruling meant Skinner’s civil suit could move forward, the court did not rule on whether he should be given access to the evidence. That decision has not yet been made.

According to one of Skinner’s attorneys, Washington, D.C.-based Douglas Robinson, the civil case still is pending in federal court in the Northern District of Texas Amarillo Division. Robinson said Switzer has asked the court to dismiss the case on different grounds, but the court has not yet ruled on that request.

Robinson said he believes the new execution date is “an effort to put pressure on the federal court to act quickly.”

REPORTER AMANDA BUCK: MARTINSVILLE BULLETIN;

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

BACKGROUND: "Hank Skinner faces execution for a 1993 murder he's always maintained he didn't commit. He wants the state to test whether his DNA matches evidence found at the crime scene, but prosecutors say the time to contest his conviction has come and gone......We told the story of the murders and his conviction and sentencing in the first part of this story." Reporter Brandi Grissom, author of the Tribune series on Hank Skinner, writes: "I interviewed Henry "Hank" Watkins Skinner, 47, at the Polunsky Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — death row — on January 20, 2010. Skinner was convicted in 1995 of murdering his girlfriends and her two sons; Skinner has always maintained that he's innocent and for 15 years has asked the state to release DNA evidence that he says will prove he was not the killer." Texas Tribune;

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


"A new execution date has been set for a former Henry County man who is on death row in Texas," the Martinsville Bulletin story by reporter Amanda Buck published earlier today under the heading, "Death date is set: Former county man on death row in Texas," begins.

"Henry Watkins “Hank” Skinner, 49, was sentenced to the death penalty in 1995 for the murder of his girlfriend and her two adult sons in their home in Pampa, Texas. According to the website of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Skinner is set to be executed Nov. 9 for those crimes," the story continues.

"This is not the first execution date for Skinner, who attended Fieldale-Collinsville High School. He was less than an hour away from execution in March 2010 when the U.S. Supreme Court halted the sentence and agreed to hear a matter in Skinner’s case.

In March of this year, the justices ruled that Skinner had the right to sue a Texas district attorney under a federal civil rights law for refusing to allow him access to evidence for DNA testing.

Skinner has sought to have several items that were gathered at the scene of the crime tested for DNA evidence, which his attorneys say could exonerate him. The district attorney, Lynn Switzer, has refused.

Skinner’s trial attorney decided not to test the evidence because he feared it would further incriminate Skinner, according to Associated Press reports.

Although the Supreme Court’s ruling meant Skinner’s civil suit could move forward, the court did not rule on whether he should be given access to the evidence. That decision has not yet been made.

According to one of Skinner’s attorneys, Washington, D.C.-based Douglas Robinson, the civil case still is pending in federal court in the Northern District of Texas Amarillo Division. Robinson said Switzer has asked the court to dismiss the case on different grounds, but the court has not yet ruled on that request.

Robinson said he believes the new execution date is “an effort to put pressure on the federal court to act quickly.”

Skinner was convicted in the New Year’s Eve 1993 slaying of Twila Jean Busby, who was choked and struck in the head with an ax handle, according to information on the Texas criminal justice department’s website. Busby’s two sons, Elwin Caler, 22, and Randy Busby, 20, were stabbed with a kitchen knife, the document says."

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

The story can be found at:

http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/article.cfm?ID=29556

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

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;

HASSAN DIAB: CLAIMS OFFER TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH TEST SNUBBED BY THE RCMP; FORCE DECLINES COMMENT; REPORTER CHRIS COBB; OTTAWA CITIZEN;

"In November 2009, a year after his arrest and after police apparently found that Diab’s finger and palm prints did not match suspects’ prints found in Paris, Diab said the RCMP urged him informally to take their polygraph test.

According to Diab, an officer said: ‘We know you want to clear your name and look good to the friends who are supporting you. How about taking a polygraph test?’"

REPORTER CHRIS COBB; THE OTTAWA CITIZEN;

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

"OTTAWA — The Ottawa university professor at the centre of an international terrorist investigation has revealed in an exclusive interview with the Citizen that he offered to submit to an independent lie detector test, but says the RCMP snubbed him," the Ottawa Citizen story by reporter Chris Cobb published earlier today under the heading, "Exclusive: Hassan Diab speaks: Offer to take polygraph test snubbed by RCMP; Tailed by Mounties for a year before his arrest; Suspicious break-in attempt interrupted at couple’s condo," begins.

"Hassan Diab, 57, says he agreed to a test by a “mutually agreeable” polygraph examiner after the RCMP had asked him to take one of theirs," the story continues.

"“If he passes, the French drop the charges. That was our offer, but they were unwilling,” confirmed Diab’s lawyer, Donald Bayne. “They didn’t respond, which is a response in itself.”

Diab, a Lebanese-born Canadian, is facing extradition to France, where prosecutors allege that 30 years ago he planted a bomb outside a Paris synagogue. The blast killed four people and injured at least 40 others.

Following a protracted two-year extradition hearing, Diab was committed for extradition in early June by Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Maranger.

Maranger said that under extradition law he had no choice, but said the French case against Diab is weak and if Diab were tried in Canada it was unlikely he would be convicted on the evidence they presented.

During two Citizen interviews — his first since his arrest in November 2008 — Diab revealed details about being tailed by the RCMP during the 13 months before he was detained.

He says he “never guessed” that it was the Mounties following him and doubts he was aware of all the surveillance.

Diab meticulously recorded all the tailing incidents, including licence plate numbers, in e-mails to his lawyer and had a numbered file with the Ottawa police to whom he also reported the surveillance.

At one point he called 911: “Ottawa police turned up, but when I showed them the two cars they just left.”

Nor did Ottawa police appear to take any action after any of his other calls, though according to Diab they did check the registration numbers he gave them.

Diab says he and his partner, Rania Tfaily, also caught a man attempting to break into their condominium apartment.

“Rania saw someone trying to open the door and she said, ‘How can I help you?’ He started mumbling that he was lost and was trying to visit a friend. She asked what the friend’s name was and he said, ‘Oh it doesn’t matter, it’s just old age.’ Then we saw him in the parking lot in a car.

“I drove her to work and I came back, the same car was still there, but with another person in it.”

Shortly before the RCMP began tailing Diab, a French journalist visited him at the University of Ottawa and told him he was suspected of the synagogue bombing.

In November 2009, a year after his arrest and after police apparently found that Diab’s finger and palm prints did not match suspects’ prints found in Paris, Diab said the RCMP urged him informally to take their polygraph test.

According to Diab, an officer said: ‘We know you want to clear your name and look good to the friends who are supporting you. How about taking a polygraph test?’

“I said I have to ask my lawyer and he replied, ‘You can decide this on your own.’”

The RCMP approached Diab about taking a polygraph twice — once at his apartment during one of their many random visits, and another time during a court recess, he said.

They did not approach Bayne, though Diab urged them to do so.

When Diab told Bayne about the RCMP approaches, the lawyer countered with his own offer.

“Diab assured me he was innocent. I asked him, ‘Are you willing to do this?’ and he said, ‘Absolutely.’ So I went to the authorities and said, ‘We will do this, but only if you honour the result.’”

Polygraph results are not admissible as evidence in Canadian courts and are universally dismissed as a pseudoscience by much of the scientific community.

“I know it’s not binding,” said Bayne, “but if they wanted to ease their conscience that they were on the trail of the right man and not an innocent, they should have agreed to honour the result.”

Police in many jurisdictions commonly use polygraphs as an interrogation technique.

“Any experienced criminal lawyer will tell you that it is a skilful police technique that involves telling people, ‘You’re not doing well, you’re failing’ in order to get confessions,” said Bayne.

The RCMP appears to have tailed Diab for about 13 months — a hugely expensive undertaking.

The RCMP refuses to speak to the Citizen about the Diab case, but Bayne speculates the force wasn’t especially concerned with gathering information.

“I think they were trying to prompt some action such as fleeing the country or communication with terrorists,” he said, “It’s often a police tactic. But they spent a year following Professor Diab and came up with nothing as he went about his job and life peacefully.”"

The story can be found at:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Exclusive+Hassan+Diab+speaks/5214286/story.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;

SHERRY SHERRET: COMPENSATION; WHY $450,000 COMES NOWHERE NEAR WHAT WAS OWED TO THIS WOMAN; PUBLISHER'S VIEW;

"Toronto Star reporter Theresa Boyle reported that Sherry Sherret's son was one of at least 17 children whose lives were thrown into chaos as a result of the death of a sibling as a result of former Dr. Charles Smith's "mistakes." But I am wondering how many other cases there are within Ontario's criminal justice system - and within the province's family law system where it is not unknown for children to have been seized from their children on false accusations - where the State should make just compensation to the wronged parent. Could that not have been in the prosecutor's minds when they worked Sherry Sherret's file?"

HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;

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

PUBLISHER'S VIEW: In a recent post I described the $450,00 0settlement accepted by Sherry Sherret as grossly inadequate. Here's why. My ultimate concern is that Society owes a parent much more than that when it wrongfully charges that parent with murdering a child with the result that the child's siblings are removed from their homes, severed from their family, put up for adoption by another family and then lost to the natural parents and the rest of the family forever. Since Ms. Sherret had to be significantly compensated for the wrongful prosecution and the horrific year she spent in prison as her child's killer, it strikes me that only a small fraction of the $450,000 would have been paid to her for the permanent seizure of her child by the State. My gut feeling is that the government officials in their anonymous offices are occupied with the precedential effects of their decisions - rather than with justice in the individual case. Toronto Star reporter Theresa Boyle reported that Sherry Sherret's son was one of at least 17 children whose lives were thrown into chaos as a result of the death of a sibling as a result of former Dr. Charles Smith's "mistakes." But I am wondering how many other cases there are within Ontario's criminal justice system - and within the province's family law system where it is not unknown for children to have been seized from their children on false accusations - where the State should make just compensation to the wronged parent. Could that not have been in the prosecutor's minds when they worked Sherry Sherret's file? I am also wondering whether the years in which Ms. Sherret was kept in near poverty while the justice system worked at a snail's pace to sort out the aftermath of its errors did not force her - and possibly other victims of Smith's to take a grossly inadequate settlement in order to finally pay off their weighty debts, purchase a home, and finally have the opportunity to invest in her family's future - rather than struggling just to stay physically and emotionally alive. Moreover, on a collective basis, because of the secrecy of the ad hoc negotiation process, there can be no confidence that the compensation made to Smith's victims truly compensates for their loss and addresses the government's misconduct.

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 found at:

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

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html

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

HASSAN DIAB; HE SPEAKS OUT FOR THE FIRST TIME; REPORTER CHRIS COBB; THE OTTAWA CITIZEN;

"Although the extradition judge said the evidence sent from France was weak and unlikely to result in a conviction if Diab were tried in Canada, he said he had no choice but to commit the academic for extradition.

In an exclusive interview with the Ottawa Citizen’s Chris Cobb, Diab says he is the innocent victim of mistaken identity and denies being in France when the terrorist blast happened. He vows to use every legal avenue possible to prevent being extradited to Paris where he would face imprisonment for life if found guilty."

REPORTER CHRIS COBB; THE OTTAWA CITIZEN;

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

"OTTAWA — University of Ottawa sociology professor Hassan Diab was arrested in November 2008 during a dramatic mid-morning SWAT team raid on his Gatineau apartment and charged with four counts of murder, multiple counts of attempted murder and destruction of property," the Ottawa Citizen story by reporter Chris Cobb published under the heading, "Exclusive: Hassan Diab speaks out for first time," begins.

"According to French prosecutors, Lebanon-born Diab was part of a Palestinian terrorist gang that planted a bomb outside a Paris synagogue on Oct. 3, 1980," the story continues.

"The blast was powerful enough to rocket parked cars several storeys into the air. The four killed were passersby. The injured, many of whom still carry physical and emotional scars, were inside and outside of the synagogue where the Jewish festival Simchas Torah had been celebrated.

Although the extradition judge said the evidence sent from France was weak and unlikely to result in a conviction if Diab were tried in Canada, he said he had no choice but to commit the academic for extradition.

In an exclusive interview with the Ottawa Citizen’s Chris Cobb, Diab says he is the innocent victim of mistaken identity and denies being in France when the terrorist blast happened. He vows to use every legal avenue possible to prevent being extradited to Paris where he would face imprisonment for life if found guilty.

In his first and only interview since being arrested, Diab speaks about being tailed by the RCMP for more than a year before his arrest, his “nightmare” incarceration at the Ottawa Regional Detention Centre and the economic ruin his arrest and onerous bail conditions have brought to his life.

Look for the Diab interview in Saturday’s Ottawa Citizen."

The story can be found at:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Exclusive+Hassan+Diab+speaks+first+time/5211702/story.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;

SHERRY SHERRET RETROSECTIVE; PART TEN; HER "FRESH EVIDENCE" FILING IN THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL; FOURTH OF FOUR SECTIONS;

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I recently reported that Sherry Sherret has received a $450,000 settlement for the nightmare she was put through by by the former Doctor Charles Smith, the police, prosecutors and the Court - and I indicated that I find the settlement grossly inadequate. To help our readers make up their own minds i am running a retrospective of posts previously published on this Blog on Sherry Sherret's case. Our readers are invited to send their comments on the settlement to me at: hlevy15@gmail.com for possible inclusion on the site.

HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG.

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

Thursday, December 10, 2009
THE EXONERATION OF SHERRY SHERRET: PART FOUR OF THE FRESH EVIDENCE FACTUM FILED IN THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL BY HER LAWYERS;

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: THE ACQUITTAL OF SHERRY SHERRET, DIRECTED ON MONDAY DECEMBER 7, 2009, BY THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE CROWN, IS AN ENORMOUS TRIBUTE TO THE ASSOCIATION IN DEFENCE OF THE WRONGLY CONVICTED (AIDWYC), WIN WAHRER, ITS DIRECTOR OF CLIENT AFFAIRS, AND THE THREE LAWYERS WHO HANDLED HER CASE: JAMES LOCKYER, ZACHARY KERBEL AND ANDRAS SCHRECK; THIS BLOG IS PLEASED TO PRESENT FOR OUR READERS THE FRESH EVIDENCE FACTUM FILED ON MS. SHERRET'S BEHALF IN THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL. IT IS A MASTERFUL DOCUMENT WHICH MAKES VERY CLEAR THE ROLE PLAYED IN THIS UGLY MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE BY DR. CHARLES SMITH - AND THE COMPLEX PROCESS BY WHICH IT WAS FINALLY UNRAVELLED. I HAVE CHOSEN TO RUN THE DOCUMENT IN FIVE PARTS BECAUSE OF ITS LENGTH.

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

E. The Goudge Report and Joshua’s Case:

49. Commissioner Goudge made a number of findings in his Report that related to the Appellant’s case. He commented that Dr. Smith himself acknowledged at the Inquiry that he had been wrong to attribute significance to microscopic hemorrhages in Joshua’s neck and “explained that his error was in overestimating his own dissection skills.” The Commissioner observed that Dr. Smith had also inappropriately used events extraneous to the pathology of the case in forming his opinions, namely some of the matters found out by the police during their investigation of Joshua’s medical history. The Commissioner, after noting two other cases in which Dr. Smith had done this, wrote:
In Joshua’s case, in diagnosing the cause of death as asphyxia, Dr. Smith admitted to placing undue weight on the remote history provided to him that Joshua’s mother had stated, one month before Joshua’s death, that she could not take it anymore and was going to smother the baby. In none of these instances was Dr. Smith transparent about using or disregarding this information.

The Commissioner was critical of Dr. Smith’s opinions on the case, and of his use of language at the preliminary hearing.
Goudge Report, Vol. 2, at 147, 177-178, 187-188; Vol. 3, at 387-8

PART III

THE LAW:

Introduction:
50. The rules for the admissibility of fresh evidence are set out in Palmer:
(1) the evidence should generally not be admitted if, by due diligence, it could have been adduced at trial...;

(2) the evidence must be relevant in the sense that it bears upon a decisive or potentially decisive issue in the trial;

(3) the evidence must be credible in the sense that it is reasonably capable of belief; and,

(4) it must be such that if believed it could reasonably, when taken with the other evidence adduced at trial, be expected to have affected the result.

R v. Palmer (1979), 50 C.C.C. (2d) 193 (S.C.C.) at 205

1. DUE DILIGENCE:

51. The Appellant, Sherry Sherret-Robinson, entered no defence to the set of facts read in by the Crown at trial, but continued to deny her guilt to the Court. Her case is, therefore, somewhat different from the guilty plea cases wherein an accused has sought to set aside a guilty plea based on fresh evidence. However, even if the Appellant had pleaded guilty to infanticide, a powerful case can be made that due diligence was exercised in her case. At the time of her trial, Dr. Smith had an outstanding reputation in his field, and in the criminal justice system. He was Canada’s most frequently consulted pediatric pathologist. He clearly believed that the Appellant had killed her son, and his opinion was recorded as such during a meeting with the Crown and Police on February 8, 2006. It is only in recent years that Dr. Smith’s reputation has been undermined such that his opinions no longer command any respect in his field. In 2001, he was removed by the Chief Coroner from the roster of forensic pathologists permitted to conduct autopsies in cases of suspicious deaths. In 2008, the Goudge Report drew damning conclusions about his work, his ethics and his honesty. In 1999, when the Appellant’s trial took place, Mr. Hillyer, the Appellant’s trial counsel, knew nothing of what was coming.

52. Mr. Hillyer concludes his affidavit by stating as follows:
I feel strongly about the Applicant’s case. It was a case that I never felt comfortable about. At the time of the nolo contendere type proceedings in January, 1999, I believed that it was an acceptable resolution for the Applicant and it was one that she instructed me to consummate. After all, at the time, Dr. Smith was a witness with a considerable reputation. If he thought Joshua was probably a victim of homicide, a jury might well have come to the same conclusion. In the absence of evidence of a natural cause of death, a conviction for second degree murder, in my opinion, was entirely possible. Now, of course, it would be different. But neither I nor the Applicant had reason to believe then that Dr. Smith’s reputation might subsequently be shown to be undeserved. I have read Dr. Pollanen’s reports of March 28, 2006 and August 10, 2006. Unlike Dr. Smith, he found no evidence of a homicidal cause of death, and noted a readily explicable cause of death; that Joshua had accidently died as a result of a hazardous sleeping environment. I have also read the two reports of Professor Crane on the case. If I had had these opinions prior to January 4, 1999, I am certain that I would have counselled the Applicant in the strongest possible terms to vigorously defend herself on the murder charge. I am equally certain that the Applicant would have agreed to this. I am reasonably certain that in these circumstances the Crown would likely not have proceeded with the case.

This provides a fair summary of events as they stood when the Appellant entered her plea in 1999, and events as they now stand in 2009.
Affidavit of Bruce Hillyer, November 9, 2009, Fresh Evidence Materials, Tab 2, para. 12
Affidavit of Alison Craig, November 11, 2009, Fresh Evidence Materials, Tab 3, para. 2

2. THE FRESH EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT AND
DECISIVE, AND WOULD HAVE AFFECTED THE VERDICT:

53. The remaining three Palmer tests, on the facts of this case, overlap and can be best dealt with together. The Appellant’s case has two primary features to it:
(a) Is there any evidence remaining of a non-accidental cause of death?
(b) Is there evidence which supports an accidental death?

(a) Is there evidence remaining of a non-accidental cause of death?

54. At the preliminary hearing, Dr. Smith gave his opinion that Joshua died of asphyxia likely caused by smothering or suffocation. He also claimed to have found a skull fracture. Dr. Pollanen, Dr. Crane and, within the bounds of his expertise, Dr. Ramsay completely discredit Dr. Smith’s opinions. They refute the existence of a skull fracture. They consider the cause of death to be “undetermined” or “unascertained”. For both the Appellant and the Respondent, they are experts of the highest standing. Their opinions are uncontroversial and reliable. While they cannot actually eliminate a non-accidental cause of death, there is today no evidence of such a cause.

(b) Is there evidence which supports an accidental cause of death?

55. Dr. Pollanen and Dr. Crane both believe that Joshua may have died as a result of his playpen being an unsafe sleeping environment. Dr. Pollanen noted that:
Forensic pathologists have become increasingly aware that unsafe sleeping environments are often associated with sudden death in infancy.

Dr. Pollanen appended a paper to his report: Kemp et al. “Unsafe Sleeping Practices and an Analysis of Bedsharing Among Infants Dying Suddenly and Unexpectedly: Results of a Four-Year, Population-Based, Death-Scene Investigation Study of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and Related Deaths. In their abstract, the authors state:
Prone sleep and unsafe sleep surfaces increase the risk of sudden infant death. Recent epidemiologic studies also suggest that when an infant’s head or face is covered by bedding, or when a sleep surface is shared with others, the risk of dying increases. The inference of a causal role for these risk factors is supported by physiologic studies and by the consistent finding that fewer infants die when risk factors are reduced. The prevalence of most of these risk factors in infant deaths in the United States is uncertain.

The authors studied over 100 cases of infant deaths in St. Louis, Missouri in coming to their conclusions.
Report of Dr. Pollanen, March 28, 2006, Fresh Evidence Materials, Tab 4, p. 15

56. Recurring observations of both professionals and non-professionals in the early stages of the investigation into Joshua’s death were the nature of the playpen and the amount of bedding in the playpen. The Appellant herself told the police that she thought the quantity of bedding could have contributed to Joshua’s death. Dr. Pollanen explains in his report that bedding of the kind in Joshua’s playpen can cause entrapment and head-covering. This can result in breathing difficulties, and the re-breathing of exhaled air. Dr. Pollanen referenced the Kemp et al Study, and wrote:

In the St. Louis study, cases of infants dying suddenly and unexpectedly in St. Louis over four years with the cause of death of SIDS, accidental suffocation and undetermined (unascertained) were analysed. A total of 119 infants were studied. Four major scene findings were identified: (i) 61% of infants were prone-positioned; (ii) 76% of infants died while sleeping on a surface not designed for infant sleeping; (iii) the face or head was covered by bedding in 29% of infants; and (iv) bed sharing occurred in 47% of the cases. Based on the analysis of the cases, certain situational factors may be mechanically significant in some cases of sudden infant death, including: entrapment in the sleeping apparatus (e.g. wedging between pillows or hard surfaces); head covering by bedding; and prone positioning on soft and highly depressible surfaces, rather than firm surfaces. These factors may lead to the development of a micro-environment that results in the re-breathing of exhaled air, and possibly over heating (‘thermal stress’) thereby causing death. Sometimes simply the position of the infant may limit the respiratory excursion of the chest. Although we have not published this data, our experience in Ontario is very similar to the St. Louis study. In fact, an unsafe sleeping environment is a well-known and well-recognized factor that contributes to infant deaths in Ontario each year.

Dr. Pollanen provided five major conclusions at the end of his report, the last of which was:
The cause of death is unascertained, but the scene supports an accidental asphyxial death in an unsafe/hazardous sleeping environment.

Professor Crane was of the same view, and told Commissioner Goudge that he thought Joshua’s sleeping environment was a “significant possibility” as the cause of death and “more likely” than any other. Dr. Milroy and Dr. Butt agreed with these opinions. These opinions come from pathologists who are pre-eminent in their field, with international reputations to be envied. They meet the Palmer standards.
Report of Dr. Pollanen, March 28, 2006, Fresh Evidence Materials, Tab 4, pp. 14-16
Evidence of Professor Crane, Dr. Butt and Dr. Milroy, Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario, November 19, Fresh Evidence Materials, Tab 12, p. 247
Evidence of Professor Crane, Dr. Butt and Dr. Milroy, Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario, November 22, Fresh Evidence Materials, Tab 13, p. 90

57. In these circumstances, even though the Appellant did not defend herself against the allegation of Infanticide, or call evidence to dispute the facts read in to support the allegation, this Court can still intervene, in the interests of justice, and admit the fresh evidence because it establishes that a miscarriage of justice occurred. The Appellant was convicted of a crime which the fresh evidence suggests never occurred. The fresh evidence not only meets the Palmer tests but also explains why the Appellant did not put up a defence at trial.
See R. v. Hanemaayer (2008), 234 C.C.C. (3d) 3 (Ont.C.A.) at 9
R. v. Taillefer (2003), 179 C.C.C. (3d) 353 (S.C.C.) at 389

Some additional observations:

58. This case is not unique, and cases such as these transcend national boundaries. Pathologists are always at the forefront of an investigation into a suspicious death and, like any other professionals, they will make mistakes. The consequences of their mistakes can be profound. In recent years, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in England has grappled with cases of child deaths that have turned into miscarriages of justice. The cases are similar to Joshua’s: sudden natural pathologically unexplained deaths are converted into homicides. The tragedy of these cases was well expressed by the English Court of Appeal in Cannings:

Unless we are sure of guilt the dreadful possibility always remains that a mother, already brutally scarred by the unexplained death or deaths of her babies, may find herself in prison for life for killing them when she should not be there at all. In our community, and any civilized community, that is abhorrent.

These words can be adapted to the Appellant’s case. She not only went to prison for Joshua’s death, but also lost her other child, Austin, because of Dr. Smith’s findings.
R. v. Cannings, [2004] 2 Cr.App.R. 7 at para. 179
R. v. Harris, [2006] 1 Cr.App. R. 5
See also R. v. Nicholls (1998) unreported; June 12, 1998 [E.W.C.A.]

59. In 1995, the Ontario Chief Coroner’s Office circulated an Infant Death Investigation Protocol. Dr. Smith, and others, played an important part in developing the Protocol, as did Dr. Young, then the Chief Coroner, and Dr. Cairns, the Deputy Chief Coroner. The Protocol was designed to ensure that all infant deaths were investigated thoroughly. Unfortunately, in the process, it urged psychologists to “think dirty.” It advised:
Unfortunately, in this day and age, CHILD ABUSE IS A REAL ISSUE and it is extremely important that all members of the investigative team “THINK DIRTY”. They must actively investigate each case as potential child abuse and not come to a premature conclusion regarding the cause and manner of death until the complete investigation is finished and all members of the team are satisfied with the conclusion. (original emphasis)

Commissioner Goudge said this about “Thinking Dirty” in his Report:

[I]n testimony, Dr. Cairns analogized the “think dirty” message to his experience in emergency medicine, in which physicians must assume that the presenting symptoms in their patients indicate the most critical health risk and act on that basis until it is proven otherwise. He used the example of a patient presenting with chest pain who is assumed to be suffering from a heart attack until that explanation could be ruled out. For him, the most critical health risk in this context was undetected child abuse. Apart from the point raised by some witnesses that a wrongful conviction is also an unacceptable scenario, this analogy demonstrates a major flaw in the “think dirty” approach. Whereas clinical medicine properly approaches treatment by considering the worst possible explanation, forensic pathologists fulfill a very different role. They are providing information that may influence criminal proceedings. In this context, it is dangerous and inappropriate to leave any impression that forensic pathologists begin with a premise of foul play that must be disproved. Their objectivity requires that any such impression be avoided. They must “think truth” not “think dirty”. They must also be seen to do so. In circulating the 1995 Infant Death Investigation Protocol, Dr. Cairns and Dr. Young were motivated by legitimate concern about child abuse, backed up by their professional experience with pediatric death investigations. However, injecting a “think dirty” approach into pediatric death investigations was a serious error that created both an unfortunate perception and a risk of skewing outcomes.

Recommendation 69 of the Commissioner’s report was as follows:
a) Evidence-based forensic pathology is incompatible with an approach of “thinking dirty.” It, instead, involves keeping an open mind to the full range of possibilities that the evidence might yield, without preconceptions or presumptions about abuse, and collecting evidence both to support and to negate any possibilities.

b) “Thinking truth,” the orientation now adopted by the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario, accurately captures the appropriate approach to forensic pathology and helps promote an evidence-based culture.

In 1996, when he did the autopsy on Joshua, Dr. Smith was working in this“Thinking Dirty” regime. Goudge Report, vol. 2, “Systemic Review”at p. 110-114
Goudge Report, vol. 3, “Policy and Recommendations” at p.372-377

60. Marshall J.A. spoke of the same kind of preconceptions employed by the attending pathologist, Dr. Hutton, in the Newfoundland case of Dalton. He said:

It is noteworthy that the foregoing conclusion conforms with the assumption with which Dr. Hutton appears to have approached his investigation into the cause of the death. It is clear form his testimony the bruising on this thirty-one year old woman’s body, who had ‘no medical history of any serious natural disease ...’ fuelled his suspicion at the outset that Mrs. Dalton had met her death by foul play. A reading of his evidence gives the distinct impression that this assumption was operative throughout his investigation. For example, Dr. Hutton made repeated references to the term ‘assailant’ in discussing the injuries observed on the body. Moreover, in the course of his cross-examination, on being questioned on his suggestion that certain bruises and abrasions could have been ‘assailant marks’, he openly conceded that he made the assumption that there had been an assailant at the start of the procedure and approached the autopsy on the basis that a homicide had occurred, whilst explaining: ‘I do that for everyone. That’s just my nature and it’s the nature of forensic pathologists.’ It is evident therefore, that Dr. Hutton approached the inquiry into the death of Mrs. Dalton assuming she had been murdered, and his conclusion that she died as a result of an ‘assault and then a manual strangulation with a right hand’ was consistent with that premise. (emphasis added)

R. v. Dalton, [1998] 163 Nfld & P.E.I.R. 254 (Nfld.C.A.)

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

The post can be found at:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2009/12/exoneration-of-sherry-sherret-part-four.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 found at:

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

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html

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