"YOU KNOW --YOU KNOW, IF YOU SENT ME A LETTER AND ASKED ME TO DO SOMETHING AND THE LETTER WAS SATISFACTORY, I'D PROBABLY EVEN SIGN OFF ON ONE OF YOUR LETTERS;"
FORMER CHIEF CORONER DR. JAMES YOUNG TO INQUIRY LAWYER MARK SANDLER;
On Friday, the Goudge Inquiry was rocked by another stunning disclosure.
Dr. James Young, the former Chief Coroner, acknowledged that he had sent a letter drafted by Dr. Charles Smith's lawyers (McCarthy Tetrault) in support of Dr. Smith to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.
The College was investigating three complaints against Dr. Smith at the time - connection with the Jenna, Nicholas and Amber cases.
Dr. Young sent the letter drafted by Smith's lawyers to the College's chief investigator on April 10, 2002 - without changing a single word.
The letter contained a line which read, "To the best of my knowledge, at no time time did Dr. Smith act in bad faith or with the intent to obstruct or hinder these coroner's investigations."
However, Dr. Young had previously testified that he had been informed by Deputy Chief Coroner, Dr. James Cairns, that Smith had retained in his possession a hair found in the area of Baby Jenna's vulva - and that he had the hair, which pointed to the fact that Jenna may have been sexually assaulted, with him when testifying at Jenna's mother's preliminary hearing;
Dr. Young had told the Inquiry: "Well, he (Dr. Cairns) told me about the existence of the hair that -- that Dr. Smith had told him that the hair had been taken; that the hair had been offered to a police officer, and that the police officer had refused to take it as an exhibit; that he had held onto the hair; that at one (1) point he had even gone to court with it in his pocket, and no one had asked him anything about it. He'd taken it home, and for some reason he was choosing to disclose the existence of the hair at this point in time."
Pressed by Commission lawyer Mark Sandler as to whether Young considered that it was "appropriate" for him to state that to the best of his knowledge Dr. Smith had not at any time acted in bad faith or with intent to hinder or obstruct, Doctor Young responded that he had not sufficiently "parsed" the draft letter.
The following examination ensued:
Did you feel it appropriate to adopt the
letter that had been provided to you in this form without
having parsed so very carefully what it was that -- that
was being said, especially when you knew that the College
would be placing reliance upon this?
DR. JAMES YOUNG: I -- I read the letter,
it didn't -- nothing struck me as being beyond -- what I
should say, I -- in retrospect I completely agree with
you.
That statement is -- should have caught my
attention, didn't catch my attention. The fact I signed
it, I -- I read it, I -- what I read I -- I accepted and
I -- I sent it. I...
Dr. Young also explained that he didn't have enough time to parse every word pf the letter drafter by McCarthy's because," I -- you know, a letter
like this I look at, I consider it, I think about it, but
I -- I don't have the -- the leisure to -- to parse every
word or to think through to that depth."
"I -- I looked at it, it was asking me to
do something that seemed reasonable at the time, and I
did it. And I -- I missed that one reference, but I -- I
-- you know, if I thought there was a problem, I wouldn't
have signed it," he said.
Young also agreed with Sandler that the law firm had made it clear that he was free to make any changes in the letter, to edit it, and to state his opinions as he believed them to be.
Asked point blank by Sandler whether, from his perspective as Chief Coroner, he had any concerns "about simply adopting the letter that had been provided by McCarthy's and submitting it to the College of Physicians and Surgeons?", Young had this to say:
"No, I don't think it -- the letter, when I read it, covered the issues. It -- I
had no particular problem with the letter. I -- you know, I didn't take the time to -- to rewrite it. You know -- you know, if you sent me a letter and asked me to do something and the letter was satisfactory, I'd
probably even sign off on one of your letters."
Let's pause here.
We are not talking about the omission of a shade or a nuance that is a tiny, relatively unimportant part of the narrative.
We are talking about a dark, curly, male-type public hair which was found in two and a half-year old Baby Jenna's vulva area - a hair which has taken on more and more importance as the inquiry progresses.
We learned from a document contained in an "Overview Report" - reported earlier on this Blog - that Peterborough police were talking about laying criminal charges against Dr. Smith, presumably in connection with his retention of the hair - which was only found after the murder charge against Brenda Waudby, Jenna's mother, had been withdrawn.
It was ultimately retrieved by police from Smith's office at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.
Waudby protested strenuously from the outset that Jenna had been murdered by J.D., the teenage babysitter had murdered her child - to no avail.
Had Smith disclosed the existence of the hair - instead of concealing it from the police, the police would have conducted a sexual assault investigation from the outset, and so many years would not have passed before J.D. was ultimately arrested and pleaded guilty to manslaughter in Jenna's death.
Smith himself had admitted to Dr. Cairns - and Dr. Cairns reported to Dr. Young - that he had the hair with him in his pocket when he was testifying for the prosecution against Waudby at her preliminary hearing.
This raises questions as to whether he may have perjured himself in connection with his testimony at the time that suggested he was unaware of the existence of the hair.
That hair could have exonerated Brenda Waudby.
Even if his account was true - that the police officer refused to take it - he would have been obligated to pursue this with the police department or the Chief Coroner's office.
If the police wouldn't accept it - as he told the College of Physicians and Surgeons, why didn't he submit it to the forensic laboratory for testing?
So many questions which raise disturbing concerns about Dr. Smith's credibility, competence and integrity.
All of this makes me wonder why Dr. Young would have sent any letter to the College supporting Dr. Smith - who was not even his employee - let alone a letter which said, "To the best of my knowledge, at no time time did Dr. Smith act in bad faith or with the intent to obstruct or hinder these coroner's investigations."
It also makes me wonder why, armed with this disturbing knowledge, Dr. Young would have not immediately removed Dr. Smith from the roster for performing autopsies in criminal cases - and from his positions on the province's pediatric death review committees.
I am also intrigued by Dr. Young's explanation that he was unaware that the above line, which he says he now deeply regrets, because he did not sufficiently "parse" the letter drafted for him by Smith's lawyers.
Dr. Young has been questioned in depth about his evidence that he was unaware of a 1991 decision by Judge Patrick Dunn in a Timmins case - where Dunn raised grave doubts about Smith's objectivity.
Commissioner Goudge heard evidence that the Dunn decision had been discussed in a nationally broadcast TV documentary, and a feature article in MacLeans, and a complaint submitted to him by Maurice Gagnon, Nicholas' grandfather.
Dr. Young testified that he was unaware of either the documentary or the MacLean's story - saying there was no system in the Coroner's office for monitoring the media and keeping on top of developments in criminal cases.
Young acknowledged in his testimony that he informed Mr. Gagnon in writing that, "I had read the complaint and considered the complaint."
But he went on to say, "I have absolutely no memory of having read
this part, and I suspect strongly that the reason is that
I probably didn't read that part."
"And the reason that I wouldn't read that
part, I -- I believe, is that a complaint about a coroner
is a complaint about a particular case," Young continued.
. "It's not a complaint that you can start quoting all kinds of other
cases. We've -- we've had many, many experiences."
I will leave it up to thee reader's of the Charles Smith Blog to determine the reasonableness of Dr. Young's explanations of the failure to notice important key portions of documents in both situations referred to above.
Lastly, some systemic issues.
Although Commissioner Goudge is not permitted to find fault, some very serious systemic issues are raised by Dr. Young's forwarding the letter drafted by Dr. Smith's lawyers to College's Chief Investigator;
Here are just a few of them:
Was it proper for Dr. Young, as Chief Coroner, to send any letter on behalf of Dr. Smith to the College in relation to the three complaints - especially since the three complainants would have no way of replying to them, and he was receiving similar complaints in his capacity as chief coroner?
Was there a risk that the College might have been influenced by the fact that the weight of the Coroner's office was being brought in support of Dr. Smith?
Did the very fact that Dr. Young would send such a letter to the College suggest he felt there was a cosy relationship between the two institutions - rather than clearly demarcated lines of independence from each other?
We know now that Dr. Young played an active role behind the scenes in contesting the College's jurisdiction to hear complaints and Coroner's and Pathologists; Was this appropriate for the province's chief coroner?
More grist for Commissioner Goudge's mill.
Harold Levy; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Friday, November 30, 2007
Goudge Inquiry; Secret Report Commissioned By Sick Kids Now Public;
A hitherto secret report commissioned by the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto has been introduced as an exhibit at the Goudge Inquiry.
On May 31, 2005, I reported in the Toronto Star that the missing exhibits from the Mullins-Johnson case had been found by officials from the Chief Coroner's office.
The missing exhibits had been found on top of Dr. Charles Smith's desk in his office at the Hospital's pathology department during an audit of forensic materials which had been ordered by then Chief Coroner Dr. Barry McLellan.
The story contained an interview with Hospital spokesperson Helen Simeon, who said that Dr. Smith had agreed to go on administrative leave pending a review by an "outside" pathologist.
Simeon, said Smith had been allowed to return to his work on non-criminal autopsies after the reviewer reported that Smith was doing a satisfactory job.
Simeon declined to identify the reviewer or release the report.
I have always wanted to see this report with a view to discovering how thorough the review process was - and whether it was sufficient to protect the public.
I was therefore intrigued to discover earlier today that the entire report was only four paragraphs long.
But first a little history.
In 2001, Smith was removed from the roster of forensic pathologists permitted to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths.
A year later, three complaints to the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons relating to his work in suspicious death cases were upheld.
Here is the letter:
It is addressed to Dr. Ronald Laxer, a Hospital for Sick Children Vice President, and runs under the heading Re Pediatric Surgical Pathology Review."
I was requested to review pediatric surgical pathology cases to determine the appropriateness of diagnoses made by Dr. Charles Smith and to form an opinion as to whether the overall performance of Dr. Smith based on this review, is at a level expected for a pathologist working in a pediatric hospital such as Sick Kids.
I have completed the review of 60 surgical pathology cases that in my estimation reflect a spectrum of challenging interpretations and that have, predominately, important implication for patient care. Foe each case I examined all pathology slides without knowledge of the content of Dr. Smith's report and formed a diagnostic opinion. After which, I studied the pathology report and compared my diagnosis with the reported diagnosis. On each case I scored for agreement, minor disagreements with no or minimal patient consequence, or major discordance with serious implication for patient care (as per scoring sheets provided).
Of the 60 surgical pathology cases I concur with Dr. Smith's diagnosis in 57. In the remaining three we disagree in a minor way that has no implications for patient care.
In general I find Dr. Smith's reports to be appropriately informative, thorough and diagnostically accurate. Extrapolating from this review, the process of which I believe to be appropriate assessment, I conclude that his performance is at a level expected for a pediatric pathologist in a sophisticated children's hospital dealing with complex diagnostics."
The letter is signed by James Dimmick, Consultant Pediatric Pathologist, Professor of Pathology and Laboratory medicine, University of British Columbia.
This Blogster is not questioning in any way the integrity of Dr. Dimmick's report.
My concern, however, is that given Dr. Smith's unfortunate history at the Hospital for Sick Children - on both forensic and non-forensic pathological matters - Dr. Dimmick should have been asked to do more than study microscopic slides.
Dr. Dimmick should have been instructed to report on whether he believed that Dr. Smith has the "integrity" to continue to work as a pathologist at the Hospital for Sick Children.
To fulfil this mandate he should have been permitted to visit Smith's working place, inspect his chaotic office where so many key forensic exhibits had been misplaced, to interview Dr. Smith in depth, to assess whether he had the requisite knowledge, capability and balance, and to interview his colleagues to get their views as to Dr. Smith's strengths, weaknesses and character.
I do not get the impression from Dr. Dimmick's letter that any of this was done - and I am confident that if these steps were taken, they would have been laid out thoroughly as is customary in reporting letters.
We are now aware that in 1997 Dr. Smith came under considerable criticism by other physicians and surgeons at the Hospital for erroneous interpretations of histological samples - and that he was struck from the surgical pathology roster until he completed an educational program - and that his salary was reduced accordingly.
We are also are aware that Both Deputy Chief Coroner James Cairns and former Chief Coroner Dr. James Young, testified that the Hospital did not inform them of Smith's flawed work, requirement to take courses, and reduction in his salary.
I am wondering if the Hospital communicated this information to Dr. Dimmick - so that he would be able to probe whether Dr. Smith had improved his knowledge in those areas where his interpretations had been flawed.
This Blogster personally believes that the Hospital's "outside" probe of Dr. Smith did not go nearly far enough - and makes me wonder whether the Hospital might be putting its own interest and that of Dr. Charles Smith before that of the public.
Just wondering!
Epilogue:
On Sept. 12, 2005, I reported in the Star that Dr. Smith had tendered his resignation and departed from the hospital in July.
The resignation was tendered just several weeks after June 7, 2005, when former Chief Coroner, Dr. Barry McLellan, announced an unprecedented review of all cases handled by Smith at the hospital since 1991 where he had performed an autopsy or provided an opinion.
Simeon said she was unable to say why Smith resigned because that information is confidential.
Dr. McLellan said he felt compelled to order the review, which will revisit the deaths of more than 40 children, "in order to maintain public confidence in the coroner's office."
On May 31, 2005, I reported in the Toronto Star that the missing exhibits from the Mullins-Johnson case had been found by officials from the Chief Coroner's office.
The missing exhibits had been found on top of Dr. Charles Smith's desk in his office at the Hospital's pathology department during an audit of forensic materials which had been ordered by then Chief Coroner Dr. Barry McLellan.
The story contained an interview with Hospital spokesperson Helen Simeon, who said that Dr. Smith had agreed to go on administrative leave pending a review by an "outside" pathologist.
Simeon, said Smith had been allowed to return to his work on non-criminal autopsies after the reviewer reported that Smith was doing a satisfactory job.
Simeon declined to identify the reviewer or release the report.
I have always wanted to see this report with a view to discovering how thorough the review process was - and whether it was sufficient to protect the public.
I was therefore intrigued to discover earlier today that the entire report was only four paragraphs long.
But first a little history.
In 2001, Smith was removed from the roster of forensic pathologists permitted to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths.
A year later, three complaints to the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons relating to his work in suspicious death cases were upheld.
Here is the letter:
It is addressed to Dr. Ronald Laxer, a Hospital for Sick Children Vice President, and runs under the heading Re Pediatric Surgical Pathology Review."
I was requested to review pediatric surgical pathology cases to determine the appropriateness of diagnoses made by Dr. Charles Smith and to form an opinion as to whether the overall performance of Dr. Smith based on this review, is at a level expected for a pathologist working in a pediatric hospital such as Sick Kids.
I have completed the review of 60 surgical pathology cases that in my estimation reflect a spectrum of challenging interpretations and that have, predominately, important implication for patient care. Foe each case I examined all pathology slides without knowledge of the content of Dr. Smith's report and formed a diagnostic opinion. After which, I studied the pathology report and compared my diagnosis with the reported diagnosis. On each case I scored for agreement, minor disagreements with no or minimal patient consequence, or major discordance with serious implication for patient care (as per scoring sheets provided).
Of the 60 surgical pathology cases I concur with Dr. Smith's diagnosis in 57. In the remaining three we disagree in a minor way that has no implications for patient care.
In general I find Dr. Smith's reports to be appropriately informative, thorough and diagnostically accurate. Extrapolating from this review, the process of which I believe to be appropriate assessment, I conclude that his performance is at a level expected for a pediatric pathologist in a sophisticated children's hospital dealing with complex diagnostics."
The letter is signed by James Dimmick, Consultant Pediatric Pathologist, Professor of Pathology and Laboratory medicine, University of British Columbia.
This Blogster is not questioning in any way the integrity of Dr. Dimmick's report.
My concern, however, is that given Dr. Smith's unfortunate history at the Hospital for Sick Children - on both forensic and non-forensic pathological matters - Dr. Dimmick should have been asked to do more than study microscopic slides.
Dr. Dimmick should have been instructed to report on whether he believed that Dr. Smith has the "integrity" to continue to work as a pathologist at the Hospital for Sick Children.
To fulfil this mandate he should have been permitted to visit Smith's working place, inspect his chaotic office where so many key forensic exhibits had been misplaced, to interview Dr. Smith in depth, to assess whether he had the requisite knowledge, capability and balance, and to interview his colleagues to get their views as to Dr. Smith's strengths, weaknesses and character.
I do not get the impression from Dr. Dimmick's letter that any of this was done - and I am confident that if these steps were taken, they would have been laid out thoroughly as is customary in reporting letters.
We are now aware that in 1997 Dr. Smith came under considerable criticism by other physicians and surgeons at the Hospital for erroneous interpretations of histological samples - and that he was struck from the surgical pathology roster until he completed an educational program - and that his salary was reduced accordingly.
We are also are aware that Both Deputy Chief Coroner James Cairns and former Chief Coroner Dr. James Young, testified that the Hospital did not inform them of Smith's flawed work, requirement to take courses, and reduction in his salary.
I am wondering if the Hospital communicated this information to Dr. Dimmick - so that he would be able to probe whether Dr. Smith had improved his knowledge in those areas where his interpretations had been flawed.
This Blogster personally believes that the Hospital's "outside" probe of Dr. Smith did not go nearly far enough - and makes me wonder whether the Hospital might be putting its own interest and that of Dr. Charles Smith before that of the public.
Just wondering!
Epilogue:
On Sept. 12, 2005, I reported in the Star that Dr. Smith had tendered his resignation and departed from the hospital in July.
The resignation was tendered just several weeks after June 7, 2005, when former Chief Coroner, Dr. Barry McLellan, announced an unprecedented review of all cases handled by Smith at the hospital since 1991 where he had performed an autopsy or provided an opinion.
Simeon said she was unable to say why Smith resigned because that information is confidential.
Dr. McLellan said he felt compelled to order the review, which will revisit the deaths of more than 40 children, "in order to maintain public confidence in the coroner's office."
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Goudge Inquiry: Transcript Of Cairn's Extraordinary Confrontation With Smith Over Conduct In Waudby Case At Meeting Requested By Smith's Wife;
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: DID YOU BELIEVE ANY ASPECT OF DR. SMITH'S DESCRIPTION OF THE EVENTS?
DR. CAIRNS: SADLY, I DID NOT.
Previous postings have detailed Smith's retention of the small, dark, curly, pubic, male-type hair in the Waudby case, the fact he had the hair with him in court (while denying knowledge of it under oath), discussions among police as to laying criminal charges against Smith, and Smith's claim that Dr. Huyer, a sexual abuse expert , had attended at baby Jenna's autopsy.
Dr. Cairns testified Tuesday that he disbelieved Smith's claim that Peterborough police would not accept the hair, that he did not believe Huyer was present at the autopsy, and that he was utterly shocked by Smith's behaviour - and that in spite of these revelations that went to the heart of Smith's integrity, he was permitted to continue doing other (non-criminal) work for the Coroner's Office.
The transcript of this extraordinary confrontation reads as follows: (I am reproducing it in its entirety for the reader's benefit:
Now, as at that stage, Dr. Cairns, had you
picked up the phone and called Dr. Smith about the hair?
DR.CAIRNS: To the best of my
knowledge, I had not spoken to Dr. Smith about the hair.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: We know that the
media, in fact, learned about the hair recovered from Dr.
Smith on February the 14th of 2002. You'll see that at
paragraph 147.
And do you remember that making its way
out into the public?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR. CAIRNS: I do.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And why do you
remember that, Dr. Cairns?
DR. CAIRNS: I remember it being
in the -- in the media and the -- obviously, the rumpus
that's caused being in the media.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And did it cause
not only a rumpus in the media, to use your language, but
some concern on the part of Dr. Smith or his spouse?
DR. CAIRNS: Whether it was that
day, but certainly following that, yes, it did cause
concern, I think, primarily perhaps, of Dr. Smith's wife
and also Dr. Smith.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: How do you know
that?
DR. CAIRNS: I can't give you the
date, but I did get a phone call from Dr. Smith's wife
objecting that the Office of the Chief Coroner -- myself
in particular -- were not supporting Dr. Smith. She felt
that that was unfair, and we should be supporting him.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Okay. Stopping
there for a moment. Dr. Smith's wife was a coroner?
DR. CAIRNS: That's correct.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: You knew her as a
result of her status as a coroner?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR. CAIRNS: I knew her as a
coroner, yes.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Did you have a
social relationship with Dr. Smith and his wife?
DR. CAIRNS: I had no social
relationship with either of them. I met -- I knew Dr.
Smith, pure and simply, through work.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And can you give us
your best recollection of what it was that Dr. Smith's
wife, Karen, said to you in that phone conversation?
DR. CAIRNS: Basically that she
did not feel the Office of the Chief Coroner and myself
were giving Charles the proper support he needed, as a
result of the furor in the media.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And what, if
anything, did you say to her in return, Dr. Cairns?
DR. CAIRNS: I said, I am more
than willing to meet with you and Dr. Smith, at a time of
your convenience, in my office to discuss that further.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: All right. And
you've told us that you can't pinpoint the date of the
call, but you remember it, do you, being after the media
first went public with the information about the hair?
DR. CAIRNS: It was after the
media went public, and it was before Jeff Mainland left
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Chief Coroner's Office to go to government.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: All right. And so
the best you can do, as I understand it, is place that
call somewhere between February 5th, 2002 and?
DR. CAIRNS: And April I think,
2002.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Mid April of 2002?
DR. CAIRNS: Yes, somewhere in
that range.
MR. BRIAN GOVER: I think it's the 14th
actually, as opposed to the 5th.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Did I say the 5th?
I'm -- I thought I said the 15th. All right. Thank you
very much. I meant the 14th.
CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And indeed the
meeting, how long after your telephone call with Dr.
Smith, being Dr. Charles Smith's wife, was your meeting
with him and her?
DR. CAIRNS: I can't give you an
exact interval, but it -- it would have been within a
reasonable length of time. It may have been a week, it
may have been ten (10) days. It probably was more
organized depending, since she was a practising
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
physician, on people's schedules.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Do you remember
what time of day it was?
DR. CAIRNS: It was the afternoon.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: It was at your
office, sir?
DR. CAIRNS: It was in my office.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Did you make any
notes?
DR. CAIRNS: I made no notes.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: How clear is your
recollection of that meeting?
DR. CAIRNS: My recollection is
very clear of that meeting, and I have confirmed my
recollection of the meeting with that of Jeff Mainland's
recollection of the meeting, and our -- our recollections
coincide.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Oh, sorry, I didn't
understand. Was Mr. Mainland also in attendance at that
meeting?
DR. CAIRNS: Mr. Mainland was at
that meeting, yes.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: All right. It's
helpful to know. And you since being asked to recall
this, had a conversation with Mr. Mainland about that
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
meeting? Is this recently?
DR. CAIRNS: Yeah, well yes,
certainly in -- in preparation for -- for testimony I had
a mee -- I've had a number of meetings with him, but in
preparation of this, I had a meeting with him.
And then in addition in terms of the
recall of my memory, and you'll probably come to it, but
you have shown me, a day or two (2) ago a document that
was contemporaneous at that time, which seems to reflect
the same recording -- the same recollection of the
meeting as I have now.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: All right. So
let's go through it. Just based on your recollection,
Dr. Cairns, refreshed by all of that, who did the
talking? Was it Dr. Karen Smith, is her last name Smith
by the way?
DR. CAIRNS: Her last name is
Smith also.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: All right. So was
it Dr. Karen Smith or Dr. Charles Smith, both of them?
DR. CAIRNS: It probably was
primarily myself with -- with them answering questions
that I put to them.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: All right. So how
did the meeting begin, what did you say to them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR. CAIRNS: The meeting began
with -- and this isn't verbatim, but we're very upset
that you're not supporting Charles, and why aren't you
supporting me. And I said, well Charles, the information
I have at this time, is at the time you did the original
on -- autopsy on Jenna, that -- information now that you
discovered a hair or a fibre or some object of that
nature in the vaginal area of Jenna.
And you have indicated and have confirmed
with the police that you took that hair or fibre, and
their police identification officer refused to take that
from you. I said, I find that a preposterous
proposition. I just cannot understand that at all. The
identification officer is from Peterborough, so it's not
-- he's not the number one (1) Forensic IDENT Officer in
the world, and my -- it always has been my -- my belief -
- it's -- well, I've seen in action is if a pathologist
asks an IDENT officer to take a specimen, they take it.
So I -- I just am having great difficulty
with the statement that he refused to take it. And if he
refused to take it for some bizarre reason, I would have
thought, given your experience, that you would have been
immediately on the phone to his superior or immediately
on the phone to Dr. Chiasson, or myself saying, What do I
do, I've got someone here who -- who will not take --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
take a specimen.
And he said, Well no, he refused to take
it, so I kept it. And I said, Well that's an extremely
serious issue. Where do you have it in your report, your
autopsy report that that occurred?
He said, It's not in my autopsy report. I
said, Do you have rough notes that indicate that? He
said, No, I have no rough notes. So therefore in turn, I
said, Do you not feel that the critical situation at that
-- and I've got great difficulty with the fact that --
that you're telling me he wouldn't take it, but would
that not cause you to put a huge note in massive letters
and highlighted to -- to that effect?
And yet you're telling me -- well I looked
at your autopsy report, which I had done, I can see no
reference to it at all, and I'm asking you about rough
notes, because I do realize that sometimes pathologists
will have rough notes and -- now, even if it had been in
rough notes, it would have been such a significant issue
I would have expected it to be transcribed into the
report, and I was told, No, I don't have rough notes.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: How long was the
meeting?
DR. CAIRNS: Oh, the meeting
probably was two (2), two and a half (2 1/2) hours and it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
went on then -- I said, Well, Dr. Smith, I've read the
transcript of your evidence at the preliminary hearing,
and in fact during that evidence you were asked, and this
may not be verbatim, Were you aware that the night before
when Jenna was taken to hospital in Peterborough that the
Emergency physician, and I think the nurse, both were
concerned that Jenna may have been sexually assaulted and
they both have documented they thought there was a pubic
hair in the vaginal region.
And you were asked by counsel, I think it
was the Crown, if you had known that would that have made
a difference to your examination the next day. And the
answer was, Yes, it -- it would. And I said, Well,
Charles, how can say that in light -- at that time?
And then he said, Well, actually, not only
did I keep -- did I keep the hair, but I had it in an
envelope in my jacket pocket at the preliminary hearing.
So this is getting stranger and stranger. You admit that
nobody would take it, you had it, and when I read your
evidence, if I accept that nobody wanted this hair, when
you are asked that direct question about do you know that
the Emerg physician saw this hair and would that have
helped, I'm sorry, to me that would be a crying out help:
Here I have it; the hair is here. And you didn't do it -
- to which there was no answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: So how did you feel
about all of this, Dr. Cairns?
DR. CAIRNS: I probably was
feeling the same way as many people in this room who
haven't heard this before was feeling; I just couldn't
understand it. There was then some further discussion
that he thought Dirk Huyer was at the autopsy with him.
And I said, Well, where is that in your
report? It's not in the report. Where is that in your
rough notes? I don't have rough notes. So I was having
difficulty with that, as well.
I know Dirk Huyer; he's on the SCAN Team.
He -- also on the SCAN Team does do a lot of work with
sexual assaults or potential sexual assaults. And I know
that the sexual assault kits that are used that it is
paramount that you collect everything, whether it becomes
of evidentiary value or not later is a different issue.
So if I find it incredulous that Dr. Smith wouldn't do
it, I find it even more incredulous that Dr. Huyer would
not have -- would -- would not have ta -- taken the hair.
And in addition, if you find a hair there,
that would mandate -- and I think I've just -- I've
talked to this with many other people. So I -- I -- I
used to do sexual assault examinations when I was in the
-- Emerg physician.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if there's any doubt, it would also
include the necessity to do rectal swabs, vaginal swabs,
mouth swabs, the whole sex kit caboodle, which was not
done, and therefore, it con -- it -- it seemed to
reinforce in my mind that Dr. Huyer had not been there.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Did you believe any
aspect of Dr. Smith's description of the events?
DR. CAIRNS: Sadly, I did not.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And was this the
first occasion in your relationship with Dr. Smith where
you came to the conclusion that he ought not to be
believed?
DR. CAIRNS: That's correct.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And what effect, if
any, did that have on your confidence in his work as a
forensic pathologist?
DR. CAIRNS: As a forensic
pathologist, I thought his time as a forensic pathologist
was gone.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: What did you do
about that?
DR. CAIRNS: He didn't do anymore
forensic pathology; he still continued doing the hospital
type. And there was a discussion about it with that --
with everyone and everybody felt continued -- since he
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
was allowed to do hospital autopsies at Sick Kids, we
felt he could still do hospital type autopsies under a
coroner's warrant at Sick Kid.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: But help me with
this Dr. Cairns. As of April 2002, when you have this
very difficult conversation with Dr. Smith and his wife.
Dr. Smith has been removed indefinitely from doing
criminal suspicious and homicide cases. Am I correct?
DR. CAIRNS: That's correct.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And there was no
expectation that he was ever going to do them in the
future, am I correct?
DR. CAIRNS: That's correct.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: So what additional
steps were taken by you or anyone else as a result of the
concerns about Dr. Smith's integrity that you've told us
you had following this meeting?
DR. CAIRNS: He was only allowed
to do medical-type cases.
1 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: That was the
22 situation before the meeting as well, sir.
23 DR. CAIRNS: That's correct. So
24 the type of case before the meeting and after the meeting
25 had not changed. I wouldn't say after the meeting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
because obviously the content of the meeting was
discussed with other members of the Chief Coroner's
Office.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: You weren't alone
in this; you're making that clear?
DR. CAIRNS: I -- I made clear to
others the conversation that we had.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Right. But he was
not removed from the PDRC?
DR. CAIRNS: He was not removed
from the PDRC.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: He was not removed
from the Death Under Two Committee?
DR. CAIRNS: He was not removed
from the Death Under Two Committee.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: He continued to do
coroner's cases albeit not criminally suspicious and
homicide cases?
DR. CAIRNS: That's correct.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And he continued to
hold his title as the Director of Ontario's OPFPU?
DR. CAIRNS: That is correct.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Nothing changed
after that meeting?
DR. CAIRNS: That is correct.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Why not?
DR. THOMAS CAIRNS: It's a very good
question, Commissioner. I -- I can only tell you what
did or didn't happen.
It was felt that he was already muzzled;
that he wasn't doing anything; that he was -- he was
competent to do hospital autopsies and the only type of
autopsies he would be doing would be hospital autopsies,
but they'd be under a coroner's warrant. So it was felt
he was strictly enough controlled that it was not going
to cause an issue.
In addition, at that time, and this may
have played some role in it, the whole issue about this
hair was very much involved in a highly significant
criminal investigation and more details about that hair
were going to have to be analyzed. So there was some
thought also of not wanting to have this in a public
forum until we also knew what was happening with the
investigation of -- of Jenna's death.
CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: So you were
concerned that taking further steps, at least publicly,
to restrict Dr. Smith's activities would play adversely
in the ongoing Jenna case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that what you're saying, sir?
DR. CAIRNS: At that time, this
hair was having a major, major play-out in the
significance of the Jenna case, with many people saying
that if this had been given to the police at the first
autopsy that this whole issue would have been completely
resolved and that that hair would have solved the case,
period.
And so, we were focusing on going ahead
with that, and we did not want anything to be interfering
while that was ongoing.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Dr. Cairns, you
just told the Commissioner that it was felt that you
could control the work of Dr. Smith in the non-criminally
con -- criminally suspicious cases.
My question for you, sir, is: How does
one control the work of someone whose integrity one
doubts?
DR. CAIRNS: Well, I think with
hindsight, you have got a very good question to which I
would accept.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: You accept that
it's very difficult to do?
DR. CAIRNS: Yes, I do.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And that, indeed,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
more was likely called for?
DR. CAIRNS: Yes.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: At that stage?
DR. CAIRNS: Yes, I agree.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: All right.
Harold Levy; hlevy15@gmail.com;
DR. CAIRNS: SADLY, I DID NOT.
Previous postings have detailed Smith's retention of the small, dark, curly, pubic, male-type hair in the Waudby case, the fact he had the hair with him in court (while denying knowledge of it under oath), discussions among police as to laying criminal charges against Smith, and Smith's claim that Dr. Huyer, a sexual abuse expert , had attended at baby Jenna's autopsy.
Dr. Cairns testified Tuesday that he disbelieved Smith's claim that Peterborough police would not accept the hair, that he did not believe Huyer was present at the autopsy, and that he was utterly shocked by Smith's behaviour - and that in spite of these revelations that went to the heart of Smith's integrity, he was permitted to continue doing other (non-criminal) work for the Coroner's Office.
The transcript of this extraordinary confrontation reads as follows: (I am reproducing it in its entirety for the reader's benefit:
Now, as at that stage, Dr. Cairns, had you
picked up the phone and called Dr. Smith about the hair?
DR.CAIRNS: To the best of my
knowledge, I had not spoken to Dr. Smith about the hair.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: We know that the
media, in fact, learned about the hair recovered from Dr.
Smith on February the 14th of 2002. You'll see that at
paragraph 147.
And do you remember that making its way
out into the public?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR. CAIRNS: I do.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And why do you
remember that, Dr. Cairns?
DR. CAIRNS: I remember it being
in the -- in the media and the -- obviously, the rumpus
that's caused being in the media.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And did it cause
not only a rumpus in the media, to use your language, but
some concern on the part of Dr. Smith or his spouse?
DR. CAIRNS: Whether it was that
day, but certainly following that, yes, it did cause
concern, I think, primarily perhaps, of Dr. Smith's wife
and also Dr. Smith.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: How do you know
that?
DR. CAIRNS: I can't give you the
date, but I did get a phone call from Dr. Smith's wife
objecting that the Office of the Chief Coroner -- myself
in particular -- were not supporting Dr. Smith. She felt
that that was unfair, and we should be supporting him.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Okay. Stopping
there for a moment. Dr. Smith's wife was a coroner?
DR. CAIRNS: That's correct.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: You knew her as a
result of her status as a coroner?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR. CAIRNS: I knew her as a
coroner, yes.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Did you have a
social relationship with Dr. Smith and his wife?
DR. CAIRNS: I had no social
relationship with either of them. I met -- I knew Dr.
Smith, pure and simply, through work.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And can you give us
your best recollection of what it was that Dr. Smith's
wife, Karen, said to you in that phone conversation?
DR. CAIRNS: Basically that she
did not feel the Office of the Chief Coroner and myself
were giving Charles the proper support he needed, as a
result of the furor in the media.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And what, if
anything, did you say to her in return, Dr. Cairns?
DR. CAIRNS: I said, I am more
than willing to meet with you and Dr. Smith, at a time of
your convenience, in my office to discuss that further.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: All right. And
you've told us that you can't pinpoint the date of the
call, but you remember it, do you, being after the media
first went public with the information about the hair?
DR. CAIRNS: It was after the
media went public, and it was before Jeff Mainland left
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Chief Coroner's Office to go to government.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: All right. And so
the best you can do, as I understand it, is place that
call somewhere between February 5th, 2002 and?
DR. CAIRNS: And April I think,
2002.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Mid April of 2002?
DR. CAIRNS: Yes, somewhere in
that range.
MR. BRIAN GOVER: I think it's the 14th
actually, as opposed to the 5th.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Did I say the 5th?
I'm -- I thought I said the 15th. All right. Thank you
very much. I meant the 14th.
CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And indeed the
meeting, how long after your telephone call with Dr.
Smith, being Dr. Charles Smith's wife, was your meeting
with him and her?
DR. CAIRNS: I can't give you an
exact interval, but it -- it would have been within a
reasonable length of time. It may have been a week, it
may have been ten (10) days. It probably was more
organized depending, since she was a practising
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
physician, on people's schedules.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Do you remember
what time of day it was?
DR. CAIRNS: It was the afternoon.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: It was at your
office, sir?
DR. CAIRNS: It was in my office.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Did you make any
notes?
DR. CAIRNS: I made no notes.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: How clear is your
recollection of that meeting?
DR. CAIRNS: My recollection is
very clear of that meeting, and I have confirmed my
recollection of the meeting with that of Jeff Mainland's
recollection of the meeting, and our -- our recollections
coincide.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Oh, sorry, I didn't
understand. Was Mr. Mainland also in attendance at that
meeting?
DR. CAIRNS: Mr. Mainland was at
that meeting, yes.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: All right. It's
helpful to know. And you since being asked to recall
this, had a conversation with Mr. Mainland about that
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
meeting? Is this recently?
DR. CAIRNS: Yeah, well yes,
certainly in -- in preparation for -- for testimony I had
a mee -- I've had a number of meetings with him, but in
preparation of this, I had a meeting with him.
And then in addition in terms of the
recall of my memory, and you'll probably come to it, but
you have shown me, a day or two (2) ago a document that
was contemporaneous at that time, which seems to reflect
the same recording -- the same recollection of the
meeting as I have now.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: All right. So
let's go through it. Just based on your recollection,
Dr. Cairns, refreshed by all of that, who did the
talking? Was it Dr. Karen Smith, is her last name Smith
by the way?
DR. CAIRNS: Her last name is
Smith also.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: All right. So was
it Dr. Karen Smith or Dr. Charles Smith, both of them?
DR. CAIRNS: It probably was
primarily myself with -- with them answering questions
that I put to them.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: All right. So how
did the meeting begin, what did you say to them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR. CAIRNS: The meeting began
with -- and this isn't verbatim, but we're very upset
that you're not supporting Charles, and why aren't you
supporting me. And I said, well Charles, the information
I have at this time, is at the time you did the original
on -- autopsy on Jenna, that -- information now that you
discovered a hair or a fibre or some object of that
nature in the vaginal area of Jenna.
And you have indicated and have confirmed
with the police that you took that hair or fibre, and
their police identification officer refused to take that
from you. I said, I find that a preposterous
proposition. I just cannot understand that at all. The
identification officer is from Peterborough, so it's not
-- he's not the number one (1) Forensic IDENT Officer in
the world, and my -- it always has been my -- my belief -
- it's -- well, I've seen in action is if a pathologist
asks an IDENT officer to take a specimen, they take it.
So I -- I just am having great difficulty
with the statement that he refused to take it. And if he
refused to take it for some bizarre reason, I would have
thought, given your experience, that you would have been
immediately on the phone to his superior or immediately
on the phone to Dr. Chiasson, or myself saying, What do I
do, I've got someone here who -- who will not take --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
take a specimen.
And he said, Well no, he refused to take
it, so I kept it. And I said, Well that's an extremely
serious issue. Where do you have it in your report, your
autopsy report that that occurred?
He said, It's not in my autopsy report. I
said, Do you have rough notes that indicate that? He
said, No, I have no rough notes. So therefore in turn, I
said, Do you not feel that the critical situation at that
-- and I've got great difficulty with the fact that --
that you're telling me he wouldn't take it, but would
that not cause you to put a huge note in massive letters
and highlighted to -- to that effect?
And yet you're telling me -- well I looked
at your autopsy report, which I had done, I can see no
reference to it at all, and I'm asking you about rough
notes, because I do realize that sometimes pathologists
will have rough notes and -- now, even if it had been in
rough notes, it would have been such a significant issue
I would have expected it to be transcribed into the
report, and I was told, No, I don't have rough notes.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: How long was the
meeting?
DR. CAIRNS: Oh, the meeting
probably was two (2), two and a half (2 1/2) hours and it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
went on then -- I said, Well, Dr. Smith, I've read the
transcript of your evidence at the preliminary hearing,
and in fact during that evidence you were asked, and this
may not be verbatim, Were you aware that the night before
when Jenna was taken to hospital in Peterborough that the
Emergency physician, and I think the nurse, both were
concerned that Jenna may have been sexually assaulted and
they both have documented they thought there was a pubic
hair in the vaginal region.
And you were asked by counsel, I think it
was the Crown, if you had known that would that have made
a difference to your examination the next day. And the
answer was, Yes, it -- it would. And I said, Well,
Charles, how can say that in light -- at that time?
And then he said, Well, actually, not only
did I keep -- did I keep the hair, but I had it in an
envelope in my jacket pocket at the preliminary hearing.
So this is getting stranger and stranger. You admit that
nobody would take it, you had it, and when I read your
evidence, if I accept that nobody wanted this hair, when
you are asked that direct question about do you know that
the Emerg physician saw this hair and would that have
helped, I'm sorry, to me that would be a crying out help:
Here I have it; the hair is here. And you didn't do it -
- to which there was no answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: So how did you feel
about all of this, Dr. Cairns?
DR. CAIRNS: I probably was
feeling the same way as many people in this room who
haven't heard this before was feeling; I just couldn't
understand it. There was then some further discussion
that he thought Dirk Huyer was at the autopsy with him.
And I said, Well, where is that in your
report? It's not in the report. Where is that in your
rough notes? I don't have rough notes. So I was having
difficulty with that, as well.
I know Dirk Huyer; he's on the SCAN Team.
He -- also on the SCAN Team does do a lot of work with
sexual assaults or potential sexual assaults. And I know
that the sexual assault kits that are used that it is
paramount that you collect everything, whether it becomes
of evidentiary value or not later is a different issue.
So if I find it incredulous that Dr. Smith wouldn't do
it, I find it even more incredulous that Dr. Huyer would
not have -- would -- would not have ta -- taken the hair.
And in addition, if you find a hair there,
that would mandate -- and I think I've just -- I've
talked to this with many other people. So I -- I -- I
used to do sexual assault examinations when I was in the
-- Emerg physician.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if there's any doubt, it would also
include the necessity to do rectal swabs, vaginal swabs,
mouth swabs, the whole sex kit caboodle, which was not
done, and therefore, it con -- it -- it seemed to
reinforce in my mind that Dr. Huyer had not been there.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Did you believe any
aspect of Dr. Smith's description of the events?
DR. CAIRNS: Sadly, I did not.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And was this the
first occasion in your relationship with Dr. Smith where
you came to the conclusion that he ought not to be
believed?
DR. CAIRNS: That's correct.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And what effect, if
any, did that have on your confidence in his work as a
forensic pathologist?
DR. CAIRNS: As a forensic
pathologist, I thought his time as a forensic pathologist
was gone.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: What did you do
about that?
DR. CAIRNS: He didn't do anymore
forensic pathology; he still continued doing the hospital
type. And there was a discussion about it with that --
with everyone and everybody felt continued -- since he
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
was allowed to do hospital autopsies at Sick Kids, we
felt he could still do hospital type autopsies under a
coroner's warrant at Sick Kid.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: But help me with
this Dr. Cairns. As of April 2002, when you have this
very difficult conversation with Dr. Smith and his wife.
Dr. Smith has been removed indefinitely from doing
criminal suspicious and homicide cases. Am I correct?
DR. CAIRNS: That's correct.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And there was no
expectation that he was ever going to do them in the
future, am I correct?
DR. CAIRNS: That's correct.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: So what additional
steps were taken by you or anyone else as a result of the
concerns about Dr. Smith's integrity that you've told us
you had following this meeting?
DR. CAIRNS: He was only allowed
to do medical-type cases.
1 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: That was the
22 situation before the meeting as well, sir.
23 DR. CAIRNS: That's correct. So
24 the type of case before the meeting and after the meeting
25 had not changed. I wouldn't say after the meeting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
because obviously the content of the meeting was
discussed with other members of the Chief Coroner's
Office.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: You weren't alone
in this; you're making that clear?
DR. CAIRNS: I -- I made clear to
others the conversation that we had.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Right. But he was
not removed from the PDRC?
DR. CAIRNS: He was not removed
from the PDRC.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: He was not removed
from the Death Under Two Committee?
DR. CAIRNS: He was not removed
from the Death Under Two Committee.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: He continued to do
coroner's cases albeit not criminally suspicious and
homicide cases?
DR. CAIRNS: That's correct.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And he continued to
hold his title as the Director of Ontario's OPFPU?
DR. CAIRNS: That is correct.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Nothing changed
after that meeting?
DR. CAIRNS: That is correct.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Why not?
DR. THOMAS CAIRNS: It's a very good
question, Commissioner. I -- I can only tell you what
did or didn't happen.
It was felt that he was already muzzled;
that he wasn't doing anything; that he was -- he was
competent to do hospital autopsies and the only type of
autopsies he would be doing would be hospital autopsies,
but they'd be under a coroner's warrant. So it was felt
he was strictly enough controlled that it was not going
to cause an issue.
In addition, at that time, and this may
have played some role in it, the whole issue about this
hair was very much involved in a highly significant
criminal investigation and more details about that hair
were going to have to be analyzed. So there was some
thought also of not wanting to have this in a public
forum until we also knew what was happening with the
investigation of -- of Jenna's death.
CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: So you were
concerned that taking further steps, at least publicly,
to restrict Dr. Smith's activities would play adversely
in the ongoing Jenna case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that what you're saying, sir?
DR. CAIRNS: At that time, this
hair was having a major, major play-out in the
significance of the Jenna case, with many people saying
that if this had been given to the police at the first
autopsy that this whole issue would have been completely
resolved and that that hair would have solved the case,
period.
And so, we were focusing on going ahead
with that, and we did not want anything to be interfering
while that was ongoing.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Dr. Cairns, you
just told the Commissioner that it was felt that you
could control the work of Dr. Smith in the non-criminally
con -- criminally suspicious cases.
My question for you, sir, is: How does
one control the work of someone whose integrity one
doubts?
DR. CAIRNS: Well, I think with
hindsight, you have got a very good question to which I
would accept.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: You accept that
it's very difficult to do?
DR. CAIRNS: Yes, I do.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: And that, indeed,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
more was likely called for?
DR. CAIRNS: Yes.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: At that stage?
DR. CAIRNS: Yes, I agree.
MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: All right.
Harold Levy; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Goudge Inquiry: Sucked in by Dr. Smith's Sincerity And Religious Goodness: A Seductive but Dangerous Explanation;
Dr. James Cairns testified Tuesday that he was not the only one to place Dr. Charles Smith on a pedestal.
"Having read many court transcripts, I feel my opinion was shared by many defence lawyers and Crown attorneys; by many judges; and by many in the media," he told Commissioner Stephen Goudge.
But there is one very important difference between Dr. Cairns who served and the others he suggests were also blinded to Dr. Smith's faults:
Dr. Cairns had the direct responsibility of protecting the public from the actions of those under him - the others did not.
We are being asked to believe that Dr. Smith was some sort of Svengali who had almost supernatural powers which he used to prevent his superiors from exercising their important responsibilities
This is a seductive, but dangerous explanation.
It should not be allowed to detract from the positions of public trust Dr. Cairns and other officials of the Chief Coroner's office occupied.
Nor should it stop us - and the Goudge Inquiry - from attempting to discern if there are any other reasons why Dr. Smith was not brought to account.
This Blogster has a pet theory - which may or may not be borne out by the evidence.
As the the list of Charles Smith disasters began piling up in the late-1990's, the Coroner's office woke up to the distressing fact that it had allowed Dr. Smith to handle virtually every serious suspicious death of a child case since 1991 - and had placed him on the "pedestal" that Dr. Cairns referred to in his evidence.
In short, they had placed all their eggs in one basket.
Once word got out about Dr. Smith's disastrous performance in any one case - his performance in every case he had been involved in would come into question.
From that point on, the media would be up in arms, the government would feel the heat, there would be endless civil lawsuits and criminal appeals, and, worse, the work of the Chief Coroner's office over these years when the miscarriages were piling up, would come under intense, critical scrutiny.
Ironically, because no action was taken against Smith, this is precisely what eventually took place; Former Chief Coroner, Dr. Barry McLellan ordered his independent review of 45 suspicious death cases to restore "public confidence" in the chief coroner's office; Attorney General Michael Bryant established the public inquiry now under way; civil cases against the police, the government and the coroner's office abound; and the Ontario Court already has so many appeals it could set up its own Charles Smith courtroom.
I underline the point that this is just a theory - not backed up by any evidence called thus far at the inquiry.
But it makes more sense to me than the explanation that Dr. Smith hoodwinked so many powerful people into thinking he was God and overlooking evidence staring them in the face that he was in utterly over his head, and leaving behind an ever-growing trail of miscarriages of justice.
Harold Levy; hlevy15@gmail.com;
"Having read many court transcripts, I feel my opinion was shared by many defence lawyers and Crown attorneys; by many judges; and by many in the media," he told Commissioner Stephen Goudge.
But there is one very important difference between Dr. Cairns who served and the others he suggests were also blinded to Dr. Smith's faults:
Dr. Cairns had the direct responsibility of protecting the public from the actions of those under him - the others did not.
We are being asked to believe that Dr. Smith was some sort of Svengali who had almost supernatural powers which he used to prevent his superiors from exercising their important responsibilities
This is a seductive, but dangerous explanation.
It should not be allowed to detract from the positions of public trust Dr. Cairns and other officials of the Chief Coroner's office occupied.
Nor should it stop us - and the Goudge Inquiry - from attempting to discern if there are any other reasons why Dr. Smith was not brought to account.
This Blogster has a pet theory - which may or may not be borne out by the evidence.
As the the list of Charles Smith disasters began piling up in the late-1990's, the Coroner's office woke up to the distressing fact that it had allowed Dr. Smith to handle virtually every serious suspicious death of a child case since 1991 - and had placed him on the "pedestal" that Dr. Cairns referred to in his evidence.
In short, they had placed all their eggs in one basket.
Once word got out about Dr. Smith's disastrous performance in any one case - his performance in every case he had been involved in would come into question.
From that point on, the media would be up in arms, the government would feel the heat, there would be endless civil lawsuits and criminal appeals, and, worse, the work of the Chief Coroner's office over these years when the miscarriages were piling up, would come under intense, critical scrutiny.
Ironically, because no action was taken against Smith, this is precisely what eventually took place; Former Chief Coroner, Dr. Barry McLellan ordered his independent review of 45 suspicious death cases to restore "public confidence" in the chief coroner's office; Attorney General Michael Bryant established the public inquiry now under way; civil cases against the police, the government and the coroner's office abound; and the Ontario Court already has so many appeals it could set up its own Charles Smith courtroom.
I underline the point that this is just a theory - not backed up by any evidence called thus far at the inquiry.
But it makes more sense to me than the explanation that Dr. Smith hoodwinked so many powerful people into thinking he was God and overlooking evidence staring them in the face that he was in utterly over his head, and leaving behind an ever-growing trail of miscarriages of justice.
Harold Levy; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Goudge Inquiry: Dr. Charles Randal Smith; The Icon and The Sincere, Religious Individual;
HE CAME ACROSS AS A VERY SINCERE, RELIGIOUS INDIVIDUAL;
DR. JAMES CAIRNS TO THE GOUDGE INQUIRY.
One of the most telling moments thus far at the inquiry occurred yesterday (Tuesday) when Justice Goudge asked Dr. Cairns whether there could be an effective peer review, "of the icon in the field."
The following exchange ensued:
DR. CAIRNS: I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's -- it's very difficult when you get to icon status to -- to take people down from that icon status.
COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Given all you know over the last fifteen (15) years about Dr. Smith's flaws, what is your explanation for how he
maintained that iconic status so long?
DR. CAIRNS: I don't have a good one. I -- I'll say this, and it -- it may be unfair. He came across as a very sincere, religious individual. And perhaps people put -- sorry, I put too much emphasis on his religious aspect. I should know better, I'm from Northern Ireland, but that's beside the point...
"I felt that his religious aspect made it unlikely that he wasn't telling the truth."
Dr. Cairns reverence towards Charles Smith was captured in the pivotal Macleans Magazine article entitles, "Dead Wrong: How the faulty findings of an eminent pathologist led to erroneous charges and ruined lives," published on May 14, 2001;
"Cairns, who has worked closely with Smith for a decade, calls him "a wonderful asset" in the investigation of child deaths.
"He's a friend. I admire his work and he is greatly admired at the Hospital for Sick Children," Cairns told Maclean's.
"He's done a tremendous amount of good over the years. His sincerity is beyond reproach."
Smith himself did not respond to numerous interview requests from Maclean's.
Cairns said the recent controversies have taken a toll on Smith.
"He's not one of these Teflon people who says I don't give a damn what people say," said Cairns.
He noted that his colleague had been involved in many successful legal cases..."
Dr. Cairns relationship with Charles Smith - in the context of the Maclean's article - came up in yesterday's evidence.
As reported by Globe and Mail reporter Kirk Makin, in a story headed, "Deputy Chief Coroner stood behind Smith's "strange" actions:
"Dr. Cairns also testified that he had no social relationship with Dr. Smith, only to be confronted with a quote from an unpublished 2001 media interview in which he described Dr. Smith as a personal friend.
How could Dr. Cairns purport to review his work objectively? Ms. Rothstein asked.
"It not only should have disqualified me, it probably should have disqualified the whole office," Dr. Cairns said."O'Hara also delves into the religious facets of Dr. Smith's life.
"Most Sundays, Smith is a pillar of another community," she writes.
"He is an elder in a newly formed evangelical congregation that meets in a high-school auditorium in Richmond Hill, 30 km north of Toronto.
Two years ago, Smith and his wife, Karen -- a family doctor and part-time coroner in nearby Aurora -- left their old parish and volunteered to help start this satellite church as part of their mission to bring new converts to the Christian & Missionary Alliance.
It's a Christian denomination that emphasizes "world evangelization" and boasts 2.5 million followers in 40 countries.
While Charles Smith chats with churchgoers after the service, Karen sells audiotapes of the pastor's sermon."
In a Curriculum Vitae prepared for use in court, Dr. Smith lists the following entries under the heading, "other community activities," and the sub-heading, "Registered charitable organizations":
Member of Board of Elders of Bayview Glen Church (1981 - 1994);
Member of Board of Directors of Missionary Health Institute (1982 - );
This humble Blogster finds it somewhat strange that a C.V. prepared for use in court - in the context of the expert qualification process - would list religious affiliations.
DR. JAMES CAIRNS TO THE GOUDGE INQUIRY.
One of the most telling moments thus far at the inquiry occurred yesterday (Tuesday) when Justice Goudge asked Dr. Cairns whether there could be an effective peer review, "of the icon in the field."
The following exchange ensued:
DR. CAIRNS: I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's -- it's very difficult when you get to icon status to -- to take people down from that icon status.
COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Given all you know over the last fifteen (15) years about Dr. Smith's flaws, what is your explanation for how he
maintained that iconic status so long?
DR. CAIRNS: I don't have a good one. I -- I'll say this, and it -- it may be unfair. He came across as a very sincere, religious individual. And perhaps people put -- sorry, I put too much emphasis on his religious aspect. I should know better, I'm from Northern Ireland, but that's beside the point...
"I felt that his religious aspect made it unlikely that he wasn't telling the truth."
Dr. Cairns reverence towards Charles Smith was captured in the pivotal Macleans Magazine article entitles, "Dead Wrong: How the faulty findings of an eminent pathologist led to erroneous charges and ruined lives," published on May 14, 2001;
"Cairns, who has worked closely with Smith for a decade, calls him "a wonderful asset" in the investigation of child deaths.
"He's a friend. I admire his work and he is greatly admired at the Hospital for Sick Children," Cairns told Maclean's.
"He's done a tremendous amount of good over the years. His sincerity is beyond reproach."
Smith himself did not respond to numerous interview requests from Maclean's.
Cairns said the recent controversies have taken a toll on Smith.
"He's not one of these Teflon people who says I don't give a damn what people say," said Cairns.
He noted that his colleague had been involved in many successful legal cases..."
Dr. Cairns relationship with Charles Smith - in the context of the Maclean's article - came up in yesterday's evidence.
As reported by Globe and Mail reporter Kirk Makin, in a story headed, "Deputy Chief Coroner stood behind Smith's "strange" actions:
"Dr. Cairns also testified that he had no social relationship with Dr. Smith, only to be confronted with a quote from an unpublished 2001 media interview in which he described Dr. Smith as a personal friend.
How could Dr. Cairns purport to review his work objectively? Ms. Rothstein asked.
"It not only should have disqualified me, it probably should have disqualified the whole office," Dr. Cairns said."O'Hara also delves into the religious facets of Dr. Smith's life.
"Most Sundays, Smith is a pillar of another community," she writes.
"He is an elder in a newly formed evangelical congregation that meets in a high-school auditorium in Richmond Hill, 30 km north of Toronto.
Two years ago, Smith and his wife, Karen -- a family doctor and part-time coroner in nearby Aurora -- left their old parish and volunteered to help start this satellite church as part of their mission to bring new converts to the Christian & Missionary Alliance.
It's a Christian denomination that emphasizes "world evangelization" and boasts 2.5 million followers in 40 countries.
While Charles Smith chats with churchgoers after the service, Karen sells audiotapes of the pastor's sermon."
In a Curriculum Vitae prepared for use in court, Dr. Smith lists the following entries under the heading, "other community activities," and the sub-heading, "Registered charitable organizations":
Member of Board of Elders of Bayview Glen Church (1981 - 1994);
Member of Board of Directors of Missionary Health Institute (1982 - );
This humble Blogster finds it somewhat strange that a C.V. prepared for use in court - in the context of the expert qualification process - would list religious affiliations.
Goudge Inquiry: Dr. Smith's Office; Part Two: The photo;
This is the photo of Dr. Smith's office taken by a staff member of the Hospital for Sick Children in 2001.
It was filed as an exhibit at the Inquiry.
(See previous posting: Dr. Smith's office);
Harold Levy; hlevy15@gmail.com;
It was filed as an exhibit at the Inquiry.
(See previous posting: Dr. Smith's office);
Harold Levy; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Goudge Inquiry: Dr. Smith's Office;
"STATE ACTORS HAVE A DUTY TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE, AS A NECESSARY ELEMENT OF THE ACCUSED'S RIGHT TO MAKE FULL ANSWER AND DEFENCE AND THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL...;
JUSTICE BRIAN TRAFFORD: KPORWODU AND VENO;"
Photographs of Dr. Charles Smith's office at the Hospital for Sick Children taken in 2001 reveal a horrific mess.
As Deputy Chief Coroner Dr. James Cairns described in his evidence yesterday, "It was the most untidy office that I've seen."
"I know that there are people who are excellent that although it looks chaotic, they know everything's in its right place and don't touch it, because they know where to find it" Cairns added. "I did not get the impression that this was organized chaos."
Dr. Cairns also noted that although all of the pathologists at the Hospital had "cubby-holes" for offices, "the other offices were not in the same state of disarray."
This was the same office where officials from the Chief Coroner's office found the long missing forensic exhibits in the Mullins-Johnson case after searching for days. (The only evidence that could show William Mullins-Johnson was Innocent);
This was the same evidence where Dr. Smith had kept the dark, curly, male pubic hair, he had held on to for years in the Waudby case - evidence that possibly would have implicated at the outset the teenage babysitter who later pleaded guilty.
This humble bloggist has seen crime scenes that were more orderly during his career as a reporter for the Toronto Star.
As reporter Tom Blackwell wrote yesterday in the National Post, the photos, introduced into evidence yesterday,reveal Smith's office at the Hospital for Sick Children as, "a room over-flowing with files, loose papers and tissue-sample slides."
"Somewhere in that desk top jumble a key piece of evidence gathered by the pathologist went missing for four years."
This evidence is important for what it reveals about Dr. Smith: an apparent indifference to the pathologist's supremely important duty to properly document, preserve and protect evidence for use in Court;
But it also raises serious questions about the Hospital for Sick Children, the Chief Coroner's office and the Ontario Government.
Smith's Superior's and colleagues - who were well aware of the importance of his work for the Chief Coroner's office - must have been in that office countless times during the more than the many years he was on the Hospital Staff.
How could they not have been aware that Dr. Smith's scattered working conditions could impact negatively on his important work and require him to cleanup his act?
Dr. Cairns testified that he had been at the Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit at the Hospital many times.
Why wouldn't he have realized there was a serious problem here and taken serious steps to clean it up - especially after reports began mounting that Dr. Smith was failing to produce reports in a timely fashion, was losing key forensic evidence, and that he had stopped returning phone calls from police officers, prosecutors and coroners?
Dr. Cairns testified that the Hospital viewed the matter as a problem of resources and was seeking more money from the government to improve the situation.
Since Dr. Smith was a staff member of the Pathology Department why didn't his superiors at the Hospital take administrative action to rein in Dr. Smith?
And what about the Ontario government which was paying the Hospital to house the Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit according to a written agreement?
Why wasn't the government - presumably the Solicitor General - sending in its own inspectors to ensure that the unit was adhering to the highest standards of protecting evidence for use in court?
My take is that neither the Hospital, the Coroner's office, or the government felt the need to exercise some control over Dr. Smith until it was too late - and the havoc Dr. Smith was creating time and time again began spilling out into the public record.
Dr. Smith's irresponsibility was staring them all in the face - yet they stood back and let him carry on.
The public deserved so much more - from all of them.
JUSTICE BRIAN TRAFFORD: KPORWODU AND VENO;"
Photographs of Dr. Charles Smith's office at the Hospital for Sick Children taken in 2001 reveal a horrific mess.
As Deputy Chief Coroner Dr. James Cairns described in his evidence yesterday, "It was the most untidy office that I've seen."
"I know that there are people who are excellent that although it looks chaotic, they know everything's in its right place and don't touch it, because they know where to find it" Cairns added. "I did not get the impression that this was organized chaos."
Dr. Cairns also noted that although all of the pathologists at the Hospital had "cubby-holes" for offices, "the other offices were not in the same state of disarray."
This was the same office where officials from the Chief Coroner's office found the long missing forensic exhibits in the Mullins-Johnson case after searching for days. (The only evidence that could show William Mullins-Johnson was Innocent);
This was the same evidence where Dr. Smith had kept the dark, curly, male pubic hair, he had held on to for years in the Waudby case - evidence that possibly would have implicated at the outset the teenage babysitter who later pleaded guilty.
This humble bloggist has seen crime scenes that were more orderly during his career as a reporter for the Toronto Star.
As reporter Tom Blackwell wrote yesterday in the National Post, the photos, introduced into evidence yesterday,reveal Smith's office at the Hospital for Sick Children as, "a room over-flowing with files, loose papers and tissue-sample slides."
"Somewhere in that desk top jumble a key piece of evidence gathered by the pathologist went missing for four years."
This evidence is important for what it reveals about Dr. Smith: an apparent indifference to the pathologist's supremely important duty to properly document, preserve and protect evidence for use in Court;
But it also raises serious questions about the Hospital for Sick Children, the Chief Coroner's office and the Ontario Government.
Smith's Superior's and colleagues - who were well aware of the importance of his work for the Chief Coroner's office - must have been in that office countless times during the more than the many years he was on the Hospital Staff.
How could they not have been aware that Dr. Smith's scattered working conditions could impact negatively on his important work and require him to cleanup his act?
Dr. Cairns testified that he had been at the Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit at the Hospital many times.
Why wouldn't he have realized there was a serious problem here and taken serious steps to clean it up - especially after reports began mounting that Dr. Smith was failing to produce reports in a timely fashion, was losing key forensic evidence, and that he had stopped returning phone calls from police officers, prosecutors and coroners?
Dr. Cairns testified that the Hospital viewed the matter as a problem of resources and was seeking more money from the government to improve the situation.
Since Dr. Smith was a staff member of the Pathology Department why didn't his superiors at the Hospital take administrative action to rein in Dr. Smith?
And what about the Ontario government which was paying the Hospital to house the Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit according to a written agreement?
Why wasn't the government - presumably the Solicitor General - sending in its own inspectors to ensure that the unit was adhering to the highest standards of protecting evidence for use in court?
My take is that neither the Hospital, the Coroner's office, or the government felt the need to exercise some control over Dr. Smith until it was too late - and the havoc Dr. Smith was creating time and time again began spilling out into the public record.
Dr. Smith's irresponsibility was staring them all in the face - yet they stood back and let him carry on.
The public deserved so much more - from all of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
