|
Anthony
Kporwodu and Angela Veno| Dr.
Joel Yelland | Dr. Roy Meadow
| Angela Cannings | Trupti Patel | Scotland
cases | Sally Clark |
Still to be exonerated: Darren Koehn
| Charles Smith's victims of malice: Brenda
Waudby | William
Mullins-Johnson| Louise
Reynolds
Dr. Charles
Smith
-
-
- Doctor leaves Sick Kids
Pathologist's work under review
Innocent parents charged in deaths
HAROLD LEVY, STAFF REPORTER,
Toronto Star, Sept. 12, 2005
Dr. Charles Smith, a controversial
pathologist involved in several prominent cases where innocent
parents were charged with killing their children, has left the
Hospital for Sick Children, the Star has learned.
Smith tendered his resignation
in July and left the hospital shortly thereafter, spokeswoman
Helen Simeon confirmed last night.
She said she was unable to
say why Smith resigned because that information is confidential.
On June 7, Dr. Barry McLellan,
Ontario's chief coroner, 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.
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."
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.
One complaint had been made
by Brenda Waudby of Peterborough, once charged with murdering
her 2-year-old daughter. She said Smith had kept in his office
for five years a pubic-like hair found during baby Jenna's autopsy,
which she said may have saved her from being charged and might
have identified Jenna's killer.
Waudby said yesterday the hospital
should have terminated Smith "years ago" after the
first indication of any problems.
"He has caused so much
harm to so many people," she added.
Finance ministry documents
reveal Smith's hospital salary was just over $290,000 in 2004.
Smith is also identified with
the case of Louise Reynolds of Kingston, who was accused in 1997
of killing her 7-year-old daughter. The charge was dropped after
experts found she had been mauled by a pit bull.
Smith could not be reached
for comment.
-
-
- Ontario orders pathologist's
work reviewed
Experts to look at pediatric investigations done by doctor accused
of bungling cases
By KIRK MAKINGlobe and Mail,
, June 8, 2005
Forty homicides and suspicious
deaths investigated since 1991 by a pediatric pathologist at
the Hospital for Sick Children, Charles Smith, will be thoroughly
examined by a team of independent experts, Ontario's chief coroner
announced yesterday.
"This review will focus
on whether the conclusions reached by Dr. Smith in his autopsy
or consultation reports can be supported by information and materials
available," Barry McLellan said.
The review is needed "to
maintain public confidence that is very important to this office,"
the chief coroner said, adding that he is considering having
a panel of independent pathologists conduct the review.
Dr. McLellan said he did not know how many criminal charges or
convictions might have hinged on the work of Dr. Smith, once
considered the province's leading expert on pediatric forensics.
"I don't have information
available on these 40 cases as to how many are ongoing criminal
matters, how many cases went to the courts, and how many resulted
in convictions," he said.
Judges and medical authorities
have criticized Dr. Smith several times for unwarranted conclusions
and tardy reporting. Charges have also collapsed in several criminal
cases he worked on.
"I think this review will
reveal a lot about Dr. Smith and the way he does autopsies,"
said Brenda Waudby, a Peterborough woman charged with murdering
her daughter based on Dr. Smith's findings. "I want accountability."
Ms. Waudby's daughter, 21-month-old
Jenna Mellor, was found dead in 1997 with a pubic hair in her
groin area. Dr. Smith later testified that he knew nothing about
the hair. Five years after murder charges against Ms. Waudby
had been withdrawn, he found the hair in his desk drawer.
While Dr. McLellan said yesterday
that he could not identify the 40 cases that will be reviewed
until after the families are informed, they probably include
25 cases that were identified in late 2002 by Ontario prosecutors,
after a senior Crown official asked them to scour their files
for cases where the credibility or reliability of Dr. Smith had
been called into question.
Cindy Wasser, of the Association
in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, praised Dr. McLellan's announcement,
but said it is too little, too late. Doubt hangs heavy over not
only an undetermined number of murder convictions, she said,
but a thousand autopsies across the province where Dr. Smith
determined the cause of death.
Even if the pathology aspects
of Dr. Smith's work is ultimately endorsed by the review, Ms.
Wasser said, the public will still lack answers about documentation
that went missing in some of Dr. Smith's cases, testimony he
gave at criminal trials and his delays in producing reports.
"I cannot think of any
solid reason why [Ontario Attorney-General Michael Bryant] would
not call for an inquiry," she said. "It may be costly
to the public, but the cost of not doing so may be greater."
But Mr. Bryant ruled out a public inquiry, at least until after
the coroner's review is done. "I don't want to do anything
to prejudge or interfere with his review," he said.
Controversy has swirled around
Dr. Smith for several years, as irregularities cropped up in
his cases.
"As soon as the concerns were known, somebody should have
got involved to rein him in," Ms. Wasser said. "He's
not just any doctor. He's a forensic pathologist who gives evidence
in homicides, the most serious offence in the Criminal Code.
People's lives were involved, not to mention the grief of losing
a baby, a child, an infant . . . none of those people have closure."
Ms. Wasser argued that many
people have at least been "wrongly charged," if not
wrongly convicted.
Yesterday's announcement follows a three-month audit to determine
whether thousands of tissue slides from cases involving suspicious
deaths of children had been properly kept and stored at the Hospital
for Sick Children. In all, the audit team looked at 70 cases
dating back to 1991, the year the hospital opened its pediatric
forensic pathology unit. Forty of the cases involved Dr. Smith.
The audit turned up a small
number of cases in which microscope tissue slides had been misplaced
or were not available, Dr. McLellan said. However, he said that
the audit team was able to locate "tissue blocks" in
each case, from which material could be extracted to make new
slides, if needed.
Dr. McLellan said he will decide
the details of how the review will be held after meeting with
the Forensic Services Advisory Committee, a group that includes
prosecutors and defence lawyers.
Dr. Smith has not conducted autopsies for the chief coroner's
office since 2003.
Some Smith
cases
Pathologist Dr. Charles Smith's
work has come into question in several cases, including these:
William Mullins-Johnson of Sault Ste. Marie has been in prison
12 years for the murder of his four-year-old niece Valin. It
was recently discovered that Dr. Smith lost tissue samples that
could exonerate him.
Eleven-month-old Nicolas Gagnon of Sudbury died in 1995 after
apparently bumping his head on a table. Dr. Smith disagreed with
the findings of the first pathologist, and concluded after a
second autopsy that the cause of the baby's death was non-accidental,
blunt-force trauma. The parents were never charged, but while
they were under suspicion authorities seized their second child.
In Kingston, Louise Reynolds
spent two years in jail facing a murder charge in the 1997 death
of her seven-year-old daughter Sharon. Dr. Smith believed that
80 cuts on the girl's body were caused by scissors. He then changed
his view and said that the injuries could have been from a pit-bull
attack. The Crown withdrew the charge.
Three-year-old Tyrell Salmon
of Toronto died in 1998. Based on Dr. Smith's conclusions, his
father's girlfriend, Maureen Laidley, was charged with murder.
The charge was withdrawn on the eve of trial after three other
pathologists concluded that the bump on Tyrell's head was likely
caused by falling on a coffee table.
Pathologist probed
Coroner to review role in homicide cases since 1991
By KEVIN CONNOR, TORONTO
SUN, June 6. 2005
ONTARIO'S CHIEF coroner has
launched a review into a controversial Toronto pathologist who
was criticized for his handling of autopsies in the suspicious
deaths of 40 children that may have led to wrongful convictions.
An audit, which led to the
coroner's review into Dr. Charles Smith, stemmed from a case
where tissue samples were sent to The Hospital for Sick Children
for review but later couldn't be found.
Forensic evidence lawyers say
that evidence could exonerate a man convicted of killing his
4-year-old niece in 1994.
Smith was the only consultant
to testify the girl had been sexually assaulted, which contradicted
defence arguments.
EVIDENCE FOUND
IN OFFICE
The missing evidence was found
in Smith's office last week.
"I am aware of concerns
over Dr. Smith's opinions where other pathologists consulted
have given a different opinion," said Dr. Barry McLellan,
the province's top coroner.
"A formal review will
take place of the pathology materials arising from all the homicide
or criminal suspicious autopsies since 1991 where Dr. Smith conducted
an autopsy (for the coroner's office) or where he provided an
opinion."
The families in those cases
have not been notified and McLellan wouldn't say if any of the
cases resulted in criminal convictions.
"Individuals (convicted
by Smith's testimony) should be invited to consider appeals that
the Crown would consent to," said Leo Adler, a Toronto criminal
defence lawyer who is also a member of the Canadian Forensic
Society.
"The review is a welcome
reminder that we should never put experts at the same level as
God."
Judges and medical authorities have criticized Smith for tardy
reporting and unwarranted conclusions.
Charges collapsed in several criminal cases he worked on, leading
to calls for a public inquiry. Only the province, not the coroner,
can call for a public inquiry.
The College of Physicians and
Surgeons of Ontario has no record of any disciplinary action
against Smith.
"There may have been complaints, but they didn't end up
in a discipline. Complaint information is not made public,"
said Kathryn Clarke, a spokesman for the college.
In 2003, Superior Court Justice
Brian Trafford called delays in Smith's work "shocking"
and below the professional standards of the Office of the Chief
Coroner of Ontario.
REPORT MONTHS
AFTER DEATH
In that case, Smith didn't
complete an autopsy report until seven months after the child's
death, and it came after the little girl's body was cremated
without the authorization of police and against the parents'
wishes.
Smith is still employed as
a pathologist by The Hospital for Sick Children but no longer
does autopsies.
"(In May) the hospital hired an external reviewer to review
Dr. Smith's work. The finding of the evaluation was he met our
standards. (McLellan's) review is of Dr. Smith's work at the
coroner's office," said Helen Simeon, a spokesman for Sick
Kids.
The review will go a long way
toward restoring public confidence, McLellan said.
12 years on, 'murder'
evidence found
Tissue samples found in search of Toronto pathologist's desk
HAROLD LEVY, STAFF REPORTER,
The Toronto Star, May 31, 2005.
Missing forensic tissues that
could exonerate a Sault Ste. Marie man jailed for murdering his
4-year-old niece have been found in the office of a Toronto pathologist,
whose mishandling of evidence has prompted a probe at the Hospital
for Sick Children.
Dr. Barry McLellan, Ontario's
chief coroner, said the tissue samples were discovered in an
envelope on top of Dr. Charles Smith's desk during an ongoing
review of all exhibits from autopsies conducted at the lab since
1991, in cases involving homicides and suspicious deaths of children.
McLellan ordered the probe
in April after the Toronto Star reported Smith had lost
the tissue samples that lawyers for William Mullins-Johnson were
seeking so they could arrange for an independent evaluation of
the evidence introduced at his 1994 trial.
McLellan said his staff had
trouble finding the tissue samples - even though they were tucked
in an envelope on top of Smith's desk - "because his office
was so disorganized.
"It was only as a result
of searching the complete office that the tissues were located."
McLellan said he believes his
staff have now recovered all the missing exhibits.
Lawyer David Bayliss, who represents
Mullins-Johnson, reacted angrily when told of the circumstances
in which the tissue samples had been found.
"Here we are 12 years
later and they (the exhibits) are still sitting in an envelope
on Charles Smith's desk," Bayliss said with disbelief.
Bayliss believes the latest
scientific methods, including DNA analysis, may show there was
no crime or, if there was one, it was not committed by his client.
Smith was the province's leading
expert on pediatric forensics in 1994 when Mullins-Johnson was
convicted.
In recent years, a panel appointed
by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario said it
was "extremely disturbed by the deficiencies in his (Smith's)
approach" in three criminal cases, and his findings have
been questioned in several cases where murder charges against
women accused of killing their children were later stayed or
withdrawn.
Brenda Waudby, one of those
mothers, also reacted angrily to the news.
Several years after a charge
of murdering her 2-year-old daughter Jenna had been dropped by
prosecutors in Peterborough in 1999, Waudby learned that Smith
had kept a curly, pubic-like hair removed during the autopsy
in an envelope in his hospital desk.
She believes that if Smith
had handed the hair over to the police for DNA-testing at the
outset - instead of keeping it in his desk drawer for five years
until it was seized by the police - she never would have been
charged, and her daughter's killer would have been arrested and
brought to justice.
Sick Kids spokeswoman Helen
Simeon said Smith agreed to go on "administrative leave"
pending a review by an "outside pathologist" after
it became public that tissue blocks in the Mullins-Johnson case
were missing.
Simeon said the reviewer was
satisfied Smith was doing a satisfactory job and he has been
allowed to return to the hospital's pathology department. She
declined to identify the reviewer.
Simeon said it was "unfair"
to blame the hospital for the way Smith handled the Mullins-Johnson
exhibits. "We did not supervise Dr. Smith's work on behalf
of the coroner's office," she said.
Ontario finance ministry documents
reveal Sick Kids paid Smith just over $290,000 in salary in 2004.
McClellan said Smith no longer
performs autopsies for the coroner's office and that Sick Kids
now requires its pathologists to catalogue and keep track of
all forensic exhibits.
Cindy Wasser, a director of
the Association In Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, which has
adopted the Mullins-Johnson case, said she has not yet received
a response from Attorney General Michael Bryant to the group's
request for a review of all of the estimated 1,000 criminal cases
in which Smith has played a role.
"These shocking disclosures
make clear why such an inquiry is necessary," Wasser said.
Brendan Crawley, a ministry
spokesman, said it was "premature" to consider a public
inquiry into Smith's work while the Sick Kids probe continues.
Bryant could not be reached for comment.
Mullins-Johnson, then 24, was
convicted in 1994 after a trial in Sault Ste. Marie. The jury
heard that he babysat his niece Valin and her 3-year-old brother
from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m. on June 26, 1993. When the girl's mother
returned home, she did not check on her daughter. At 7 a.m. the
next day, she found her dead in bed.
The jury heard that a local
pathologist performed an autopsy on Valin. Then, "consultation
reports" were sought from Smith and four other specialists,
based on tissue samples and other evidence from the autopsy.
Smith was the only consultant
to conclude that Valin had been sexually assaulted at the time
of death.
That contradicted the defence's
argument that Valin, who had a history of vomiting in bed, might
have died of natural causes.
Since the jury was required
to find that there had been a sexual assault to return a verdict
of first-degree murder, Smith's view carried the jury.
The Ontario Court of Appeal
upheld the conviction in 1996, although one of the three justices
argued that the trial judge should have alerted the jury to reasonable
doubt raised by conflicting expert testimony. The Supreme Court
dismissed an appeal in 1998.
Smith could not be reached
for comment.
Pathologist lost vital
evidence
Tissue sample crucial for exoneration
of man convicted in murder of 4-year-old
HAROLD LEVY, STAFF REPORTER,
Toronto Star, March 30, 2005
A controversial Toronto pathologist
has misplaced evidence that lawyers believe could exonerate a
man who has spent 12 years in prison for the murder of his 4-year-old
niece.
Dr. Charles Smith's work investigating
the deaths of children in Ontario has already been the subject
of a review by the coroner's office. His findings have been questioned
before, in cases where murder charges against mothers accused
of killing their own children were later stayed or withdrawn.
Now an organization that fights
to clear people who may have been wrongfully convicted wants
to reopen another case that hinged on Smith's evidence. And it
wants a probe into the more than 1,000 cases in which Smith was
involved.
Ontario Chief Coroner Barry
McLellan told the Star that Smith - who did not return calls
to his office at the Hospital for Sick Children - no longer performs
autopsies for his office.
Smith was reprimanded by the
Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons in 2002 after a panel
said it was "extremely disturbed by the deficiencies in
his approach" in three cases - including one where he collected
a hair during an autopsy and kept it in a drawer for more than
five years until police retrieved it.
But he was the province's leading
expert on pediatric forensics when William Mullins-Johnson was
found guilty, in September 1994, of the first-degree murder of
Valin Johnson of Sault Ste. Marie. He was convicted after a jury
trial in which scientific evidence played a major role in determining
the time of death, the cause of death and whether the girl had
been sexually assaulted.
That conviction is now being
examined by the Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted.
Cindy Wasser, a director of the association, said the organization
will be seeking a pardon from federal Justice Minister Irwin
Cotler.
Wasser said the association
also wants a full probe of all the criminal cases in which Smith
has conducted an autopsy or given an opinion.
Mullins-Johnson, then 24, was
convicted after a 2 1/2-week trial, protesting his innocence
throughout.
The jury heard evidence that
he babysat Valin, 4, and her 3-year-old brother from 7:30 to
9:30 p.m., June 26, 1993. When the girl's mother returned home,
she did not check on her daughter. At 7 a.m. the next day she
found Valin dead in bed.
The jury heard that a local
pathologist performed an autopsy on Valin. Then "consultation
reports" were sought from Smith and four other specialists,
based on tissue samples and other evidence from the autopsy.
Smith was the only consultant
to conclude Valin was sexually assaulted at the time of death.
That contradicted the defence's point that Valin, who had a history
of vomiting in bed, might have died of natural causes.
Since the jury was required
to find that there had been a sexual assault in order to return
a verdict of first-degree murder, Smith's view carried the jury.
The Ontario Court of Appeal
upheld the conviction in 1996. The Supreme Court dismissed a
further appeal in 1998.
Toronto lawyer David Bayliss,
who is part of the team seeking to clear Mullins-Johnson, said
other experts could have used the tissue samples to review Smith's
work. Bayliss believes the latest scientific methods, including
DNA analysis, may show either that there was no crime, or that,
if there was one, his client did not commit it.
But McLellan said the tissue
can't be produced because Smith, who was given the evidence by
the pathologist who did the autopsy, cannot find it.
"The tissue has not been
found," McLellan said. "Charles simply indicates that
he does not know where the tissue is."
Bayliss said the loss of the
evidence leaves him wondering, "How can a senior pathologist
who routinely does forensic autopsies in homicide cases be so
disorganized about the collection and preservation of critical
biological exhibits?
"That's scary," he
said.
Dr. Glenn Taylor, head of the
Hospital for Sick Children's pathology division, confirmed that
until December 2004 the hospital had no system for keeping track
of "medical legal" exhibits sent there for tests.
Asked whether other exhibits
may have been misplaced, Taylor said "it's possible"
but hasn't been investigated yet.
The Mullins-Johnson case isn't
the first in which evidence ended up in Smith's possession.
Brenda Waudby of Peterborough
was charged with beating her 2-year-old daughter Jenna to death
on Jan. 22, 1997, on the basis of Smith's professional opinion
as to what time the injuries were inflicted.
But the second-degree murder
charge was dropped on June 15, 1999, when a prosecutor cited
"certain medical evidence that has shifted dramatically."
Five other medical experts
said the toddler's injuries were inflicted on the evening of
her death, when she was in the care of a 14-year-old boy.
Waudby alleged later in a complaint
to the College of Physicians and Surgeons that Smith concealed
a strand of dark male pubic-like hair he found in the area of
Jenna's vulva during the autopsy, keeping the hair in a desk
drawer for more than five years until it was recovered by a Peterborough
police officer.
Police have yet to lay further
charges. Waudby is suing Smith and three police officers.
The college reprimanded Smith
on Nov. 18, 2002, after expert pathologists examined the Waudby
case - and two others.
One, in 1988, involved a 12-year-old
Timmins girl who was charged with manslaughter after a 16-month-old
child she was babysitting suffered injuries in her home and later
died.
Smith concluded the youth had
shaken the baby to death. But nine experts described by Provincial
Court Judge Patrick Dunn as "at the top of their fields"
testified that death was caused by an accidental fall. Dunn acquitted
her.
The other case examined by
the college arose in Sudbury, where, in 1995, then 22-year-old
Lianne Thibeault's 11-month old son Nicholas stopped breathing
after bumping his head under a table. He was pronounced dead
at hospital.
A Sudbury coroner called the
death sudden and unexplainable.. Smith, after reviewing the case
at the chief coroner's request, concluded the death was not accidental
and had the body exhumed for another autopsy.
Acting on Smith's opinion,
the Children's Aid Society moved to seize another baby from Thibeault
after birth.
Thibeault was never charged,
and the baby was returned to her in June 1998 after an independent
forensic pathologist from Missouri - an expert in child abuse-related
deaths - disagreed with Smith's opinion.
Smith came under public scrutiny
a year before the college's reprimand, following two other controversial
cases.
In one instance, a second-degree
murder charge against Maureen Laidley was stayed by prosecutors
just before a jury trial was about to begin.
In another case, Louise Reynolds
of Kingston, was charged with killing her daughter Sharon, 7,
after Smith concluded that the girl had been stabbed to death
in 1997. The murder charge was withdrawn after other pathologists
concluded the girl was killed by a dog.
Reynolds, who is suing Smith,
another doctor and the Kingston police force over the case, spoke
to the Star yesterday.
"I think they should reopen
every case that man has ever done," she said. "They
need to go over the work and see if anyone one else is going
through hell."
Wasser said she understands
Reynolds's anger. "Nothing can be more devastating to a
grieving parent," she said, "than to be labelled the
child's killer."
DEAD WRONG
How the faulty findings
of an eminent pathologist led to erroneous murder charges and
ruined lives
BY JANE O'HARA, Macleans,
May 14, 2001
THREE YEARS AGO, when Dr. Charles
Randal Smith settled into the witness box of the Kingston, Ont.,
courtroom, he looked perfectly at home. He'd brought along his
teenage daughter to watch him testify at this preliminary hearing,
even though it was not exactly family fare. The tall, grey-haired
pathologist, who since 1992 has run the Ontario pediatric forensic
pathology unit at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, was there
to provide details of the gruesome death of a Kingston girl.
Crown prosecutors viewed the
case as one of the most sensational child murders ever in Canada.
Their theory was straightforward: on June 12, 1997, Louise Reynolds,
a 28-year-old single mother from Kingston, had killed her seven-year-old
daughter, Sharon, by stabbing her more than 80 times with a pair
of scissors. Reynolds's motive? Prosecutors argued she was angry
at the child for having head lice.
For Kingston police and Crown
prosecutors, Smith's opinion was crucial. His 10-page report
on the autopsy he performed on Sharon's perforated body was the
linchpin of the second-degree murder case. But it didn't hold.
Just over three months ago, in late January, Smith's theory was
totally discredited when the Crown abruptly dropped the murder
charges against Reynolds. This, after numerous experts -- some
hired by the Crown -- disagreed with Smith and concluded instead
that a powerful dog had mauled the girl.
By then Reynolds had spent
3 1/2 years in custody because of the outlandish charge. Now
she is suing the 51-year-old Smith, Toronto dental oncologist
Robert Wood (who advised the prosecution that the marks did not
look like dog bites) and the Kingston police force for $ 7 million.
But as damning as that case sounds, it is just one of at least
six to cast doubt on Smith's expertise.
Now, the alarm bells are going
off. Smith himself has voluntarily stopped doing autopsies for
the coroner's office and asked for a review of his work in the
Reynolds case and in another Toronto child death case that depended
on his testimony. And the provincial coroner's office has taken
possibly unprecedented steps to restore faith in the system.
Ontario's deputy chief coroner, Dr. James Cairns, has had Crown
prosecutors and defence lawyers informed that his office is "more
than willing" to have independent experts examine Smith's
findings. The reviews Smith requested, he added, would have happened
in any case. "It has to be done," said Cairns, "but
it's obviously not something one does jumping up and down for
joy."
The consequences in two controversial
cases were particularly dire. In Timmins, Ont., a family was
bankrupted by the $ 150,000 cost of defending a 12-year-old girl
against a wrongful charge of manslaughter, based on Smith's testimony,
that took almost three years to resolve. "After this case,
we owned nothing," says the girl's father, who sold the
home he had built and cashed in his retirement savings to pay
for her defence. And in Sudbury, Ont., a young woman was traumatized
by the accusation of killing her child, while her father was
burdened by $ 100,000 in legal costs to discredit Smith's testimony.
All of which raises some thorny
questions: How did Dr. Charles Smith become the man almost solely
responsible for investigating suspicious child deaths in Ontario?
How has he managed to keep that position? And how does his distinguished
reputation square with the reality of some damaging mistakes?
His boss, Ontario chief coroner Dr. James Young, declined to
discuss Smith's situation with Maclean's last week, saying, "There
are too many other matters that need to be resolved in and around
this issue." Pressed to comment on Smith's general performance,
he replied: "He's been involved in a number of complex and
important cases and I think he's always tried to do his best
to offer expert advice to the court."
The questions surrounding Smith's
performance are all the more important because his opinion carries
great weight in court -- so much so that defence counsel often
has to go out of the province to find the expertise to counter
his autopsy reports. In a recent case in which Smith's evidence
against a Toronto woman charged with killing a young boy in her
care is under review, lawyers for the defendant found other doctors
reluctant to take him on. "You don't contradict the Hospital
for Sick Kids and you don't contradict Dr. Smith," says
criminal lawyer Dyanoosh Youssefi. "It's not career enhancing.
A lot of doctors are reluctant to say anything publicly against
him."
Smith is a master in the courtroom.
His curriculum vitae runs for 22 pages and he once boasted he
would write "the definitive textbook on pediatric pathology."
His manner during testimony -- bland and sometimes plodding --
is persuasive, honed over a decade as Ontario's top forensic
expert on suspicious child deaths. In the mid-'80s, he taught
law students how best to examine expert witnesses like himself.
In 1994, he told The Canadian Press that his forensic unit had
a higher batting average than colleagues in Alberta when it came
to getting convictions against child killers.
Smith's track record for convictions
is well known in the small, tight-knit world of Canadian forensic
pathology. But is that necessarily a matter of pride? The job
of a forensic pathologist, says Dr. Thambirajah Balachandra,
Manitoba's chief medical examiner, does not include taking anyone's
side: "Not the prosecution. Not the defence. Not even the
side of the dead." At times, there is no clear evidence
of a crime, says Balachandra, and the cause of death should be
recorded as "undetermined." It is crucial to be cautious
and objective, he says, because a faulty autopsy report can send
innocent people to jail. "We have the power to ruin people's
lives and destroy families," observes Balachandra. "We
must be very careful."
Smith's involvement in the
case of the Timmins girl brought harsh commentary from the bench
as long ago as 1991 (page 62). Ontario Provincial Court Judge
Patrick Dunn criticized him for not even following his own prescribed
autopsy procedures in accusing the Grade 6 student of shaking
a 16-month-old baby to death. Cairns, the deputy chief coroner
and a close colleague of Smith, dismisses Dunn's criticism. "The
judge," says Cairns, "didn't understand the medical
evidence."
Smith's involvement in another
tragic baby death set off a nightmare for a grief-stricken single
mother in Sudbury, Ont. In 1995, university student Lianne Gagnon
(now Lianne Thibeault) was struggling to come to terms with the
sudden death of her 11-month-old son, Nicholas, while in her
care. A police investigation ruled out foul play. But a year
later, after the Ontario chief coroner's office asked Smith to
review the case, he came to a startling conclusion: homicide.
"In the absence of an alternate explanation," he wrote,
"the death of this young boy is attributed to blunt head
injury."
Smith also recommended that
the Sudbury police begin a "thorough investigation."
Then, on June 25, 1997, he exhumed the baby's body, as his own
11-year-old son watched. After performing an autopsy, Smith concluded
that Nicholas had died from brain swelling "consistent with
blunt force injury," although he later conceded he could
not rule out asphyxiation.
The Crown still did not lay
charges. Smith, however, told Children's Aid Society workers
he was "99-per-cent certain" that Thibeault, then pregnant
with a second child, had killed Nicholas. The CAS arranged to
take wardship of Thibeault's unborn child and placed her name
on its list of known child abusers. When she gave birth, Thibeault
was not allowed to be alone with her newborn daughter, Nicole.
With that, Thibeault's father,
Maurice Gagnon, began a legal battle that cost him $ 100,000
of his savings to clear his daughter's name and get her baby
back. Ultimately, even the coroner's own independent expert took
issue with Smith's findings. Dr. Mary Case, the medical examiner
in St. Louis and a leading crusader in the war against child
abuse, summarily dismissed Smith's opinion about a blow to the
head. "There are no findings on which to make such a conclusion,"
she stated in a report she wrote for the Ontario chief coroner's
office.
CAS officials did an abrupt
about-face. They asked the court to drop all wardship proceedings
against Thibeault and took her name off the Child Abuse Register.
In a letter to the Gagnon family's lawyer, the society expressed
sympathy, saying it was now confident they would "provide
a good life" to the little girl it had attempted to take.
Said the CAS: "At this time we are of the view that the
death of Nicholas Gagnon was an unexplained tragedy."
Thibeault has found it hard
to recover. "This experience changed my life forever,"
she says. "I no longer trust anyone who has power over someone
else's life. Thanks to Dr. Smith, I now think of Nicholas as
a case study or an autopsy report; not simply as my precious
son."
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:
* In 1996, two crack-addicted
parents, Michael Podniewicz and Lisa Olsen were convicted of
murdering their six-month-old child in Toronto. Smith, who had
found evidence of multiple fractures, testified the child died
of pneumonia stemming from the injuries. "It was the only
time we've had a conviction of a husband and wife for murdering
their child," said Cairns.
* In 1984, when a three-month-old
baby died in Collingwood, Ont., a coroner ruled it sudden infant
death syndrome (SIDS). Ten years later, Smith exhumed the body
when evidence of abuse came to light. After performing a second
autopsy, Smith reported evidence of multiple fractures and said
the baby died of asphyxia. In 1998, the mother, who had been
charged with manslaughter, pleaded guilty to assault causing
bodily harm.
* In 1998, an Oshawa father
was convicted of killing his eight-month-old son after Smith's
forensic sleuthing unearthed findings of child abuse. Originally
a pathologist deemed the child had died of SIDS. But Smith exhumed
the body and did a second autopsy -- which showed evidence of
a recent skull fracture, a broken arm and bruises.
Smith also has his supporters
among defence lawyers. Thirteen years ago, Charles Ryall, a Niagara
Falls, Ont., criminal lawyer, encountered the pathologist while
defending a man who ultimately received a four-year sentence
for manslaughter in the death of his nine-week-old son. Smith
did the autopsy on the child and testified about the injuries
in a Welland, Ont., court. Ryall was so impressed with Smith's
evidence he congratulated him after he left the stand. "I
told him that he'd done an excellent job as a witness and a pathologist
and that it was a pleasure to have been in court with him,"
said Ryall. "Just because he made a mistake in the Reynolds
case doesn't mean he makes a mistake every time."
Most Sundays, Smith is a pillar
of another community. 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.
The couple have two teenage
children and the trappings of success: their pickup truck and
SUV bear his and hers vanity licence plates, FRNSIC and CORONR.
They live in a two-storey house, painted baby blue, on a farm
in Queensville, Ont., 60 km north of Toronto. There, in an area
surrounded by hobby farms and lush golf courses, Smith raises
cattle and takes refuge from a job that entails dissecting children
who have met horrible deaths.
Smith graduated in medicine
from the University of Saskatchewan in 1975. He completed his
training in pathology at the University of Toronto and by 1980
was certified as an anatomic pathologist, a specialist who analyzes
cells and tissues to identify diseases. (In 1999, he also received
U.S. certification in pediatric pathology.) He joined the staff
of the Hospital for Sick Children in 1981 as one of a number
of hospital pathologists on general rotation responsible for
examining tissue samples and performing autopsies on children
who died of natural or accidental causes. By the early '80s,
he was doing coroner's autopsies on children who had met sudden
or suspicious ends.
Canada has no system for accrediting
forensic pathologists. Now, increasing numbers of Canadian pathologists
are going through rigorous accreditation programs in the United
States and Britain. But most, like Smith, have learned on the
job. In 1992, the Ontario coroner's office created a pediatric
forensic pathology unit at Sick Kids and Smith was installed
as director. He has a full-time position at the hospital (earning
$ 168,458.50 last year) and works part time for the coroner's
office.
In the Kingston courtroom in
April, 1998, as on so many other days he has testified, Smith
began unreeling his findings in a long dissertation that at times
sounded like a lecture. Sharon Reynolds, he stated, died from
"multiple stab wounds." The seven-year-old had been
partially scalped, he said, probably with a pair of scissors.
Smith was confident and in control. When the prosecutor tried
to ask a question, Smith admonished him: "If I can just
sort of continue the Reader's Digest version, and then you may
want to spend a little while on more detail."
As Smith described the "stab
wounds" on the upper arm, neck and head of Sharon's body,
Louise Reynolds listened numbly. For 10 months since her arrest,
she had been held in a segregation unit at the Quinte Detention
Centre. After listening to Smith describe stab wounds on her
daughter's body that she knew were not of her making, the Grade
8 dropout came to her own conclusions about the famous pathologist.
"Dr. Smith didn't know what he was doing," she said
later. "I thought he was an idiot."
From the beginning, Reynolds
had maintained her innocence and police never found a murder
weapon. Besides, there was another explanation for how Sharon
died. A pit-bull terrier named HatTrick -- owned by Sharon's
stepfather -- was in the basement the day the girl died. The
Kingston police told Smith before he started the autopsy that
the dog was in the house. Yet no attempt was made to take moulds
of the dog's teeth to match them to the wounds. During cross-examination,
Smith bristled when Reynolds's lawyer, Wayne Rumble, repeatedly
suggested the wounds were caused by a dog. "I suggest that
you're absolutely wrong," replied Smith. "This doesn't
look like a pit bull or any other carnivorous animal. These wounds
have been caused by a sharp instrument."
But Rumble had two aces up
his sleeve -- experts who said Smith had it wrong. One was Dr.
Rex Ferris of Vancouver, a British-trained forensic pathologist.
After studying the crime scene and the autopsy photographs, Ferris
wrote in a report shown to the Crown that Smith's evidence was
"either wrong or oversimplifications." Robert Dorion
of Montreal, a forensic dentist, was just as damning in a report
entered into the court proceedings. A founding father 25 years
ago of the American Board of Forensic Odontology, the organization
that certifies forensic dentists, Dorion has studied thousands
of dog-bite cases. In his opinion, this was a classic example
of dog-bite wounds.
One giveaway, Dorion says,
was the identical pattern of perforations on the inside and outside
of the girl's upper right arm -- marks clearly made by a jaw
clamping down. "Imagine the scenario if it were stab wounds,"
says Dorion. "Can you imagine someone stabbing so many times
on the outside of the arm, and then lifting up the arm and stabbing
as many times on the inside of the arm? It doesn't make sense.
Even his own descriptions of the wounds told me they were bite
marks."
The wheels of justice grind
slowly. Just last Jan. 25, fully 21 months after Smith testified,
the Crown withdraw its murder charge against Louise Reynolds.
Smith had amended his earlier opinion after attending a second
autopsy on July 13, 1999, conducted on Sharon's skeletal remains
by Ontario's chief forensic pathologist, Dr. David Chiasson.
There, Chiasson concluded that some of the marks were dog bites.
Smith, too, came to that point of view. "After the second
autopsy," Cairns told Maclean's, "he did not disagree
that many of the wounds were dog bites." The prosecution
then sent Sharon's bones to University of Tennessee forensic
anthropologist Steven Symes, the leading North American expert
in tool-mark evidence. Symes's reported conclusion: there were
no marks of any sharp instrument other than Smith's scalpel blade
during the original autopsy.
Kingston Crown attorney Bruce
Griffith explained the prosecution's change of heart in court.
"Dr. Smith's original opinion had been unequivocal; none
of the wounds were dog bites," said Griffith. "The
Kingston police had relied on this expert's opinion as to the
cause of death of the child." When Smith reversed himself,
the prosecution case collapsed. Concluded Griffith: "The
Crown no longer has proof that this death was caused by stab
wounds. We are duty bound to withdraw this charge." With
that, Louise Reynolds went free.
Since then, Smith has faced
a number of challenges. Among them are the review of his part
in the Reynolds case, and Reynolds's civil suit against him.
In the second case under review, an experienced Crown prosecutor,
Frank Armstrong, took the rare step in January of asking for
a judicial stay of proceedings against a 28-year-old Toronto
woman. Maureen Laidley was charged with killing the three-year-old
son of her boyfriend. A trial, said Armstrong, might result "in
a miscarriage of justice." Laidley says the boy had been
jumping off a couch, slipped and banged his head on a marble
coffee table. But police arrested her after Smith told them that
injuries like that cannot cause death. With the charge stayed,
Laidley is planning to sue Smith.
Laidley's lawyer, John Struthers,
says other lawyers working on cases involving Smith have been
talking to him. Toronto lawyer James Lockyer, a director of the
powerful Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted,
wants to assist in the reviews of Smith's cases. Lockyer believes
that given Smith's record in the Reynolds case, "there is
now good reason to be concerned with the validity of his opinion
in other cases."
On top of that, Ontario's College
of Physicians and Surgeons is considering two complaints, one
from Maurice Gagnon and the other from the father of the Timmins
girl, about Smith's performance in the Sudbury and Timmins autopsies.
And other Crown prosecutors in Toronto seem cautious about Smith's
autopsy evidence. In February, just before the pathologist was
to testify, Crown attorney Rita Zaied delayed the preliminary
inquiry of a couple charged with murdering their three-month-old
child. Prosecutors wanted an independent determination of the
cause of death. Says Young: "That doesn't necessarily mean
there's a problem at this point." On March 21, the Crown
sought an adjournment of another upcoming murder trial in Toronto
in order to have an independent expert review Smith's findings.
In February, before deciding
not to answer any more questions from Maclean's, the Ontario
chief coroner defended Smith's work. "Expert opinion is
never a matter of right and wrong," Young said. "A
lot of people assume that one person is wrong and one person
is right and it just isn't that straightforward. These are opinions."
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell
