"IN THE SEVERAL COURT CASES I COVERED AT WHICH HE TESTIFIED (NONE OF WHICH ARE AT ISSUE AT THIS INQUIRY), I FOUND DR. SMITH A COMPELLING WITNESS, AN ODD DUCK BUT SO SEEMINGLY SQUARE – HE PRONOUNCED HIMSELF A STRONG CHRISTIAN, HAD A SOFT VOICE AND GENTLE MANNERISMS, AND USED TO WEAR CARTOON-PRINT TIES TO COURT SO AS TO REMIND JURORS HE HAD FEELINGS TOO."
COLUMNIST CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD: GLOBE AND MAIL;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFINITION OF "MALICE; MERRIAM-WEBSTER ON-LINE DICTIONARY;
"1: DESIRE TO CAUSE PAIN, INJURY, OR DISTRESS TO ANOTHER
2: INTENT TO COMMIT AN UNLAWFUL ACT OR CAUSE HARM WITHOUT LEGAL JUSTIFICATION OR EXCUSE;"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to allegations that he knowingly withheld key evidence from the police (and the erroneous time of death he came up with which led to Brenda Waudby being wrongfully charged with the crime), Dr. Charles Smith's work on the Waudby case was tainted by his failure to conduct a rape kit test to determine if Baby Jenna had been sexually molested by J.D. the teenage, male babysitter with an anger-management problem.
Dr. Smith would like us to believe that he was thrust into areas beyond his competence by his superiors - and that he lacked the training and experience to do the job properly.
But, as demonstrated in a posting which I ran on Dec. 2, 2007, under the heading, "Goudge Inquiry: Jenna's Case: Why Didn't Dr. Smith Practice What He Preached?" Smith, who allowed himself to be seen publicly as an expert forensic pathologist, taught homicide officers that it was important to seize foreign hairs from the sexual organs of apparent crime victims.
"Dr. Charles Randal Smith clearly knew how to conduct a forensic sexual assault examination," the posting began.
"In fact he was the expert," it continued.
"He was the pathologist the Toronto Police Service invited to assist on a day long seminar entitled "Parents Who Kill," which was presented by the Homicide Squad at a downtown Toronto hotel, on June 12, 1995.
This is the same Dr. Charles Randal Smith who was found by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to have conducted an inadequate sexual assault investigation.
More particularly, he had failed to conduct a standard rape kit swab to determine if Baby Jenna had been sexually molested.
He had also kept in his personal possession - and failed to hand over to the police or submit for forensic examination - a tiny, curly, dark male pubic hair found in the area of two and a half year-old Jenna's vulva.
((See previous blogs: Another shocking revelation: Former chief coroner sent letter drafted by Smith's lawyers to College; Smith said he kept key exhibit at his home, former chief coroner says);
Dr. Smith certainly did not practice what he preached.
Here is what he taught the police officers about the the importance of taking swabs.
"Sperm motility: Collect suspicious material from the vaginal vault or the posterior fornix using a cotton swab or glass dropper. Place on slide, cover slip, and examine at high dry power for motile sperm."
Here is what he taught the police about the the importance of seizing foreign hairs found in a young girl's sexual organs;
"Foreign hairs must be carefully sought, and some scalp hairs should be taken from the victim for comparison."
All of which makes me wonder what reason Dr. Smith could possibly have had for failing to perform the routine tests he had taught others to perform in order to detect whether there has been a sexual assault - and for hiding the suspicious hair he had found on Jenna from the authorities.
He certainly couldn't plead ignorance."
Dr. Smith's shallow defence of ignorance is also contradicted by a speech he delivered to anesthesia students, which became the subject of another posting under the heading, "Practice what you preach, Dr. Smith."
"One of the most revealing exhibits filed at the Goudge Inquiry is a speech called "See you in court: (The Invitation You can't Refuse)" that Dr. Smith presented to anesthesia students in May, 1992," the posting, which ran on January 31, 2008, began.
"Dr. Smith described it as a speech, "on how to be a better expert witness" in a letter he sent to Deputy Chief Coroner Dr. James Cairns," it continued.
"Commission Counsel Linda Rothstein was quick to point out that at this juncture in his career Dr. Smith did not have any experience as an expert witness - and asked him why he did not turn down the invitation to deliver it - to which Dr. Smith replied:
"Well, I -- I don't think I -- it would be fair to say that it was what I had
learned thus far. Virtually all of this was -- was information which I had -- had borrowed from others or gotten in discussion with others, so -- so some of this was my own experience, but much of it was -- was based upon what I was -- was told because I had no experience in those areas," it continued;
"Stopping right there, this is a classic example of Dr. Smith's willingness to charge ahead - and take on responsibilities - in areas in which he was ignorant.
The timing was also significant;
Dr. Smith accepted the invitation to deliver this paper in May 1992 - around the same time that he agreed to head the newly established pediatric Ontario Forensic Pediatric Pathology Unit at the Hospital For Sick Children.
He candidly admitted in his testimony over the last several days that he new nothing about forensic pathology - or the justice system - when he took on that job for which he had neither professional qualifications or experience.
(Another classic example of a serious character flaw: A willingness to thrust himself in positions which are over his head without any consideration of the responsibilities involved and how it may affect other people.)
Unless, of course, he lived in a fantasy world at the time, and actually thought he was the wise, ethical, truth-telling, knowledgeable expert witness he was portraying himself as by delivering the speech.
In this Blogster's view, the speech tells us how created the persona of "Dr. Charles Randal Smith" - back in 1992 - like an actor writing his own script, playing the role to the hilt and convincing the audience that he really is the character he so skillfully portrays.
In short, Dr. Smith cunningly, and in a calculated manner, created the persona through speeches such as this and colleagues at the Hospital for Sick Children and the Chief Coroner's Office quite naturally bought in.
It was a pivotal moment;
His new position as head of the impressive sounding Ontario Forensic Pediatric Pathology Unit - I stress "forensic" - helped reinforce the illusion - and served as a prop for his performance as the impressive, experienced forensic pathologist.
The speech also reveals another unfortunate character trait: A willingness to coast on the work of others - making himself look good - without giving them credit.
Dr. Smith may have admitted to Rothstein under cross-examination that he had borrowed "virtually all of this" from others - but he didn't tell this to his audience - who would naturally assume this was all coming from him.
Nor, with one or two exceptions, did he acknowledge the specific source of the information which did not emanate from himself for the benefit of his audience.
That, of course, would have tainted the illusion.
(He actually uses the word "lifted" when he describes how he described how he obtained the contents for the speech - and raises even further questions about Dr. Smith's honesty);
Commission Counsel Rothstein used this speech brilliantly to illustrate the gaping Grand Canyonesque disconnect between the advice Dr. Smith was giving the students on what was required to be an expert witness - and his own career which has drawn the very term "expert witness" into disrepute.
She pointed out passages like:
0: (From the section: "What it means to be an expert, Fact": "The most important part of your evidence is the fact that you are a trained expert. You must communicate in such a way that the jury is convinced of your professional status. They need to know that you are current, credible, competent, capable."
0: (Same section): "The trier of fact, the judge or jury, has to base the decision on fact; however, the understanding or interpretation of a fact may be beyond the ability of a layperson if that fact is of a complex, technical, scientific or medical nature. Therefore, the law recognizes that a judge or jury can be helped by a person who can interpret facts to them. Thus, your role as an expert witness allows you to make statements of fact and interpretation or opinion. It is a significant responsibility and must not be taken lightly."
(Rothstein was also making the point that this fixes Smith's detailed knowledge of the justice system back in 1992: Smith testified under oath at the inquiry that he was utterly ignorant about forensic science and about the justice system because no one taught him how they worked!)
Try this one on for size: Under the heading "Ethics of this position"; "You must show that you are ethical. It is only ethics that bind what you do to what you say. Don't ever get to the place where you have to say, I'm the expert, trust me; the judge and jury won't.." ,
("Those words are apt today are they not, Sir?" Rothstein asked Smith. " I -- I think they are, yeah," he replied.)...
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Spring 2024 Cannabis Update (Part II)
4 hours ago
