Former pediatric forensic pathologist turns day of testimony into one of apologies

Dr. Charles Smith emerged from a year of silence yesterday to turn a witness stand into a public confessional, contritely condemning his own ineptitude and "profound ignorance" of his chosen field - pediatric forensic pathology.

A one-time icon whose testimony had been enough to cause criminal convictions, Dr. Smith filled the air at the Goudge inquiry with profuse apologies to victims and the justice system itself.

"I thought that I knew the justice system, but I realize now just how profoundly ignorant I was," Dr. Smith testified at the Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario.

Rarely glancing at a gallery of glaring - and largely unimpressed - victims of his autopsy errors, Dr. Smith confessed that he was grossly unqualified for the work he did, and that he wrongly perceived himself as an arm of the Crown.

"I felt like a pawn in a chess game - and I didn't necessarily know what was going on in terms of strategies," he told inquiry counsel Linda Rothstein. "This certainly was a source of frustration.

"I honestly believed that it was my role to support the Crown attorney. I was there to make a case look good. This is very blunt, but we shared the same kind of attitude. I think it caused me to become more fixed in my opinions."

Even after it dawned on him that he ought to serve the cause of truth rather than prosecuting, Dr. Smith said, "I was pretty lousy at executing it."

Far from stone-walling and defending his actions, Dr. Smith - an intensely religious evangelical Christian - appeared to be a man doing penance.

He emptied a thesaurus in describing his poor diagnoses and overheated testimony, labelling his work as: embarrassing; blinkered; defensive; misguided; dogmatic; overly-adversarial; untidy; disorganized; confused; and woefully inadequate.

"I have no one to blame but myself," he said. "I recognize that I was not organized; that I was an untidy person."

In one of many surprise admissions, Dr. Smith said that he loathed testifying in court because it was so confrontational. He complained that Crown prosecutors routinely failed to prepare him properly or convey their expectations for him.

As someone who had lost a young child, Dr. Smith testified, what really drew him to his field was a passion for solving mysterious pediatric deaths and helping grieving parents make sense of the tragedy that had befallen them.

Speaking in muted tones and constantly fidgeting with his hands, Dr. Smith freely admitted that he used the media and politicians to try to revamp child-abuse laws he felt were ineffective.

At the same time, Dr. Smith moved to squelch a popular theory that he was on a crusade to avenge dead children. "I think that is grossly erroneous," he said. "I believe that my overall record will show that criminally suspicious cases were really only a small portion of my work."

Parents and caregivers who were investigated, charged or convicted of homicide offences in half of the 20 cases that are under review at the inquiry watched intently as Dr. Smith testified yesterday. However, few appeared to be buying his sincerity.

"I don't believe any of it," said Leanne Thibeault, a Sudbury woman who was subjected to a prolonged police investigation after her young son died. "It's an Academy Award performance - and in my case, it's 12 years too late.

"I got what I needed out of this - closure," she added. "Dr. Smith has finally been held accountable. But no apology will make up for what I went through. It is my prayer that I will never have to deal with forensic pathology again."

"It doesn't make any difference to my life," said William Mullins-Johnson, who spent 12 years in prison after being wrongly convicted in the sex-slaying of his niece. "Sorry is not enough. Sorry is never enough."

Dr. Smith reserved one of his most profuse apologies yesterday for Mr. Justice Patrick Dunn, of the Ontario Court of Justice. Several times over the years, Dr. Smith told people that Judge Dunn expressed his private belief that he had mistakenly acquitted a 12-year-old babysitter of killing a 16-month old child in her care.

Yesterday, Dr. Smith confessed to having engaged in wishful thinking following some chance discussions he had with Judge Dunn, which led him to believe that the judge had come around to support Crown evidence from Dr. Smith and others that Judge Dunn had rejected in the babysitter's trial.

"I believe that I heard what I wanted to hear," he testified. "I deeply regret my conduct. I would want Judge Dunn to realize that I recognize my mistake in saying what I said and harming his reputation."

In a 120-page legal brief prepared by his lawyers as he took the stand, Dr. Smith insisted that testimony at the Goudge inquiry, headed by Mr. Justice Stephen T. Goudge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, in recent weeks has actually gone a long way toward exonerating him of wrong-doing.

"In numerous cases, the reviewers harshly criticized Dr. Smith for practices that were widespread at the time," it said.

"Dr. Smith believes that the evidence at the inquiry to date contradicts that conclusion and confirms the necessity of a broader investigation," says the brief, prepared by lawyers Niels Ortved, Jane Langford and Erica Baron.

In a fascinating admission, Dr. Smith confessed in the brief to having fallen into his field of interest - conducting autopsies in criminally suspicious child deaths - in an accidental, almost naive, manner.

"The idea that forensics was a unique discipline requiring specific training had not occurred to him, nor had anyone advised him that if he intended to do forensics work, forensic training would be useful, or that he would require additional forensic training."

He said that a diagnosis that was central to many of his most controversial conclusions - Shaken Baby Syndrome - has certainly not been discredited, even if it has come into increasing question in recent years.

"Issues around Shaken Baby Syndrome and whether short falls can cause fatal injury have been the subject of ongoing research and publication, and understanding has evolved considerably in the past three decades," Dr. Smith's statement says.