Who is Harold Levy?

Taken from Harold's Blogspot. Please feel free to read around the blog. There is a lot of information posted on his blog.

Who is Harold Levy?

I recently retired from the Toronto Star where I have been reporting on Dr. Charles Randal Smith - a former pediatric pathologist at the Hospital for Sick Children - for the past six years. I intend, through this blog, to periodically report developments relating to Dr. Smith in the context of the on-going public inquiry, the on-going independent probe of cases he worked on between 1981 and 1991, and cases which have been launched, or will be launched in the civil courts. (Postings to begin early in October, 2007) if not earlier. I am currently researching a book on Dr. Smith and would appreciate hearing from anyone who can provide me with useful information.

The Charles Smith Blog - Joshua's Case Part 4 (2oo7)

Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Goudge Inquiry: Joshua's Case: Part Four; Notable Quotes From External Reviewer's Report;

Dr. Jack Crane reviewed Joshua's case:

Here are some notable quotes from his "Expanded Report;"

On Dr. Smith's finding of "asphyxia":

"The autopsy report prepared by Dr. Smith was quite detailed but is lacking any form of discussion or conclusion as to how the diagnosis of asphyxia, as the cause of death, was determined...Furthermore, a diagnosis of asphyxia is vague and non-specific and should properly be provided in the context of the mechanism by which it was produced, e.g.compression of neck.""

On Dr. Smith's interpretation of the significance of certain petechia haemorrhages:

"The finding of petechial haemorrhages (pinhead=sized) spots of bleeding on the surfaces of the internal organs is a common finding in all types of infant deaths and is of no significance whatsoever."

On Dr. Smith's testimony:

"It is my view that parts of Dr. Smith's testimony to the court were misleading. Whilst he does concede that he cannot be sure of the cause of death he uses, what I consider to be inappropriate language, terms such as "If I was a betting man, I would bet that it was. (Reference to death being non-accidental);.

He also commented "I am certainly suspicious of that". (Referring to suffocation);

Also in his testimony he makes reference to neck haemorrhage as being worrying and would increase the likelihood of a non-accidental etiology whereas in my opinion this was no more than an artefactual finding. (Inflicted on the body during the autopsy. H.L.);

On the so-called skull fracture Dr. Smith discovered after completing his post-mortem report;

"There is, in my opinion, no evidence of any fracture."

(See previous postings: The Joshua case: Part One: How Smith caused havoc by failing to deliver a crucial forensic report; The Joshua case: Part Two: Yet another disturbing tale of important forensic evidence lost by Dr. Charles Randal Smith;)

The Joshua case: Part Three: Aftermath of a flawed opinion;)

Harold Levy: hlevy15@gmail.com;

The Charles Smith Blog - Joshua's Case Part 3

Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Goudge Inquiry: Joshua's Case: Part Three; Aftermath Of A Flawed Opinion;

"SOME CASES COME BACK TO HAUNT YOU AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM;"

LAWYER BRUCE HILLIER;

On January 4, 1999, something happened that should never happen in Canada's criminal justice system.

Sherry Sherret not guilty to infanticide but was found guilty based on the evidence from Dr Charles Smith.

Dr. Smith's opinion was at the heart of the Agreed Statement of Facts read into the court record;

The Agreed Statement reads:

"Dr. Charles Smith performed an autopsy on the baby at the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children.

He determined the cause of death to be asphyxia.

He ruled out mould or disease as a cause of death.

Pinpoint hemorrhages in the tissue of the eyelids, sometimes present in non-accidental asphyxia were not found in the case.

Dr. Smith was highly suspicion that the death as non-accidental, but there were no overt signs of violence upon which to make a conclusive finding."

"A microscopic skull fracture was discovered months after the original post mortem," the Agreed Statement of Facts continued.

"It was not initially visible to the pathologist."

Dr. Smith testified at the preliminary hearing that this skull fracture could have been caused on either an accidental or non-accidental basis and was not the cause of death.'

One can only imagine what Sherret felt when she heard Justice Byers utter the fallowing words before sentencing her to one year in jail followed by two years probation.

"To this day, I do not understand why she did it," he began.

"There is no doubt that looking after Joshua was very stressful for her; and it would seem that there were warning signs that were there to be seen

But at the end of the day only she knows what she did, and shy she did it.

And she is not telling." denies her guilt and shows no remorse," Byers continued.

"Her support system in the community - her family, her friends - reinforce that position.

Joshua did not die because his mother was suffering from some sort of post-partem depression.

His death, perhaps, is connected the fact that Sherry suffers from what the doctors have called a mixed personality disorder.

Or perhaps not.

No doubt, though, her attitude towards this tragedy is connected to that diagnosis."

We are now aware that Dr. Smith's opinion was terribly flawed.

There was no ashphyxia.

There was no skull fracture.

There was just an innocent grieving mother who had lost her son due to a natural but unexplained death; (One possibility is that Joshua accidentally suffocated during his sleep.)

I sometimes wonder how judges feel on learning that they have passed sentence on an innocent person - and the words they have said on passing sentence are seen in a different light.

In fairness, the judge usually has no information on the case except that which is provided by the parties at the particular time.

The one year prison term -sentencing was left in the hands of the judge - was not the only punishment meted on Ms. Sherret in the aftermath of Dr. Charles Randal Smith's flawed opinion.

Byers also placed her on probation for two years, saying:

"You are not to be in a parental position towards infant children; and,

"If you get pregnant, you must immediately report that to a probation officer."

We learn from an Overview Report on the case prepared by Commission staff that Sherret had a third child in September, 2005 - and that on the basis of her conviction for infanticide the local Children's Aid Society applied for an order removing her from the family home in order to prevent her from living with her new child.

The Report includes a letter "To whom it may concern" drafted by Bruce Hillier, Sherret's lawyer, to assist her with the family court proceedings;

"Faced with the prospect of a conviction and all that flows from that, I vigorously represented Ms. Sherret and at the 11th hour, the Crown's office, no doubt for good reasons, elected to resolve the matter by way of a plea for the rarely used charge of infanticide, the basis at the time, Sherry was suffering from post-partem depression," Hillier wrote;

"The compromise between the Crown and the defence was seen as a way out for both sides - the Crown fearing they couldn't get a conviction of any kind and the defence fearing that a conviction for murder, while not justified, would result in a lengthy period of incarceration."

Sherret then turned to the Association In Defence of the Wrongly Accused for assistance.

Lawyer James Lockyer wrote former Chief Coroner Dr. Barry McLellan, that a review by his office of Joshua's death "acquires huge importance" because Sherret, having lost one child to adoption, now faced loss of her daughter.

"Ms. Sherret has two other children," Lockyer wrote.

"Her first born...was taken away from her at the age of eighteen months after her arrest in March 196 for Josh's murder.


(He) was subsequently put up for adoption, and now lives with his adoptive parents in Cobourg;

Ms. Sherret has written contact with him every year at Christmas and his birthday,

(He) is now 12 years old.

Her third born...is now five-months old.

Ms. Sherret, (the child's father and (the child) herself live together at their home in Belleville.

By Court order, Ms. Sherret has not been allowed to be alone at any time with her daughter since her birth;"

Lockyer stressed that a review was imperative because, "if Joshua died of natural causes, as AIDWYC believes he likely did, (and the Chief Coroner's review confirmed: HL) Ms. Sherret may be about to become the victim of a third miscarriage of justice."

"(Her daughter) will become one too."

Finally, on April 5, 2007, the Children's Aid Society applied in Court for an order terminating the existing supervision order.

A child protection worked candidly noted in an affidavit filed with the Court that, "Following the completion of the parenting Capacity Assessment, it was noted that (Sherry's) denial of any wrongdoing was concerning and further, made it impossible to treat her."

(See previous posting: Mullins-Johnson: Dilemma of the innocent;)

"However, it is now believed that (Sherry) may not have done anything wrong.

AIDWYC is now pursuing quashing of the infanticide conviction and an acquittal for Ms. Sherret in the Ontario Court of Appeal;

Lawyer Hillier cogently summed up this case in his letter "to whom it may concern" referred to above.

"Some cases come back to haunt you and this is one of them," he said.

(See previous postings:
The Joshua case: Part One: How Smith caused havoc by failing to deliver a crucial forensic report;

The Joshua case: Part Two: Yet another disturbing tale of important forensic evidence lost by Dr. Charles Randal Smith;)

Harold Levy;

The Charles Smith Blog - Joshua's Case Part 2

Monday, November 19, 2007
Goudge Inquiry: Joshua's Case: Part Two: Yet Another Disturbing Tale of Important Forensic Exhibits Lost By Dr. Charles Randal Smith;

"AFTER THE EXPERIENCE IN THE JOSHUA CASE, I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED DR. SMITH TO BE MORE CAREFUL WITH EVIDENCE IN HOMICIDE CASES."

PROSECUTOR SHEILA WALSH;

Earlier postings on this Blog demonstrated how Dr. Smith had violated his responsibility to preserve forensic evidence in four murder cases;

0: Misplacing all of the forensic exhibits in the Trotta case - so that they were unavailable for trial and appeals; (See previous posting: Trotta: Another Smith Case Involving Misplaced Evidence;

0: Retaining without submitting for analysis a dark, curly, male pubic-type hair indicating that Baby Jenna may have been sexually assaulted in the Brenda Waudby case; (Discussed in Trotta posting referred to above);

0: Misplacing the only evidence that could be used to prove that William Mullins-Johnson did not kill his four-year-old niece. (See previous posting: Mullins-Johnson:: Evidence allegedly misplaced;)

As if this disgraceful, unprofessional conduct was not enough yet another loss of key forensic exhibits has been revealed in the "Overview Report" of Joshua's case; (See previous posting: Goudge Inquiry: Joshua's case; Part One: How Smith caused havoc by failing to deliver a crucial forensic report);

The loss of exhibits in the Joshua case is described by Sheila Walsh - the Crown Attorney who prosecuted Sherry Sherret (Joshua's mother) for first-degree murder - in a letter to Ed Bradley, who was prosecuting Louise Reynolds at the time.

Walsh, now deceased, explains to Bradley that the mother's defence lawyer was pressing for the microscopic slides from the autopsy because Smith had come up with damning information against his client - the discovery of a skull fracture - after signing his autopsy report.

"The defence retained their own pathologist and obtained an order for the release of the autopsy slides, on certain conditions, to the defence expert for a second opinion," Walsh wrote.

"We worked out a plan to have the slides delivered.

The slides did not get delivered.

Again, Dr. Smith ignored my slides and letters;

Finally, I found out that he had lost the slides;

They remained lost for a period of time, but they were eventually found they had not been found, our case would likely have been at an end.

Some x-rays were also lost and were never found. I don't know if this was Dr. Smith's fault or if it was someone else's;

Given what happened in this case, (being forced to offer a plea to infanticide because of the deficiencies in Dr. Smith's work H.L.) I was very surprised that Dr. Smith then lost important evidence in the (Sharon) case;

After the experience in the (Joshua) case, I would have expected Dr. Smith to be more careful with evidence in homicide cases;"

We know, however, that no one ever stepped up to the plate to protect the public by containing Dr. Smith when loss after loss occurred;

0: Prosecutors kept on calling him to testify against other unfortunate accused persons;

0: The chief coroner's office allowed him to continue running his one-man show - without any apparent interference or accountability, and,

0: There are no indications that the Hospital for Sick Children ever took him to task for the shoddy way in which he was heading the Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit which had been entrusted to the hospital by the Ontario government;

We are now aware that the Hospital failed to set up a system for tracking, cataloguing and protecting forensic exhibits sent to the Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit (created in 1981) for consultation purposes by coroners and pathologists elsewhere in the province until December, 2004.

That's around the time that Dr. Barry McLellan, the former chief coroner, began to probe the missing Mullins-Johnson exhibits.

Documents filed at the Inquiry indicate that McLellan's investigators - assisted by hospital staff - spent days cleaning up Dr. Smith's office before ultimately locating the missing evidence on top of Dr. Smith's desk.

(The small, dark, curly, male pubic hair that Dr. Smith retained in his possession for years in the Waudby case - without informing police or prosecutors or submitting it for forensic testing - had been kept in one of Dr. Smith's desk drawers.)

The disorder in Dr. Smith's office must have been apparent for years to all who entered it or worked there - yet Dr. Smith's Superior's in the Hospital administration apparently did nothing about it.

Nor can the famed hospital claim ignorance: There were too many media reports of controversies over Smith's handling of exhibits, going back to the Reynold's case, over the years.

On May 31, 2005, after the Star reported that the missing Mullins-Johnson exhibits had been found in an envelope on top of Dr. Smith's desk during a review of exhibits launched in April ran a revealing interview with Hospital for Sick Children spokesperson Helen Simeon.

Simeon said Smith agreed to go on an administrative leave pending a review by an “outside” pathologist after it became public that the materials in the Mullins-Johnson case were missing.

She said Smith was allowed to return after the reviewer reported that Smith was doing a satisfactory job.

The Hospital would not name the reviewer or release the report;

I wonder if that internal report will surface at the inquiry!

Given the importance of preservation and continuity of evidence - especially in an era where DNA analysis and other sophisticated scientific processes may help clear or incriminate individuals decades later - the Hospital clearly let the public down and has much to account for at the Goudge Inquiry;

Dr. Smith was a member of the pathology department - and that department was headed by chiefs of pathology over the years who in turn were supposed to be responsible to the top levels of the hospital hierarchy.

If the public is to regain confidence in the delivery of pediatric forensic service in the province it is crucial for the Inquiry to probe why Dr. Smith's superiors at the Hospital for Sick Children failed to reign him in.

Harold Levy;

The Charles Smith Blog - Joshua's Case Part 1

Monday, November 19, 2007
Goudge Inquiry; The Joshua Case: Part One; How Smith Caused Havoc By Failing To Deliver A Crucial Forensic Report;

"DR. SMITH IS VERY QUICK TO CONDEMN OTHER PATHOLOGISTS WHO MISS THINGS DURING THE POST MORTEM;"

PROSECUTOR SHEILA WALSH; IN A LETTER TO A COLLEAGUE PROSECUTING SHARON'S MOTHER;

The "Joshua" case involves a woman charged with first degree murder after Dr. Charles Smith came up with a diagnosis of "Asphyxia" in his autopsy report - and later informed the prosecutor, (Ms. Sheila Walsh), that he had detected a "skull fracture."

This Blog detailed the havoc caused in the Kporwodu and Veno case when Dr. Smith failed to produce urgently required forensic reports to anxious police and prosecutors. (See previous posting: (Kporwodu and Veno: Judge "shocked" by Smith's delay in producing post-mortem report.")

Now we learn - from a letter included in the "Overview Report" prepared for the Inquiry by Commission staff - that Smith's failure to provide an essential report caused similar havoc in Joshua's case.

The letter is from prosecutor Walsh to a colleague named Ed Bradley who was prosecuting Sharon's mother at the time.

"Dr. Smith initially prepared an autopsy report which said there was no injury to the baby's skull," Walsh said in her letter.

"He then later called to say that upon re=examination of the autopsy slides, he discovered a skull fracture.

Again, I requested a written report concerning this fracture, and again he would not provide it.

(We were not depending on Dr. Smith to prove the cause of death, but rather to rule out certain things.)

The presence of the skull fracture was, of course, extremely important to the case,

Again, I never did get a report about this.

Dr. Smith is very quick to condemn other pathologists who miss things during the post mortem.

Of course, this opened the door for the defence to say he could have missed other things.

Walsh eventually agreed to allow Sherry Sherret, (Joshua's mother) to plead guilty to infanticide. (More about that plea in a future posting);

She tells Bradley that, "while there were a number of considerations that went into that decision (to agree to the plea), one significant one was my experience with Dr. Smith."

This horror story gets even worse - when we learn from the external examiners reviewing Dr. Smith's work that Dr. Smith's opinion was terribly flawed;

In short:

No evidence to support a diagnosis of asphyxia;

No evidence to support Dr. Smith's observation of a skull fracture;

No definitive cause of death revealed by the autopsy findings;

Nothing but a possibility, suggested by the position in which Joshua's body was found, that he had accidentally suffocated while sleeping;

NEXT POSTING; Goudge inquiry: Joshua's case; Yet another example of Dr. Charles Randal Smith losing important forensic exhibits in a murder case;

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;