# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Another conviction based on disgraced pathologist's testimony overturned

# data[].attributes.body
Richard Brant has finally been classified as a free man. The judge and jury overturned Brant's conviction due to a lack of evidence from Charles Smith's ex-pathologist. The original charge was "manslaughter" and was evident by "shaken baby syndrome" but it has turned out to be false.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Linda Nguyen
TORONTO - A 38-year-old man who pleaded guilty in the death of his infant son nearly two decades ago after being pressured by the testimony of disgraced pathologist Charles Smith had his conviction overturned Wednesday by Ontario's highest court.

Richard Brant, of Belleville, Ont., received a six-month sentence after Smith incorrectly concluded that two month old Dustin died in 1992 from "shaken baby syndrome."

A three-justice panel took 15 minutes to decide to acquit Brant after hearing joint submissions by the Crown and defence.They accepted that evidence, which was dismissed by Smith, showed that the baby could've died from pneumonia exacerbated from a pre-existing condition from birth.

THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay, Rex Murphy and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.

Unlimited online access to National Post and 15 news sites with one account.

National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.

Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.

Support local journalism.

SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE ARTICLES

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay, Rex Murphy and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.

Unlimited online access to National Post and 15 news sites with one account.

National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.

Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.

Support local journalism.

REGISTER FOR MORE ARTICLES

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Access articles from across Canada with one account.

Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.

Enjoy additional articles per month.

Get email updates from your favourite authors.

Brant, who hung his head in court, sat next to his openly weeping wife.

In an affidavit read out in court, Brant said he pled guilty because he was facing a six year prison sentence if convicted on a manslaughter charge.

Brant, who has always maintained his innocence, said he was told by his lawyer that Smith was a "king in his field" at the time whose testimony was impossible to refute.

Crown attorney Alison Wheeler said "no reasonable jury could convict" Brant now.
linnguyen@postmedia.com

twitter.com/lindathu-nguyen

CNS 5/04/11 12:04:59
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Another conviction based on disgraced pathologist's testimony overturned

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Linda Nguyen TORONTO - A 38-year-old man who pleaded guilty in the death of his infant son nearly two decades ago after being pressured by the testimony of...

# data[].attributes.body
Brant and ex girlfriend, Mary Farrell, outside of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Toronto. Brant is a proud father who is showing off his son's infant pictures, years after he was accused and convicted of his death.

# data[].attributes.body
Former Dr. Charles Smith had been stripped of his medical license and unable to practice any form of medical due to an Ontario coroner's inquiry reviewed 45 child autopsies in which Smith had concluded the cause of death was either homicide or criminally suspicious, 20 of them ending in convictions and 13 of them being exaggerated and untrue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On a typical case, he might have to decide whether a child had been shaken to death or accidentally fallen from a highchair.

Dr. Charles Smith was once considered top-notch in his field of forensic child pathology. In 1999, a Fifth Estate documentary singled him out as one of four Canadians with this rare expertise.

For 24 years, Smith worked at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children. In the hospital's pediatric forensic pathology unit, he conducted more than 1,000 child autopsies.

But Smith no longer practises pathology. An Ontario coroner's inquiry reviewed 45 child autopsies in which Smith had concluded the cause of death was either homicide or criminally suspicious.

The coroner's review found that Smith made questionable conclusions of foul play in 20 of the cases - 13 of which had resulted in criminal convictions. After the review's findings were made public in April 2007, Ontario's government ordered a public inquiry into the doctor's practices.

That inquiry, led by Justice Stephen Goudge and concluding in October 2008, found that Smith "actively misled" his superiors, "made false and misleading statements" in court and exaggerated his expertise in trials.

Far from an expert in forensic child pathology, "Smith lacked basic knowledge about forensic pathology," wrote Goudge in the inquiry report.

"Smith was adamant that his failings were never intentional," Goudge wrote. "I simply cannot accept such a sweeping attempt to escape moral responsibility."

Two years later, the Ontario government announced compensation for families affected by Smith's mistakes.

Individuals will be entitled to a maximum of $250,000 each. A child of someone wrongfully accused who was removed from the family home as a result is entitled to up to $25,000.

A family member directly affected by a relative's involvement in the criminal justice system is entitled to up to $12,500. Legal costs incurred by the wrongly accused may also be reimbursed.

Acted more like a prosecutor

Some have accused Smith of taking on a role larger than pathologist. The lawyer for Brenda Waudby said he was on a crusade and acted more like a prosecutor. Waudby was convicted in the murder of her daughter after Smith analyzed the case.

A pubic-like hair found on her daughter disappeared during Smith's investigation. It was discovered he had kept the hair in his office before police found it five years later. In the end, the charges against Waudby were dropped and the child's babysitter was convicted.

Smith said he had a passion for uncovering the truth in child deaths. The Ontario pathologist told media lampooning him he had "a thing against people who hurt children." He welled up when speaking about a mother looking for the cause of her baby's death.

Smith had been in search of his own personal truths. He was born in a Toronto Salvation Army hospital where he was put up for adoption three months later. After years of looking for his biological mother, he called her on her 65th birthday. But she refused to take his call.

Smith's adoptive family moved often. His father's job in the Canadian Forces took them throughout Canada and to Germany. He attended high school in Ottawa, and graduated from medical school at the University of Saskatchewan in 1975.

Sick Kids tenure

Hired by Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children in 1979, Smith worked in surgery for a year and then moved on to pathology training. A pathologist studies diseases and illnesses by assessing matter such as cells, tissues, organs and fluids. Pathologists also examine biopsy material, and give a subsequent diagnosis.

When it comes to autopsy reports, the field of pathology can be a subjective one. It's based on research and opinion, and it's especially controversial in Canada, where there is no formal training or certification process. Only a handful of practitioners in Ontario are entrusted with the job - and they've learned by doing.

With child victims, forensic analysis is rarely cut and dried. It can take an infant up to 24 hours to die of a shaking incident, which is a crime that doesn't leave evidence the way a regular killing might.

After his initial training at Sick Kids, as the Toronto hospital is known, Smith began conducting child autopsies in 1981. He started with children who had died of accidental and natural causes. By the late '90s, Smith saw more forensic child cases than any other pathologist across the country.

Smith's unit used arrest warrants to reinvestigate cases of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). He oversaw the autopsies of exhumed babies that led to new murder charges.

In one such case, Smith appeared before a court in the death of six-month-old Sara Podniewicz. He concluded she had been dead for up to 15 hours before her parents reported the death. The parents had told a 911 operator the girl had died just moments before. Smith's analysis led to second-degree murder charges.

In December 2009, Sherry Sherrett-Robinson was acquitted of killing her son whom Smith had concluded died of asphyxia a decade earlier. Smith suggested Sherrett-Robinson's son, Joshua, suffered a skull fracture and neck hemorrhages. Ontario's chief forensic pathologist, Dr. Michael Pollanen, however, told the Ontario Court of Appeal that he did not find a skull fructure and noted the neck hemorrhages were caused during the autopsy process.

First doubts

In 1991, a family in Timmins, Ont., was the first to raise questions about Smith's work. He had concluded their one-year-old baby had died from being shaken. The child had been under the care of a babysitter who said the baby had fallen down stairs.

In court, experts challenged Smith's opinion, which had resulted in the babysitter's charge of manslaughter. The judge in the case stated Smith should have taken other causes into consideration.

Once the most prolific pathologist, Smith began getting a reputation for late cases, and his disorderly desk produced samples that had gone missing.

In 2002, he received a caution from the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons. The college said he was being "overly dogmatic" and had a "tendency towards overstatement."

In June 2005, Dr. Barry McLellan, Ontario's chief coroner, started the review of 45 child autopsies conducted by Smith between 1991 and 2002. The review, released in April 2007, found that Smith had made mistakes in 20 cases involving the deaths of children. The review cast doubt on criminal convictions in 13 of the cases.

"I am very surprised with the overall results of the review, and concerned," McLellan said. "In a number of cases, the reviewers felt that Dr. Smith had provided an opinion regarding the cause of death that was not reasonably supported by the materials available for review."

The chief coroner said the results of the review were being shared with defence and Crown attorneys involved in all of the relevant criminal cases.

After resigning from Sick Kids in 2005, Smith accepted a pathology position in Saskatoon. He was fired after three months. A tribunal later reinstated him, but without a licence, Smith was unable to practise.

Smith told media his marriage ended in light of stress from the highly publicized events. He had lived with his wife and two children on a farm north of Newmarket, Ont.

As a member of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, Smith says he has been fuelled by his life's purpose - finding out the truth for parents who have lost babies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dr. Charles Smith: The man behind the public inquiry | CBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Charles Smith was once considered top-notch in his field of forensic child pathology. But Smith no longer practises pathology. An Ontario coroner's inquiry reviewed 45 child autopsies in which Smith had concluded the cause of death was either homicide or criminally suspicious.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article is Brant's entire affidavit that he wrote on May 3, 2011. He has gone through and explained the last couple of days of Dustin's life and how he was dealing with an upper respiratory infection soon after birth. He ran into his cousin and went to introduce them when he saw Dustin motionless in the baby stroller. Moments later Dustin was taken to the hospital where he was revived but still in poor condition. Brant explains he took a plea bargain so he could continue with his life but he repeated he did not kill or hurt Dustin in any way.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"This affidavit describes the events leading up to Dustin's death, and the reasons why I decided to plead guilty to aggravated assault. I did nothing to cause Dustin's death and I still grieve for him. I never did anything to hurt my son. My decision to plead guilty was the hardest decision of my life.........

"In May, 2007, I was contacted by James Lockyer from the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC), who told me about the ongoing review of Dr. Smith's cases. He said Dustin's case was one of the ones that had been reviewed. I had not heard anything about the controversy surrounding Dr. Smith until then, so it came as a surprise. Mr. Lockyer sent me a copy of Dr. Whitwell's report in Dustin's death. Suddenly, my vindication was possible and the truth about Dustin's death might come out.

In June, 2007, I flew to Toronto from New Brunswick and met with both Justice Goudge and Mr. Lockyer. In August, I was convicted in New Brunswick of robbery. I did not see any coverage of the Goudge Inquiry in the local newspapers, but I intend to read the Goudge report itself when I am released from prison.

I still do not know what caused Dustin's death, but I always suspected it could have been pneumonia, like Dr. Nag originally said. I believe it would be in the interests of justice to allow my appeal of my conviction. I did not cause Dustin's death or assault him in any way, and pled guilty because I felt I had no other realistic option. I entered my plea because I feared the consequences of flawed pathology. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have done so. I ask the Court to take the burden of having harmed him from my shoulders."

RICHARD BRANT; AFFIDAVIT; ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL;

REMINDER: Julian Sher's documentary on Brenda Waudby - "A Mother's Ordeal" - will be aired on Global TV on Friday May 6, 2011 at 10PM (9PM Manitoba/Sask.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND: (GLOBE AND MAIL); Richard Brant was convicted of aggravated assault in 1995 for the death of his two-month-old son, Dustin. Mr. Brant was taking Dustin for a walk when he noticed red foam around the baby's nose. Dustin died two days later, on Nov. 18, 1992. (Then) Dr. Smith (but since struck from the register of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) concluded Dustin had been shaken to death, despite the fact that the baby's brain had rotted away after morgue staff mistakenly left it in a container of water. His findings contradicted the findings of a neuropathologist who had examined the child's brain and concluded he had likely died of pneumonia. Mr. Brant said he felt compelled to plead guilty to aggravated assault to avoid a possible manslaughter conviction. He conceded he had accidentally jostled Dustin during a physical struggle with his wife. In January, 2009, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted Mr. Brant permission to reopen the case and fight his conviction.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I, RICHARD BRANT, of the City of Moncton, in the Province of New Brunswick, hereby make oath and say as follows," the affidavit begins.:

1. "On April 21, 1995, I pleaded guilty to aggravated assault before Mr. Justice Byers in the Ontario Court (General Division) in Belleville as a result of the death of my two-month old son Dustin and was sentenced to six months imprisonment," it continues.

I had originally been charged in Dustin's death with manslaughter and failing to provide the necessaries of life. At the conclusion of my preliminary hearing I was committed for trial on the manslaughter count and discharged on the court of failing to provide the necessaries of life. This affidavit describes the events leading up to Dustin's death, and the reasons why I decided to plead guilty to aggravated assault. I did nothing to cause Dustin's death and I still grieve for him. I never did anything to hurt my son. My decision to plead guilty was the hardest decision of my life.

2. I am 38 years old, and was born on July 24, 1972. I am a Mohawk Indian, and grew up on a
reserve in Shannonville, Ontario, just outside of Belleville. At the time of Dustin's death I lived in Belleville. I was not working at the time. My life has not been without its troubles and I have acquired a criminal record of some substance.

3. I moved to New Brunswick in 2000, and was employed as a truck driver. I am married and have two daughters, aged 13 and 9. My nine year old daughter, Megan, lives with my common-law wife, Cynthia at our home in Saint-Louis-de-Kent, and my thirteen year old daughter Cynthia lives with my mother in Shannonville, Ontario. Although I speak to Cynthia frequently, I do not see her often because of the distance between us.

4. On August 20, 2007, I was convicted of robbery in Moncton and sentenced to four years imprisonment. As I sign this affidavit, I am in the penitentiary in Renous after my parole on this charge was suspended. I am hoping that I will be re-released by the time my appeal is heard on May 4, 2011.

The History of the Proceedings Which are the Subject of this Application

5. Dustin Brant was born to my girlfriend Mary Farrell on September 9, 1992, and was our (and my) first biological child. I remember the day he was born - I was so proud to be a father. He was a healthy baby, and was released from the hospital five days after his birth. We were living at our home in Belleville, Ontario. I showed Dustin off to everybody I knew, and had dreams of a long and happy life for him.

6. When Dustin came home from the hospital, he had trouble breastfeeding so we bottle-fed him instead. He appeared to be developing well. On Friday, November 13, 1992, Mary and I took him to Dr. Hipwell, our family doctor, for his DTP, HIB and OPV immunizations. He had been congested before the appointment, and the doctor told us he may have a mild upper respiratory tract infection. That night, Mary thought his breathing sounded strange, and we were worried that he had a fever. Samantha was also sick with the flu, and spent much of the weekend vomiting. Dustin's condition remained stable over the weekend.

7. On November 16, 1992, I was at home alone with Dustin while Mary took Samantha to her mother's house for a few hours. When they returned, Mary and I started arguing about how long she had been gone. While we were arguing, Dustin was on the couch where we often let him sleep. At one point, I had to hold onto Mary to prevent her from hitting me. Mary decided to stay the night at her friend Sherry's house with Samantha. Dustin stayed home with me. I fed him around 10:00 that night, and again around 2:00 in the morning when he woke up. He did not fall back asleep right away, so I played with him for about an hour. Once he fell back asleep, he slept through the rest of the night.

8. The next morning Dustin woke up around 6:00, and I fed him again. He seemed to be better. I fed him again at about 10:00 a.m. and he threw up a little of it after I burped him. I thought little of it since he had been sick for a few days and Samantha had been vomiting over the weekend.

9. Mary and Samantha came home around this time, and we argued again. I told her I was thinking about ending our relationship. We decided it would be best to give each other some space. I dressed Dustin in his snowsuit, put him in his stroller, covered it with a rain protector, and left with him and Samantha for a walk. Mary was still at home when we left.

10. What happened next still seems surreal, and is painful to think about. We were walking along Moira Street, heading towards the Riverside Restaurant. I ran into Scott Maracle, a cousin of mine who had never seen Dustin. I lifted the rain guard to show him Dustin and was horrified to see Dustin had thick red foam around his nose. I could not tell whether he was breathing. I picked him up, wiped his nose and tried to arouse him. He was lifeless, and I ran into the Riverside Restaurant yelling for somebody to call an ambulance. I remember a lady took Dustin from me and put him on a table. She and another lady did CPR on him until the ambulance arrived. I sat down at the table in shock. Dustin had seemed fine when we left the house, and now he was unconscious. I remember that with each breath the two ladies gave him, more blood and mucous were coming from his nose and mouth.

11.Dustin was taken to Belleville General Hospital, and we were told that his prognosis was poor. The hospital staff revived him, but he was on life support. The police spoke to me at the hospital, and I told them what had happened. They asked if they could search our house. I agreed, and went with them to help. Although much of the day is a blur, I clearly remember the officers finding red drops on the kitchen floor and thinking they had found blood. I told them it was probably cough syrup since the children had been sick. Test results later confirmed this. While we were there, Dusting was transferred to Hotel Dieu Hospital in Kingston. Mary and I decided to have him baptized at the hospital, because the doctors told us he was not going to survive. I stood in the hospital room, holding hands with Mary, and we cried. I begged Dustin to survive. He died early in the morning on November 18, 1992.

12. The police investigation into Dustin's death began immediately. I was told that Dr. Nag, the pathologist who conducted the autopsy, believed that Dustin had died from pneumonia. Her diagnosis made sense to me, because he had been sick before he died. I also knew that doctors at the hospital told the police they suspected that Dustin had been shaken to death. Their theory made no sense to me. I had not shaken or hurt Dustin, and was sure Mary had not either. The police told me from the beginning that they thought I had killed Dustin, and asked Dr. Charles Smith to conduct a review of Dr. Nag's autopsy. His report took months to come. The media in Belleville covered the case closely, and everybody knew I was a suspect. It was painful to be mourning my son's death, while at the same time living under a cloud of suspicion.

13. Soon after Dustin's death, Mary and I separated. Her daughter, Samantha, was placed in the custody of her parents. Mary believed I had nothing to do with Dustin's death, but our relationship could not handle the tragedy of his passing or the stress of my situation. She remained supportive throughout the criminal proceedings against me. This helped me a lot.

14. Dr. Smith provided his report to the police in April, 1993. Detectives went to Mary's house and told her Dustin had died from a severe shaking, and that they believed I had done it. On April 22, 1993, I was arrested and charged with manslaughter. I had already spoken to my lawyer, Robert Graydon (now Mr. Justice Graydon of the Ontario Court of Justice), because I knew of the police suspicions. On his advice, I did not say anything to the police when I was arrested. Now, not only had I lost my son, but I was accused of causing his death.

15. I was released on bail the following day. Detective Mailhot testified at my bail hearing, and told the Justice of the Peace that, until they received Dr. Smith's report, they had had no grounds to charge me. He testified about Dr. Smith's findings, and explained his opinion that Dustin would have exhibited signs of trauma immediately after he was shaken. I questioned this in my own mind because Dustin had been fine minutes before I found him unconscious outside the restaurant.

16. I met with Mr. Graydon at his office several times after I was charged. I always maintained my innocence, and he was very supportive. He told me that Dr. Charles Smith was "The King" of his field, and challenging his conclusions would be next to impossible. He told me that Dr. Smith believed Dustin exhibited the "classic symptoms of Shaken Baby Syndrome," and that Dr. Smith's conclusions about the timing of Dustin's injuries meant I was the only person who could have caused them. Mr. Graydon told me that the science behind Dr. Smith's conclusions was irrefutable. He said we would need to find evidence that somebody else had caused Dustin's injuries. He asked me many times if I could think of anybody else who had been with Dustin in the days before his death. I could only say Mary, Samantha and I had been with him in those days. I was certain that neither Mary nor Samantha had done anything to Dustin, which only left me.

17. At my preliminary hearing, I realized how damaging Dr. Smith's evidence was, and how much trouble I was in. Until then, I had assumed that I could not be convicted since I had not hurt Dustin. After hearing Dr. Smith, I realized I was wrong. After the preliminary hearing, Mr. Graydon told me the Crown was offering me a plea to aggravated assault, for a sentence of six to nine months in jail. He urged me to accept the offer. I remember one meeting with him during which he said he could not live with me being convicted of manslaughter. He explained that, at my trial, I would have to take the stand, and that my credibility would be a big problem because of my criminal record. In the end, it came down to a contest between me with my criminal record, and Dr. Smith with his credentials.

18. Mr. Graydon told me that the Crown would seek a long jail sentence if I was convicted of manslaughter after trial, and that I was likely to receive a sentence of between four and six years. Shortly before I entered the plea, I found out that my girlfriend, Lynne Cote, was pregnant. I knew that if I was convicted of manslaughter, I would not be allowed to see our child and I would lose her too. I did not want to leave Lynne as a single mother, having to raise our daughter on her own.

19. For many months, Mr. Graydon told me it was in my best interests to plead guilty. He said he would tell the Court that Dustin's injuries had been caused during a struggle with Mary on the Friday evening. I agreed, but insisted that he tell the judge that whatever had happened to Dustin was unintended. He agreed to this, but he also explained that, in order to plead guilty, I had to admit enough facts to make out a criminal offence. I agreed to acknowledge that whatever had caused Dustin's injuries occurred during my argument with Mary.

20. On April 21, 1995, I pled guilty to aggravated assault before Justice Byers in Belleville. Based on Dr. Smith's evidence and Mr. Graydon's advice, I felt I had no other option. On May 19, 1995, I was sentenced to six months in prison. After my sentence was completed I did my best to put this behind me, though the day of Dustin's death will stay with me forever.

Events Since My Sentencing

21. In May, 2007, I was contacted by James Lockyer from the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC), who told me about the ongoing review of Dr. Smith's cases. He said Dustin's case was one of the ones that had been reviewed. I had not heard anything about the controversy surrounding Dr. Smith until then, so it came as a surprise. Mr. Lockyer sent me a copy of Dr. Whitwell's report in Dustin's death. Suddenly, my vindication was possible and the truth about Dustin's death might come out.

22.In June, 2007, I flew to Toronto from New Brunswick and met with both Justice Goudge and Mr. Lockyer. In August, I was convicted in New Brunswick of robbery. I did not see any coverage of the Goudge Inquiry in the local newspapers, but I intend to read the Goudge report itself when I am released from prison.

23. I still do not know what caused Dustin's death, but I always suspected it could have been pneumonia, like Dr. Nag originally said. I believe it would be in the interests of justice to allow my appeal of my conviction. I did not cause Dustin's death or assault him in any way, and pled guilty because I felt I had no other realistic option. I entered my plea because I feared the consequences of flawed pathology. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have done so. I ask the Court to take the burden of having harmed him from my shoulders."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
RICHARD BRANT: CHARLES SMITH CASE: HIS OWN WORDS; AFFIDAVIT FILED IN THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL;

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"This affidavit describes the events leading up to Dustin's death, and the reasons why I decided to plead guilty to aggravated assault. I did nothing to cause Dustin's death and I still grieve for him. I never did anything to hurt my son. My decision to plead guilty was the hardest decision of my life.........

# data[].attributes.body
Charles Smith was previously stripped of his medical license after wrongfully accusing multiple families of malicious acts against their children that ended up convicting them. In this video, we hear from a public speaker who went through what many families did and was convicted of killing her daughter, who ended up being innocent. Charles Smith now resides in Victoria, British Columbia, and is still not allowed to practice any form of medicine. Unfortunately, no legal action is being used against him as "incompetence is not a crime" according to the College of Medicine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Incompetent' pathologist ruined countless lives, but why was Charles Smith never charged? | Watch News Videos Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Watch 'Incompetent' pathologist ruined countless lives, but why was Charles Smith never charged? Video Online, on GlobalNews.ca

# data[].attributes.body
The CPSO website shows the registration status of every doctor in Canada. This image shows that effective February 1st 2011, Charles Smith was revoked of his medical license. It also details why they needed to take away his privilege to be a practicing doctor.

# data[].attributes.body
This is the complete CPSO registration status of Charles Smith and his acts of misconduct as he failed to gather relevant information, expressed opinions that were not supported by pathology, misinterpreted autopsy findings, and also failed to respond to inquiries from regulating bodies. All these acts of misconduct eventually led to the termination of Smith's license.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum ac diam sit amet quam vehicula elementum sed sit amet dui. Vivamus suscipit tortor eget felis porttitor volutpat. Curabitur non nulla sit amet nisl tempus convallis quis ac lectus. Curabitur aliquet quam id dui posuere blandit. Vivamus suscipit tortor eget felis porttitor volutpat. Curabitur arcu erat, accumsan id imperdiet et, porttitor at sem. Vestibulum ac diam sit amet quam vehicula elementum sed sit amet dui. Donec sollicitudin molestie malesuada. Pellentesque in ipsum id orci porta dapibus.

Former Name: No Former Name

Gender: Male

Languages Spoken: English

Education: University of Saskatchewan College of Me, 1975

Practice Information

Primary Location of Practice

Practice Address Not Available

Registration History

First certificate of registration issued: Postgraduate Education Certificate

Effective: 01 Jul 1978

Transfer of class of registration to: Independent Practice Certificate

Effective: 14 Jul 1980

Transfer of class of certificate to: Restricted certificate

Effective: 15 Jun 2007

Terms and conditions imposed on certificate

Effective: 15 Jun 2007

Terms and conditions amended by member

Effective: 25 Apr 2008

Expired: Failure to Renew Membership

Expiry: 09 Aug 2008

Revoked: Discipline Committee.

Effective: 01 Feb 2011

Previous Hearings

On February 1, 2011, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Charles Randal Smith committed acts of professional misconduct in his practice of forensic pediatric pathology and his work providing expert opinion evidence in relation thereto. The Discipline Committee found that Dr. Smith failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession and that he has engaged in conduct or an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. The Discipline Committee also found that Dr. Smith is incompetent.

In particular, in multiple cases:
a) Dr. Smith failed to gather relevant information, undertake appropriate investigations, and properly detail relevant information;
b) Dr. Smith, expressed opinions about the cause of injuries or death that were either contrary to or not supported by the pathology evidence at the time the opinion was first expressed or were no longer supported after receipt of additional information;
c) Dr. Smith, formed erroneous opinions about the cause of death based on non-specific findings, and he misinterpreted autopsy findings;
d) Dr. Smith referenced aspects of the social history of the parents or caregivers of the deceased child which were irrelevant to the pathology;
e) Dr. Smith opined on the manner of death rather than exclusively on the pathological cause of death;
f) Dr. Smith failed to respond to communications from coroners, Crown Attorneys, police officers and other pathologists in an appropriate and timely manner. Furthermore, Dr. Smith attempted to unfairly shift responsibility for these failures to others. These failures compromised the administration of justice;

g) Dr. Smith failed to create, maintain and preserve pathology materials relevant to criminal investigations in the manner expected of a pathologist acting pursuant to the Coroners Act. These failures compromised the administration of justice;

h) Dr. Smith exaggerated his experience, or conversely, failed to disclose his lack of experience in the area of forensic pathology. Dr. Smith offered opinions outside of his area of expertise. Dr. Smith gave evidence that was unbalanced, overly dogmatic or failed to acknowledge uncertainty or controversy, and which was speculative, unsubstantiated and not based on pathology findings;

i) Dr. Smith failed to provide his opinions to coroners, the police, Crown Attorneys and/or the Court in a manner that met the standard expected of a forensic pathologist in Ontario at the time. He gave his evidence in a manner that was misleading, overly casual, unfairly critical of other experts or unscientific. In other cases he acted as an advocate rather than expressing an unbiased opinion. Dr. Smith failed to adequately prepare for court; and

j) Dr. Smith failed to respond to inquiries from regulating bodies, including the CPSO, with the candour expected of a member regarding his involvement in certain of the cases under investigation. This lack of candour prevented the regulating bodies from exercising the degree of oversight that might otherwise have been exercised.

The Discipline Committee ordered and directed that:

1. The Registrar revoke Dr. Smith's certificate of registration effective immediately.

2. Dr. Smith appear before the panel to be reprimanded.

3. Dr. Smith pay costs to the College in the amount of $3,650 within sixty (60) days from the date of this Order.

4. The results of this proceeding be included in the register.

# data[].attributes.body
This is Richard Brant and ex-girlfriend, Mary Farrell, leaving The Ontario Court of Appeal after the decision was made to clear Brant's name of charges. You can see in this picture that after years of suffering, grieving, and going through torture over a crime he didn't commit, he is finally happy and his smile is genuine.

# data[].attributes.body
I have in this file, answered all questions that were asked and included some more details of Richard Brant's case.

# data[].attributes.body
Shaken Baby Syndrome is a form of child abuse where a child is violently shaken. It occurs in about three thousand babies every year with 25% of these cases ending up in fatalities.