|
Post by robferguson on Dec 15, 2007 1:31:19 GMT -5
The other night I watched an Episode of Dr. G: Medical Examiner and I found myself asking many questions. The episode which aired on A&E had a case where two parents were faced with the apprehention of their child and possible criminal charges. Their child was left with a babysitter at the mothers work when the mother heard the child scream the mother went to check and found baby laying on the floor. At the hospital doctors found the infant skull was fractured thus CPS came in and apprehended. Dr. G: did a reoprt on this case even though the child did not die and found the injury was caused by the child falling out of carseat and landing on his head causing the two fractures. The parents were acquitted of any and all wrong doing and the child was returned after a year from mom and dad. questions
1. why doesn't cascps use Medical Examiners more often to see what really happens? 2. Is it possible to hire a Medical Examiner either side of the boarder to speak in family court?
rob ferguson
|
|
|
Post by watchdog on Dec 15, 2007 6:20:18 GMT -5
1- It would be the same in asking them to have the police investigate allegations against a parent. The reason is they would have no control over the outcome. They wouldn't be able to just fill in the blanks with bs or the truth to get the outcome they want.
2- A regular doctor should still be able to get the same results in court as a medical Examiner. I would think. The Judge may put more weight in a medical examiner from your own country. Lot's of money to get one in court, I would think.
|
|
|
Post by not likely on Dec 15, 2007 22:53:11 GMT -5
It will never happen because family court is run on the best interest of the child and that interest is money. In Canada a criminal charge for child abuse would still be the parents option for trial by jury and no "cas" want that. It is a lot easier for the "cas" to go to family court and plead the Balance of Probabilities the child may be abused in 1 or 2 days or 3 or 4 months or 5 or 6 years. They are stealing our children and those children are coming from parents who have no rights once in family court the only court the "cas" use.
You could bring in 10 medical examiners to testify for the parents it would make no difference to that family court judge who worked for the "cas" as a lawyer before being appointed a judge in "cas" court. It is a lose-lose for anyone finding themselves in family court but you all know that. One in every 10,000 "protection trials" may win if they have the stamina to stand up for themselves over 10 years or more. Even when they win the child will be in their teens before they are returned to the winning parent(s).
|
|
|
Post by CETHIER on Jan 20, 2008 14:21:58 GMT -5
Medical exam had to be performed 24 hours after apprehending a child. This is required by RAM ( Risk Aessment Model) in Ontario.
My son was examined by a doctor when apprehended and the CAS whitheld the report from the court filing fraudulent affidavit by CAS worker. She ought to have known the medical report at the time she wrote and signed the affidavit , where she was trying to mislead the court that she was told that I do not treat my son's exzema , but according to the CAS doctor my son did not have exzema.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Jan 30, 2008 13:33:52 GMT -5
Disgraced doc finally on hot seat
By KEVIN CONNOR, SUN MEDIA
Maurice has spent a decade waiting for today -- the day disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith takes the stand at an inquiry to answer for all the lives he has ruined.
"I have been on his tail for 10 years for him to answer for what he has done," said Maurice, whose real name can't be used because of a publication ban by the Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario.
Smith testified at trial that Maurice's grandson, Nicholas, died in 1995 of brain swelling consistent with a blunt-force injury.
The police had ruled that there was no foul play, but Smith had Nicholas' body exhumed for an autopsy and made his findings.
Maurice's daughter was pregnant with her second child at the time. Smith reported to the Children's Aid Society that she would be a threat to her baby and the child was taken at birth. Click here to find out more!
Another pathologist took issue with Smith's finding and Nicholas' death has since been labelled an unexplained tragedy.
Maurice began a $100,000 legal battle -- spending all of his retirement money -- to clear his daughter's name and get her baby back.
He has been following the inquiry online from his Sudbury home.
"A lot of stuff has come out that I didn't know," Maurice said. "He was incompetent and a megalomanic. He was just so full of himself and people were afraid to challenge him.
"They (the coroner's office) knew about him for a long time and they allowed him to ruin a lot of lives."
Smith gave testimony at criminal trials that was key in wrongly sending several people to jail based on flawed scientific findings.
"I want to see this guy. I've never seen him -- only in pictures. I want to hear what he has to say. It's going to be very hard on my daughter," Maurice said.
Smith's findings in 20 of 45 child-death cases he handled going back to 1991 are in question. The coroner's office didn't start a review of his cases until summer 2005.
This morning, Smith will be questioned by his own lawyers, who will go through a 140-page statement.
"It will be very gentle questioning and we won't get any answers. They aren't going to ask him if he is evil or crazy," Cindy Wasser with the Association in the Defence of the Wrongly Convicted said.
"That will come in cross examination. He is going to blame everyone and everything. There is nothing he can say to explain this and he got away with it for so long.
"I don't think the victims have an expectation of getting any answers. His earlier apology admitting he made mistakes is an understatement."
On the first day of the inquiry, Smith apologized through his lawyer for the errors he made that helped send people to jail.
"Dr. Smith wants to publicly acknowledge to the commission that in the 20 years that he performed autopsies ... he made a number of mistakes for which he is truly sorry," lawyer Niels Ortved said.
"Dr. Smith sincerely regrets these mistakes and apologizes to all who have been affected by his errors. Any mistakes were made honestly."
It's a little late for an apology, said Peter Wardle, the lawyer for a Kingston mother who Smith helped send to jail.
Smith's findings suggested the mom stabbed her 7-year-old daughter to death, and she spent more than three years in prison awaiting trial. The second-degree murder charges were dropped after other experts determined the 82 wounds were dog bites.
Dr. Barry McLellan, former Ontario chief coroner, was one of the first to testify at the inquiry back in November.
McLellan said he had concerns in 2002 when he was the acting chief coroner whether Smith should be allowed to continue to practise forensic pathology because of the unreasonable delays Smith had in reporting his work.
He also said Dr. James Young, the chief coroner at the time, didn't agree that Smith should step down.
The inquiry also heard how Smith lost evidence in the case of one man, leading to the end of Smith's career as a pathologist in Ontario.
The man was convicted of the first-degree murder of his 4-year-old niece in 1993 and spent 12 years in jail.
Although Smith didn't perform the autopsy, he testified the little girl was sodomized and suffocated, even though other pathologists determined she died of natural causes.
Lawyers for the man said the lost evidence could exonerate their client. The evidence later turned up in Smith's office.
Dr. Michael Pollanen, chief forensic pathologist for Ontario, was put in charge of cataloguing the recovered evidence. He concluded that the tissue from the man's niece was normal and no anal rape had occurred.
The man was acquitted last year.
Deputy chief coroner of Ontario, Dr. James Cairns, told the inquiry that his office sent out the message that coroners, pathologists and police should be "thinking dirty" when they have a homicide.
Cairns said he was aware in 1994 that Smith -- who was considered a "guru" --had problems producing timely pathology reports even though he continued to work as a pathologist until 2005.
Cairns only started to question whether Smith should be a pathologist after it came to light he took a pubic hair from a dead toddler's vagina in 1997 and kept the evidence like a souvenir for five years before handing it over to police.
Smith revealed to Cairns he carried the pubic hair in an envelope during the preliminary hearing of the trial.
The public hair led to charges against the mother being withdrawn and the arrest of a man.
Smith will be on the stand all week.
|
|
bhart
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by bhart on Jan 30, 2008 14:15:45 GMT -5
If they actually did more "PROPER" investigations before apprehending children, there would be less children in care. They don't do the investigations just for that reason, in many cases they would not find a "REAL" reason to steal our children then.
Some of their reasons for apprehending children are just plan bogus, for example some have apprehended on allegation of what a worker believes to be a messy house, yet they do not apprehend on proven police arrests and busts of drug dealers who have their young 10 - 12 year old children out selling drugs for them.
|
|
|
Post by Denise on Feb 27, 2020 13:39:07 GMT -5
Well she did do it and for FREE
|
|