15-Oct-2007: ...and another one bites the dust
Headline today: Appeal Court acquits Ont. man jailed 12 years in niece's death.
What's newsworthy about this is that the court found there was no evidence, none at all,
linking William Mullins-Johnson to a gruesome crime for which he spent twelve years in prison.
You see, the problem is, for many years Ontario's leading forensic child pathologist, Dr. Charles Smith, was seeing
crimes where none existed. The coroner in the case saw no signs of sexual abuse or foul play, but Dr Charles Smith
was the expert whose testimony to the contrary sent Mr. Mullins-Johnson to prison. I personally don't know what Dr Smith's
problem was, but there are at least 13
cases currently being reviewed where this pathologist's testimony sent innocent people to prison. And,
not just for any old reason, but for sexual assault and murder of young children. Try surviving our prison
system with that hanging over you. Even when declared by the courts to be innocent, the stigma lasts
forever.
It was nice of the province of Ontario to apologize, but how does that make up for twelve years of being
seen by family and friends as the lowest kind of criminal? And, in this case, the innocent man, who was
convicted of raping and murdering his four-year-old niece on Dr Smith's testimony, believed that his brother, the
child's father, was the real culprit. What else could he believe? Dr Smith said that something terrible had happened
to his niece, and Mr Mullins-Johnson knew that he didn't do it.
Oh, but that wouldn't happen today, people might say. After all, we now have DNA and other
forensic wonders like on the TV show, CSI. Sorry, folks, but that's not how the world works. For one, there is no
such thing as an instant autopsy on demand. It can takes weeks, or even months, to get results back. DNA processing can take
even longer. And, the forensic field workers do not scuba dive in the East River looking for unlikely clues; nor do they
take over the controls of helicopters, or commandeer taxis, to pursue suspects.
Put this picture in your head instead: they are civil servants. Just like Uncle Willy who puts on a uniform and waves to
people as they go through the border crossing. Or the nice lady who answers the phone when you call to complain about your taxes. Yes, they
go through specialist training, but they are no different, believe it or not, than you or I, or the feller down the road who puts his garbage out
on the wrong day of the week.
Pathologists, though, have a lot of medical training. Yes, they are MDs. And, some of them are brilliant or very very good at what they do. Most are fair to middling,
just like in any other profession. And, there are some rotten ones, just like anywhere else. In fact, I could tell you stories about
completely incompetent fools who wormed their way into high positions within companies or government departments. In fact, I will
tell some of those stories some day.
Back on topic: These guys you
see in court rooms, with all those impressive initials after their names, are not infallible. They make mistakes, just like the rest of us. They sometimes
fall into errors in judgment that they perpetuate in case after case. But, jurors listen to them and convict on their sometimes flawed or self-blinded
judgement calls, and sometimes innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not, and could not, commit.
There's not a heck of a lot we can do about it. What other system can we have? Would spending more time on investigations and trials help
reduce the number of convicted innocents? I can hear the outraged cries of those who believe that our system is already too soft on
crime. Why should the rights of the criminals surpass those of the victims? Because, if we make revenge and mob rule the guiding factors
in our legal system, then even more innocent people will be convicted of horrific crimes and face the damning consequences.
There are no easy answers. Yes, we can vow to be more careful of who we convict, but we know that it is not really going to happen.
Remember Steven Truscott and the loud angry calls for his immediate execution? I have been aware, throughout my life, of so many innocent people being
convicted of murder by our court systems, that I wouldn't trust the courts to make a correct call on a traffic violation.
I am glad to know, though, that the state of Texas has infallible courts. After all, they wouldn't actually execute innocent folks, would they?
I leave you with that pleasant thought.