Post by RealPitBull on Jan 24, 2008 10:56:56 GMT -5
Girl also stabbed, expert testifies; Forensic dentist rejects conclusion pit bull was solely to blame in Sharon's death
Posted By Rob Tripp
www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=872235&auth=Rob+Tripp
Ontario's top forensic expert on bite marks still believes that a dog attack is not the solitary explanation for the death of a seven-year-old Kingston girl more than a decade ago.
In stunning testimony yesterday at a provincial inquiry, Dr. Robert Wood, a forensic dentist, rejected the opinions of a slew of other experts who concluded that all of the child's injuries were inflicted during a frenzied attack by a pit bull terrier.
"I even believe that some of the marks were stab marks in the head," Wood told the inquiry, in testimony that mirrors the belief of police investigators that a person or persons were involved in the killing, along with a dog.
Wood said he was
to learn in 2003 that Gordon Strowbridge, a man who was in the house at the time the child died, was later convicted of a brutal stabbing murder in Nova Scotia.
Strowbridge took a lie detector test in 1997 and was cleared by police of having any involvement in the death. He remains in prison. Wood said he is still convinced that a dog could not have caused all of the injuries, especially one strange wound through the neck.
"I would like someone to explain to me ... how that could be made by a dog's tooth," he said.
The doctor still concurs with a 1999 report by Ontario's top forensic pathologist, Dr. David Chiasson, who conducted a second autopsy on Sharon.
Chiasson concluded that some of the injuries were caused by a dog but some could have been caused by a weapon.
"I sort of stay with Dr. Chiasson's opinion, even today," Wood testified.
Louise Reynolds was charged with murdering her daughter in 1997. Sharon's badly mutilated body was found in the basement of the family home June 12.
She had suffered more than 80 wounds and part of her scalp was torn from her head. She had bled to death.
Advertisement
Her body, naked from the waist down, was found face down on a pile of dirty laundry and garbage.
Dr. Charles Smith, the pathologist who conducted the autopsy, concluded she died of multiple stab wounds. Wood also was involved in the case. In a 1998 report, he wrote that he was certain that none of the injuries were dog bites.
When other experts, hired by Reynolds' defence team, asserted that the child was the victim of a dog attack, Wood altered his opinion, acknowledging that some of the injuries were dog bites.
The charge against Reynolds was withdrawn in January 2001.
Wood and Smith face an ongoing lawsuit by Reynolds, who claims they were negligent because the magnitude of their mistakes were beyond the scope of simple errors in judgment. Her claims have not been tested in court.
Wood explained his flawed first opinion for the first time publicly yesterday, saying he did not attend Sharon's first autopsy, conducted days after her death in 1997.
"I never examined the child at any point," he said. "I never saw this child."
Wood said he simply "shut up for 11 years" and still feels inhibited today from talking freely about the case because of the ongoing legal action.
When pressed by a lawyer representing Louise Reynolds to explain the certainty of his 1998 conclusions, Wood offered a mea culpa.
"Clearly, the report is wrong and for that I apologize, but ... this was the take I had on it," he responded.
Smith told police, when he first offered his opinion in June 1997 that Sharon had been stabbed to death, that he had consulted Wood. Smith testified during a preliminary hearing in 1998 that he consulted Wood "within days" following the autopsy.
Wood testified that he became involved in the case "much later," perhaps as late as seven months after the autopsy.
"My best recollection is, I never spoke to ... Dr. Smith about the case," Wood testified.
He said he was convinced that a dog was involved when he saw an arm bone at the second autopsy. Jagged indentations were visible on the humerus, he said.
"I remember saying, 'Dog,' " he testified. "It was a very simple thing for me to say."
Wood said he initially did not believe there were any dog bites because he could not see the marks of canine incisors around the wounds visible in autopsy photos.
A top British forensic expert, who reviewed the case for the Chief Coroner's office, said the injuries were clearly dog bites and incisor marks were visible in photos.
"Well, I didn't see them," Wood said.
Wood said pressure from prosecutors and police to draw a conclusion that supported their case was not a factor.
"I'm not there to work for the police," he testified. "I work for one person in this case. I work for Sharon."
The inquiry is reviewing two decades of faulty child-death investigations in Ontario that may have led to the wrongful convictions of a dozen or more people.
Smith, once considered the country's top pediatric forensic expert, made mistakes in at least 20 out of 45 cases that were reviewed by other experts.
The finding led the province to call the inquiry in a bid to fix a broken system and restore public confidence.
Wood's testimony is unlikely to trigger any new examination of the Reynolds case, although Kingston Police have consistently maintained that the public was denied the right to see all of the evidence.
Had the case gone to trial, animalbehaviour experts likely would have testified that it was unlikely Sharon could have suffered so many injuries in an attack by a single dog without human involvement.
Louise Reynolds has never offered any explanation how her daughter ended up in the basement that night or why she wasn't found during a frantic search that night.
Although the scene of Sharon's death produced few forensic clues, there were signs of some sort of cleanup, including the appearance that someone had tried to wipe up blood.
Kingston Police will break their seven-year silence on the case today.
Insp. Brian Begbie, who was the lead investigator on the case in 1997, is scheduled to testify at the inquiry.
rtripp@thewhig.com
Posted By Rob Tripp
www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=872235&auth=Rob+Tripp
Ontario's top forensic expert on bite marks still believes that a dog attack is not the solitary explanation for the death of a seven-year-old Kingston girl more than a decade ago.
In stunning testimony yesterday at a provincial inquiry, Dr. Robert Wood, a forensic dentist, rejected the opinions of a slew of other experts who concluded that all of the child's injuries were inflicted during a frenzied attack by a pit bull terrier.
"I even believe that some of the marks were stab marks in the head," Wood told the inquiry, in testimony that mirrors the belief of police investigators that a person or persons were involved in the killing, along with a dog.
Wood said he was
to learn in 2003 that Gordon Strowbridge, a man who was in the house at the time the child died, was later convicted of a brutal stabbing murder in Nova Scotia. Strowbridge took a lie detector test in 1997 and was cleared by police of having any involvement in the death. He remains in prison. Wood said he is still convinced that a dog could not have caused all of the injuries, especially one strange wound through the neck.
"I would like someone to explain to me ... how that could be made by a dog's tooth," he said.
The doctor still concurs with a 1999 report by Ontario's top forensic pathologist, Dr. David Chiasson, who conducted a second autopsy on Sharon.
Chiasson concluded that some of the injuries were caused by a dog but some could have been caused by a weapon.
"I sort of stay with Dr. Chiasson's opinion, even today," Wood testified.
Louise Reynolds was charged with murdering her daughter in 1997. Sharon's badly mutilated body was found in the basement of the family home June 12.
She had suffered more than 80 wounds and part of her scalp was torn from her head. She had bled to death.
Advertisement
Her body, naked from the waist down, was found face down on a pile of dirty laundry and garbage.
Dr. Charles Smith, the pathologist who conducted the autopsy, concluded she died of multiple stab wounds. Wood also was involved in the case. In a 1998 report, he wrote that he was certain that none of the injuries were dog bites.
When other experts, hired by Reynolds' defence team, asserted that the child was the victim of a dog attack, Wood altered his opinion, acknowledging that some of the injuries were dog bites.
The charge against Reynolds was withdrawn in January 2001.
Wood and Smith face an ongoing lawsuit by Reynolds, who claims they were negligent because the magnitude of their mistakes were beyond the scope of simple errors in judgment. Her claims have not been tested in court.
Wood explained his flawed first opinion for the first time publicly yesterday, saying he did not attend Sharon's first autopsy, conducted days after her death in 1997.
"I never examined the child at any point," he said. "I never saw this child."
Wood said he simply "shut up for 11 years" and still feels inhibited today from talking freely about the case because of the ongoing legal action.
When pressed by a lawyer representing Louise Reynolds to explain the certainty of his 1998 conclusions, Wood offered a mea culpa.
"Clearly, the report is wrong and for that I apologize, but ... this was the take I had on it," he responded.
Smith told police, when he first offered his opinion in June 1997 that Sharon had been stabbed to death, that he had consulted Wood. Smith testified during a preliminary hearing in 1998 that he consulted Wood "within days" following the autopsy.
Wood testified that he became involved in the case "much later," perhaps as late as seven months after the autopsy.
"My best recollection is, I never spoke to ... Dr. Smith about the case," Wood testified.
He said he was convinced that a dog was involved when he saw an arm bone at the second autopsy. Jagged indentations were visible on the humerus, he said.
"I remember saying, 'Dog,' " he testified. "It was a very simple thing for me to say."
Wood said he initially did not believe there were any dog bites because he could not see the marks of canine incisors around the wounds visible in autopsy photos.
A top British forensic expert, who reviewed the case for the Chief Coroner's office, said the injuries were clearly dog bites and incisor marks were visible in photos.
"Well, I didn't see them," Wood said.
Wood said pressure from prosecutors and police to draw a conclusion that supported their case was not a factor.
"I'm not there to work for the police," he testified. "I work for one person in this case. I work for Sharon."
The inquiry is reviewing two decades of faulty child-death investigations in Ontario that may have led to the wrongful convictions of a dozen or more people.
Smith, once considered the country's top pediatric forensic expert, made mistakes in at least 20 out of 45 cases that were reviewed by other experts.
The finding led the province to call the inquiry in a bid to fix a broken system and restore public confidence.
Wood's testimony is unlikely to trigger any new examination of the Reynolds case, although Kingston Police have consistently maintained that the public was denied the right to see all of the evidence.
Had the case gone to trial, animalbehaviour experts likely would have testified that it was unlikely Sharon could have suffered so many injuries in an attack by a single dog without human involvement.
Louise Reynolds has never offered any explanation how her daughter ended up in the basement that night or why she wasn't found during a frantic search that night.
Although the scene of Sharon's death produced few forensic clues, there were signs of some sort of cleanup, including the appearance that someone had tried to wipe up blood.
Kingston Police will break their seven-year silence on the case today.
Insp. Brian Begbie, who was the lead investigator on the case in 1997, is scheduled to testify at the inquiry.
rtripp@thewhig.com
I look forward to learning much here