Can someone please explain to me what the heck Dr. Smith is saying here when, confronted by those to whom he caused irreparable harm, he refused to admit lying but insists repeatedly that he told 'untruths unintentionally'? I equate an "untruth" with a lie. Am I mistaken? Is an untruth any less fabricated than a lie? I have greater difficulty however with the fact that they (whatever they were) were supposedly "unintentional." What does that mean? 'Not deliberate'? ' Not meaning to cause harm'? I don't get it. The statement contradicts itself. Was he coerced in some way at the time or is he not willing to admit that his actions were motivated by hubris and peer (not that there were any -- or so he, and the Ontario legal system, thought) pressure?
I wonder whether or not there were any other pathologists who recognized back then that Dr. Smith was talking through his hat; who knew that he had minimal formal training as a paediatric forensic pathologist and who realized that he had no right to render expert opinion in infant death cases. Perhaps the inquiry will unearth the fact that some brave individuals attempted to 'out' this incompetent (by his own admission) individual. It'll be his superiors, the Ontario Coroner's system, not Dr. Smith, that allowed him to continue who will be at fault.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment